What a dillhole. I've got one of each and they're both great for different reasons.

 

that red 1 at the top is awesome

 

Some of us here are waaaaaaay to obsessed with mustangs. I bought the new mustang because its a beautiful car all the way around not because its a mustang. So if makes some of you feel better to defend the 80's stangs that IMO I feel are nothing but junk like most 80's american cars were then be my guests. I owned an 87 Fiero V6 and yes it looked cool and it was fun to drive but it to was a big pile of Junk! This thread was not meant to compare the new mustang to the older mustang but just to state how refined the mustang has become over the last two decades. Like many cars that have been around for decades there have been good eras and bad eras and to me the 80's was a bad time for not only mustangs but all cars in general. Especially American.... No harm done just expressing an opinion.

 

that would explain why we're here you know

no need to call it junk! i love foxes, even though i like the IIs, 71-73s and 05+s better.

yes i did say IIs.

i dont see why people keep bashing on other kinds of stangs. if you dont like em, great. just remember, "if ya aint got anything nice to say... dont speak" or something like that.

there is aHUGE fox following. i highly doubt such a culture could have been formed if they were "junk" maybe they seem like "junk" to the guy who takes no care of his car and never touches it under the hood. well in that case, its his fault for not treating the car well. if it breaks down, he has no one else to blame. on the other hand, if you take care of the vehicle, it will last forever. especially with the venerably 302. i have NEVER heard of reliablity issues with a fox. i dont hear about any recurrent problems. check you facts, it aint junk. and comparing a mustang to a Fiero isnt right

junk my ****. i mean i kno IMPORT guys who have respect for the foxes.

and this isnt directed soley at sharkstang. there were others who i have heard dissing the fox...

 

On a site called The Mustang SOURCE, what do you expect??
I think its the way you went about expressing your argument that set folks off - flat out comparing 15 plus year old technology to a brand new car - of course there's going to be a world of difference - what would you expect? Considering what an 89 LX with the GT package was able to do compatred to say a stock 67 in terms of handling, etc.... does that make the 67 a 'piece of junk'?....

I WILL back you on the Fiero thing though.... yeeesh!!! :notnice:

 

completely uncalled for.

 

A pile of junk???? They are beautiful cars! Especially the 85-86's those were my fave!

 

new22003: Nice fox in that pic! And I LMAO when I saw your avatar, that's hilarious...

TURBO 05: Beautiful '91 you have there!!

THRUST: Nice chop!

FOXES ROCK!! :headbang:

 

completely uncalled for.
[/b][/quote]

Well... at the almost certain risk of being banned from this site, I must respond on general principle. But, one has to actually be concerned about such consequences in the first place, to just sit by silently and so as to be without fear of such repercussion. Site administrators and most moderators usually take issue in this manner with those that question their opinions, and from what I've observe on this site, I'd be surprised to see any deviation from that. That's certainly your perogative, and if it makes you feel empowered, go for it.

My response may have been considered somewhat harsh by some, but it certainly wasn't "complety uncalled for". If anything, the poster I was responding to should have been the one addressed. Or, you could have simply "warned" both of us, by saying something like "let's be nice". For all the issue moderators on this site make about those who bash others etc., why his unwarrented comment went unnoticed is beyond me.

I did not use any kinds of adjectives that were unnecessary, or did not accuratly describe the comments made by the poster in question. He is "ignorant", by the fact he could make such a remark in the first place. He has an "arrogant attitute" by the way he made his comment, and thinking it was justified. When someone says things like that, they and you should expect some people to take exception. Responding to such individuals while paraphrasing their remarks at the same time, makes a point without resorting to using words that others might find objectionable. I felt it was spot on, and deserved.

Now, my response could possibly be taken a number of ways. But, your lack of objectivity led you to assume something that was perhaps not entirely true, and give a knee jerk response. While it's true that I wouldn't mind seeing a few less arrogant and ignorant people in this world, I would be happy enough to just see people like this "called out" and verbally "put down" or made accountable for their stupid remarks when they are made.

As a longtime member and contributor to several online forums, I find this site to be far more "touchy feely" than most. It is evidenced by the excessive amount of people that have little to contribute in a constuctive manner, and are so offended by insignificant differences of opinons from others about things, that they constantly must resort to making posts that ask the moderators to close the thread. It makes me wonder how these people deal with life issues.

So, that's my response and perspective to you. If you feel so inclined to "swing your big hammer" on me, understand that you are doing so with my permission!

 

this topic switched from '05 vs. fox to II bashing to Scott bashing... Brad, Scott, and all the mods have done a very good job of keeping this site family-oriented. I have seen a few message boards where a sailor would be ashamed of reading it..

 

Did u forget that this is a forum? Its called opinions. Some pple have negative opinions and some have positive. Thats the whole point of forums..

Which was me and i was not dissing the fox i just said i didnt like how it looked. Thats an opinion which is what we all are here for.

It really surprises me how most of u guys are probably 20 years of age and up and are whineing bout 2 people saying they dont like the darn car. This is a Mustang Forum ya but it doesnt mean everyone that comes here has to love every single mustang that was made.

 

I never said they didn't. I also don't have any problem with family oriented sites, nor condone language that is not fit for use in them either. My response was directed to the admin without profanity or anything else that might be normally considered offensive in the real world. If it is that here, well, that only proves my earlier point further. Your opinion and assessment of my post as "bashing" is typical of what I see so often in here....and it's tiring. Anytime someone responds in a manner that explains, refutes, rebutts, or otherwise justifies their own posistion without using smilies or banannas, someone consideres it bashing, rude, or some other such nonsense.

Now that you mention it....this thread did start off as a comparison of sorts. That in itself shouldn't be a problem (but often seems to be here), yet the smilie used was what made it inappropriate and head in the direction that it did....no wonder. The mods probably should have commented on that from the start. It was somewhat surprising too, that noone jumped in and complained about it "going off topic" sooner, so I guess this time you get the award for that. That always seems to be another issue in these threads, but personally, I don't see how people can have conversations or discussions without this happening on occasion. Isn't that normal? Often, it's entirely necessary in order to make a point/counterpoint about something.

But, back on topic....
My view of your post is that it should keep you in the good graces of the administrator....aren't you lucky! But, I also think that your input and perceptions about my response to him really shouldn't be your concern to begin with. And I'm sure that he has dealt with worse criticism and online replies in his posistion here and in life in general....and he can and will respond to it as he pleases without needing assistance from the peanut gallery. It's just my opinion that everyone makes mistakes now and then, and moderators and administrators aren't necessarily exempt from doing so.

 

i was reffering to the "its a piece of junk" remark first of all

and i wasnt referring to this thread specifically. so its not just sharkstang and you. and the only reason i said "it isnt directed soley at sharkstang" is because it may have sounded like an attack on him. it may have sounded like it, but i didnt mean it that way. i have heard countless ppl say how the fox is a disgrace to the stang and doesnt deserve the name. i dont care if you dont like it visually. i was just really appalled at the "its a piece of junk" thing, because trust me, foxes are NOT junk.

 

Well LXXVI-II, you obviously are missing something. You quoted TURBO 05, in which his post said nothing bad about either side of table here and also did not come across as trying to be arogant at all. He stated his opinion and did not direct it at anyone.

You either A ) mis-quoted the wrong person and meant your comment to be towards someone else or B ) just wants to start crap.

My guess is B based off the novels you decided to write in response to my post. You say you are a major contributor to many other forums.. is this how you handle things on other sites as well? I dont see how it contributes very much as it does nothing but waste people's time in reading your long responses in hopes of some useful information. It also waste my time due to the fact that I feel inclined to have to respond to it.

Quite frankly, I have no desire to ban you. Well I do somewhat, but its not warrented. Acctually it takes alot for me to ban someone.

So if you wish to continue to try and take jabs at me and call me out on something, please PM me because I do not want it on my forums.

 

Very true. Theres been way too much bashing going on in the forums as of late. Well said Scott!

 

Thanks, I think this needs to be the end of that breif moment of off-topic comments. Lets get the thread back to where it needs to be.

 

OK! So when I was in the Dorms in College (Circa 1986) the fox was rocking. They were finally getting back to 200 HP... And the LX was the sleeper. None of the GT air-effects stuff, but still had the 5.0. Oh baby.

And while we're at it, am I the only one who remembers that the Mustang II was actually a VERY popular car when it came out?

You gotta consider the times...

Mustangs Rule.

 

not gonna read all that crap up there, but I like em. THey are my cup o tea.

I have had several, and if I can keep findin em, will have a bunch more.

IMO for the time they came out, they were excellent. Also remember they cost 4500 bucks (for the 4 banger) in about 1980. So we are talking about a huge difference in times. The Camaro and Firebird were still on the same platform since 1970 and was not to be updated until 81. THe 5.0 version was a dog, but with a 4 barrel carb and intake, power jumped dramatically. And the suspension was typical of the day for any car.

From the ones I have had, I have not had a ton of problems, not many at actually, the build quality was ok, but the cars wer all about 20 years old when I got them, SO I didn't expect BMW quality.

I have seen some that have never been apart, and actually they have held up quite well. So I guess it is just hpw you look at things.

I also had two Escorts, one was POS unreliable crapola mobile, but the other was a very dependable car that tooka ton of abuse and never died. If I only owned one, I would either love them all or hate them all.

From the Mustangs I've had, the most problems I have had have been on 87 through 93 models, that includes Fuel delivery problems, exhaust problems, electronics problems, brake problems, etc.

So from my personal experiences, I prefer the older models.

I can appreciate you're opinions and all, But the mustang sold a heck of a lot of cars in the early fox years, and that usually means it is a good car. Now if you have had one that stinked, well I have had 6 that were good to me, so sorry that you got a bad one.

Hmmm. from 1964 to 1980 (16 years for the mathematically challenged) they went up about 2000 (I think). In 1996 they were about
14k for a v6, so 2k in the first 16 years, and 9500 in the second 16 years.... Gonna have to go get my inflation maps......

 

Its still a Mustang

END

OF

STORY!