New Body
4/23/06, 08:47 PM
#1
Shelby GT500 Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: April 13, 2006
Location: McAllen, Texas
Posts: 2,752
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We all know about the 09 Mustang Rumors but if you were to decide how it would look like, what would you do? [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/eek.gif[/img] [attachmentid=47691]
4/24/06, 08:22 AM
#2
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for body style, I would say "other," a bit more modern rendition of the '69-'70 body style would be nice. Keep weight and size in check, even reduce both a touch as gas ain't get'n any cheaper.
As for next SE, I would say Boss 302 (or Shelby GT 350). We already have a big motored bruiser in the upcoming GT500, so how about something that emphasizes all around performance dynamics with equal emphasis on handling, agility and braking as mere straight line speed. While this board seems to be quite predominently drag racers, the Stang has a very rich road race/GT car history too.
As for next SE, I would say Boss 302 (or Shelby GT 350). We already have a big motored bruiser in the upcoming GT500, so how about something that emphasizes all around performance dynamics with equal emphasis on handling, agility and braking as mere straight line speed. While this board seems to be quite predominently drag racers, the Stang has a very rich road race/GT car history too.
4/24/06, 09:43 AM
#4
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: February 17, 2004
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Honestly, I think the S197 body style is fine. It is a modern interpretation of the past. However extensive the 09 revision is Ford should stick with this ideal. It would not hurt to loose some of the straight line wedge that has become so overpopulated in modern cars (i.e. trunk lid is 6 inches higher then the front end and there is a straight inclined line connecting headlamp with trunk lid).
As for the engine, Ford needs more displacement to keep up with the upcoming competition. Whether in a special edition or just overall it does not matter to me.
I think the fuel concerns are valid, but it is time Ford stepped up to the plate with engineering.
I mean the chevy impala ss has a 5.3L V8 A/T boasting 303 horses, 323ft/lbs and an EPA rating of 28 miles highway. That is a 3800lbs sedan tuned engine and starts at $26K. That is 6 mpg more than the EPA for an A/T mustang and roughly the same price. I know apples and oranges, but you know the camaro's will be sporting much larger engines with the same technology.
Ford needs a Variable valve, multi displacement, 5.8 V8 to really remain THE Pony Car. I think we can see the trend. Ford comes in early as the only option out there. Chevy and Chrysler race to catch up and one up ford with power and performance, then Ford catches back up adding displacement and performance and remains on top.
The hurdles:
Cost (of course) However, apples to apples the cost should just slightly undercut the competition. ie if the camaro/charger are 33K or higher then the 5.8 mustang should be 30-32K. (bad news to those of us that cant afford on, but tough nuggies).
MPG, the engine would need to at least meet the fuel efficiency of the present 4.6 ie EPA 25, but more would be nicer.
Weight Balance, a 5.8 would be significantly heavier then the 4.6, every attempt would have to be made to move the engine as far aft as possible. (Since the Mustang is being redesigned(or has already been) it would be a prime time to try and forwarde the strut towers).
Engineering, the timeline is already too late, so unless Ford has already begun this project then no luck in 09.
Ok, now the counter arguement I get all the time. Ford didn't need more displacement to oust Chevy/Pontiac in the nineties. True, GM did a nice job of ousting themselves. 1993 Chevy starts selling their all new Camaro partnered with the all new Pontiac. By 2002 they were dead. The vehicles were left nearly unchanged for 10 years despite a very slight redesign in 98. The cars were left stagnant and lost their appeal. Mean while the mustang changed in 94 very significantly and had a significant exterior overhaul (basically everything but the canopy) again in 99. GM failed to stay fresh, Ford didn't out them.
Anyway, i'm sure there are several hurdles that I haven't mentioned. this is just my 2 cents as to why we need a mustang (SE or otherwise) with more CI's.
Oh, and I'm not against Ford's movement to forced induction, but a few problems with it. Insurance companies key in on words like supercharged $$. Also, if you buy one as a used car, you may not be able to get an extended warrantee on forced induction vehicles. the agressive torque curve may make it hard for some drivers ( not the majority of enthusiasts like us, but lets face it we are the minority).
Just food for thought. I may be completely off base, who knows. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/headscratch.gif[/img]
As for the engine, Ford needs more displacement to keep up with the upcoming competition. Whether in a special edition or just overall it does not matter to me.
I think the fuel concerns are valid, but it is time Ford stepped up to the plate with engineering.
I mean the chevy impala ss has a 5.3L V8 A/T boasting 303 horses, 323ft/lbs and an EPA rating of 28 miles highway. That is a 3800lbs sedan tuned engine and starts at $26K. That is 6 mpg more than the EPA for an A/T mustang and roughly the same price. I know apples and oranges, but you know the camaro's will be sporting much larger engines with the same technology.
Ford needs a Variable valve, multi displacement, 5.8 V8 to really remain THE Pony Car. I think we can see the trend. Ford comes in early as the only option out there. Chevy and Chrysler race to catch up and one up ford with power and performance, then Ford catches back up adding displacement and performance and remains on top.
The hurdles:
Cost (of course) However, apples to apples the cost should just slightly undercut the competition. ie if the camaro/charger are 33K or higher then the 5.8 mustang should be 30-32K. (bad news to those of us that cant afford on, but tough nuggies).
MPG, the engine would need to at least meet the fuel efficiency of the present 4.6 ie EPA 25, but more would be nicer.
Weight Balance, a 5.8 would be significantly heavier then the 4.6, every attempt would have to be made to move the engine as far aft as possible. (Since the Mustang is being redesigned(or has already been) it would be a prime time to try and forwarde the strut towers).
Engineering, the timeline is already too late, so unless Ford has already begun this project then no luck in 09.
Ok, now the counter arguement I get all the time. Ford didn't need more displacement to oust Chevy/Pontiac in the nineties. True, GM did a nice job of ousting themselves. 1993 Chevy starts selling their all new Camaro partnered with the all new Pontiac. By 2002 they were dead. The vehicles were left nearly unchanged for 10 years despite a very slight redesign in 98. The cars were left stagnant and lost their appeal. Mean while the mustang changed in 94 very significantly and had a significant exterior overhaul (basically everything but the canopy) again in 99. GM failed to stay fresh, Ford didn't out them.
Anyway, i'm sure there are several hurdles that I haven't mentioned. this is just my 2 cents as to why we need a mustang (SE or otherwise) with more CI's.
Oh, and I'm not against Ford's movement to forced induction, but a few problems with it. Insurance companies key in on words like supercharged $$. Also, if you buy one as a used car, you may not be able to get an extended warrantee on forced induction vehicles. the agressive torque curve may make it hard for some drivers ( not the majority of enthusiasts like us, but lets face it we are the minority).
Just food for thought. I may be completely off base, who knows. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/headscratch.gif[/img]
4/24/06, 10:34 AM
#5
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
Join Date: February 1, 2004
Posts: 3,751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Body should continue to evolve on it's current lines. Crisp it up, give it hips, keep it sexy.
SE depends on the package. I'd prefer 2 levels of SE on an alternating cycle: start with a GT+1 SE Like a Bullit, since we already have the "Max Mustang" Shelby. A year or two after that do a new Boss with the Hurricane.
SE depends on the package. I'd prefer 2 levels of SE on an alternating cycle: start with a GT+1 SE Like a Bullit, since we already have the "Max Mustang" Shelby. A year or two after that do a new Boss with the Hurricane.
4/24/06, 10:44 AM
#6
Cobra Member
Join Date: September 25, 2004
Posts: 1,470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to see a bit more modern interpretation of the current body style and an even more fastback roofline (see my previous chop).
As for an SE, like Rhumb, I would vote for a Boss or GT350. Something that focuses on light weight and handling.
As for an SE, like Rhumb, I would vote for a Boss or GT350. Something that focuses on light weight and handling.
4/24/06, 05:30 PM
#7
Bullitt Member
Join Date: March 23, 2005
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VOTED - "Bosses Body" and "Boss 429"
Now I can wake up and smell the coffee. The above wont happen; Ford cannot risk it with their financial situation. It makes finanical sense to use their 5.4 with special heads, tranny, gears, etc and call it a Boss 331 ... or something like that.
I dont see much of a need to have a specail hood option but if a hood scoop is used; make it functional.
The head lamps; if it is going to be "four eyes" can be moved them closer together -- away from the center like the 1969s ( with the offset too ). I do really like the modern touch of the main head lamps with the horizontal beam and the ( xeon??? ) lights.
The Hips ( like the other thread ) like the 69's and 70's.
I really like the stripe pattern on some of the 1970 Mach1s but just down the hood with the engine displacement printed on it.
If the shelby continues, PLEASE get the wide tail lights ... that would be cool.
... and if the camaro sneaks ahead of me, a .50 cal MG option like on the P-51s would be cool [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/banana.gif[/img]
Now I can wake up and smell the coffee. The above wont happen; Ford cannot risk it with their financial situation. It makes finanical sense to use their 5.4 with special heads, tranny, gears, etc and call it a Boss 331 ... or something like that.
I dont see much of a need to have a specail hood option but if a hood scoop is used; make it functional.
The head lamps; if it is going to be "four eyes" can be moved them closer together -- away from the center like the 1969s ( with the offset too ). I do really like the modern touch of the main head lamps with the horizontal beam and the ( xeon??? ) lights.
The Hips ( like the other thread ) like the 69's and 70's.
I really like the stripe pattern on some of the 1970 Mach1s but just down the hood with the engine displacement printed on it.
If the shelby continues, PLEASE get the wide tail lights ... that would be cool.
... and if the camaro sneaks ahead of me, a .50 cal MG option like on the P-51s would be cool [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/banana.gif[/img]
4/24/06, 07:55 PM
#8
Post *****
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Location: Berkeley/Redwood City, CA
Posts: 18,613
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
i like that last idea [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/icon_mrgreen.gif[/img]
im surprised... no love for the Boss 351? AKA the bestest mustang ever [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/icon_mrgreen.gif[/img]
ahh well, thats life. i just want my 351 cubes. and ill get it, one way or another
im surprised... no love for the Boss 351? AKA the bestest mustang ever [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/icon_mrgreen.gif[/img]
ahh well, thats life. i just want my 351 cubes. and ill get it, one way or another
4/25/06, 05:42 AM
#9
Member
Join Date: April 14, 2006
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote name='jarradasay' date='April 24, 2006, 9:46 AM' post='670350']
Honestly, I think the S197 body style is fine. It is a modern interpretation of the past. However extensive the 09 revision is Ford should stick with this ideal. It would not hurt to loose some of the straight line wedge that has become so overpopulated in modern cars (i.e. trunk lid is 6 inches higher then the front end and there is a straight inclined line connecting headlamp with trunk lid).
Bill Ford was quoted as saying that they had relized that they could not just build any car and SLAP Mustang on it. They nneded to get back to making Mustangs and than they could move forward.
I am paraphaseing but that was the jist.
I think if they stay true to that idea we will contiue to see signiture asspects of Mustang on increasinly more modern cars.
If they go to far retro they may be accused of copping Dodge's plans for the Challenger that looks like they went back intime grabbed an old challenger and put new stuff on it.
I love old mustangs but lets make NEW History... Keep the scalp and open grill with Big round Head lamps and eevolve and new generation. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrinjester.gif[/img] [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumb.gif[/img]
Honestly, I think the S197 body style is fine. It is a modern interpretation of the past. However extensive the 09 revision is Ford should stick with this ideal. It would not hurt to loose some of the straight line wedge that has become so overpopulated in modern cars (i.e. trunk lid is 6 inches higher then the front end and there is a straight inclined line connecting headlamp with trunk lid).
Bill Ford was quoted as saying that they had relized that they could not just build any car and SLAP Mustang on it. They nneded to get back to making Mustangs and than they could move forward.
I am paraphaseing but that was the jist.
I think if they stay true to that idea we will contiue to see signiture asspects of Mustang on increasinly more modern cars.
If they go to far retro they may be accused of copping Dodge's plans for the Challenger that looks like they went back intime grabbed an old challenger and put new stuff on it.
I love old mustangs but lets make NEW History... Keep the scalp and open grill with Big round Head lamps and eevolve and new generation. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrinjester.gif[/img] [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumb.gif[/img]
4/25/06, 10:07 AM
#10
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: May 26, 2004
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 920
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just want a Camaro Killer without having to pay all the money for the GT500...
I know the GT500 can keep up with the vette's and still get reamed by the C6, but I still think it should be even with the C6. Price different is I think 30k between the 2 and the Ford GT is way too expensive. The GT500 should be closer to the 1/4 times of the C6.
I'd love to see a Boss, wether it be 351, 429, 420, 690, etc... I want it to be able to beat all the older stock camaros, and either beat or be .5 of a second less in the 1/4 time as the new camaro and challenger.
I know it'd be hard for ford to do that, since that would mean making everyone happy.
I've said this once before, Ford should team up with Toyoda, make a 400+ hp, 400+ tq car that gets 25mpg city/30mpg hwy. That would be a monster! (but it'll never happen)
I know the GT500 can keep up with the vette's and still get reamed by the C6, but I still think it should be even with the C6. Price different is I think 30k between the 2 and the Ford GT is way too expensive. The GT500 should be closer to the 1/4 times of the C6.
I'd love to see a Boss, wether it be 351, 429, 420, 690, etc... I want it to be able to beat all the older stock camaros, and either beat or be .5 of a second less in the 1/4 time as the new camaro and challenger.
I know it'd be hard for ford to do that, since that would mean making everyone happy.
I've said this once before, Ford should team up with Toyoda, make a 400+ hp, 400+ tq car that gets 25mpg city/30mpg hwy. That would be a monster! (but it'll never happen)
4/25/06, 05:03 PM
#12
Shelby GT500 Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: April 13, 2006
Location: McAllen, Texas
Posts: 2,752
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DrunkenDragon713 @ April 25, 2006, 11:10 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
I just want a Camaro Killer without having to pay all the money for the GT500...
I know the GT500 can keep up with the vette's and still get reamed by the C6, but I still think it should be even with the C6. Price different is I think 30k between the 2 and the Ford GT is way too expensive. The GT500 should be closer to the 1/4 times of the C6.
I'd love to see a Boss, wether it be 351, 429, 420, 690, etc... I want it to be able to beat all the older stock camaros, and either beat or be .5 of a second less in the 1/4 time as the new camaro and challenger.
I know it'd be hard for ford to do that, since that would mean making everyone happy.
I've said this once before, Ford should team up with Toyoda, make a 400+ hp, 400+ tq car that gets 25mpg city/30mpg hwy. That would be a monster! (but it'll never happen)
[/b][/quote]
Im actually not a person you might say that likes Toyota [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif[/img] , but I still like your idea [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/idea.gif[/img] . Remember that Toyota makes the finest interior parts of all other companies [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumb.gif[/img] . Get rid of the cheap plastic Ford calls seats [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/nonono.gif[/img] and let Toyota supply interior parts. And the engine should be Yamaha as Moosetang says. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/icon_mrgreen.gif[/img]
I just want a Camaro Killer without having to pay all the money for the GT500...
I know the GT500 can keep up with the vette's and still get reamed by the C6, but I still think it should be even with the C6. Price different is I think 30k between the 2 and the Ford GT is way too expensive. The GT500 should be closer to the 1/4 times of the C6.
I'd love to see a Boss, wether it be 351, 429, 420, 690, etc... I want it to be able to beat all the older stock camaros, and either beat or be .5 of a second less in the 1/4 time as the new camaro and challenger.
I know it'd be hard for ford to do that, since that would mean making everyone happy.
I've said this once before, Ford should team up with Toyoda, make a 400+ hp, 400+ tq car that gets 25mpg city/30mpg hwy. That would be a monster! (but it'll never happen)
[/b][/quote]
Im actually not a person you might say that likes Toyota [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif[/img] , but I still like your idea [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/idea.gif[/img] . Remember that Toyota makes the finest interior parts of all other companies [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumb.gif[/img] . Get rid of the cheap plastic Ford calls seats [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/nonono.gif[/img] and let Toyota supply interior parts. And the engine should be Yamaha as Moosetang says. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/icon_mrgreen.gif[/img]
4/26/06, 10:24 AM
#13
Needs to be more Astony
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DrunkenDragon713 @ April 25, 2006, 11:10 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
I've said this once before, Ford should team up with Toyoda, make a 400+ hp, 400+ tq car that gets 25mpg city/30mpg hwy. That would be a monster! (but it'll never happen)
[/b][/quote]
high hp toyota s get just as bad gas milage as any other car.
I've said this once before, Ford should team up with Toyoda, make a 400+ hp, 400+ tq car that gets 25mpg city/30mpg hwy. That would be a monster! (but it'll never happen)
[/b][/quote]
high hp toyota s get just as bad gas milage as any other car.
4/26/06, 11:54 AM
#14
Bullitt Member
Join Date: March 23, 2005
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Knight @ April 26, 2006, 9:27 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
high hp toyota s get just as bad gas milage as any other car.
[/b][/quote]
( off topic )
Its really hard to build a performance car and get 20+ MPG over all. I drove my corvette in 6th gear everywhere and I was able to get close to 18 MPG avg city ... highway is always different with that 6th but my point is on the city, you will always get crappy gas miliage.
I am sure around the year 2030 Hybrids and their future offspring will have their own powerplants and energy supplies that will give you a 13 second car or better.
for now though, anyone who buys a V8 anything is not concerned about MPG
( on topic )
Attention Ford ... just do it right, solid, with quality, and your stock will go back up.
OUT
high hp toyota s get just as bad gas milage as any other car.
[/b][/quote]
( off topic )
Its really hard to build a performance car and get 20+ MPG over all. I drove my corvette in 6th gear everywhere and I was able to get close to 18 MPG avg city ... highway is always different with that 6th but my point is on the city, you will always get crappy gas miliage.
I am sure around the year 2030 Hybrids and their future offspring will have their own powerplants and energy supplies that will give you a 13 second car or better.
for now though, anyone who buys a V8 anything is not concerned about MPG
( on topic )
Attention Ford ... just do it right, solid, with quality, and your stock will go back up.
OUT
4/26/06, 06:02 PM
#15
GT Member
Join Date: April 20, 2005
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since we're briefly talking about gas mileage.... Do you think Ford will 'borrow' some technology from GM and utilize that (Turn ur v8 into a 4 cylinder at constant speed)? Or do you think this extra cost steer clear of the Mustang and drive it home into the Expedition/Explorers?
4/26/06, 09:54 PM
#16
Member
Join Date: January 6, 2006
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(future9er24 @ April 24, 2006, 9:58 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
i like that last idea [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/icon_mrgreen.gif[/img]
im surprised... no love for the Boss 351? AKA the bestest mustang ever [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/icon_mrgreen.gif[/img]
ahh well, thats life. i just want my 351 cubes. and ill get it, one way or another
[/b][/quote]
Why is that the best mustang ever? I like the boss 351 and everything, but the body style for that gen. was too heavy, too long, and you couldn't see out the back windshield hardly. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif[/img] I'll stick with '69 mach 1 with a 351 [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/icon_mrgreen.gif[/img]
i like that last idea [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/icon_mrgreen.gif[/img]
im surprised... no love for the Boss 351? AKA the bestest mustang ever [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/icon_mrgreen.gif[/img]
ahh well, thats life. i just want my 351 cubes. and ill get it, one way or another
[/b][/quote]
Why is that the best mustang ever? I like the boss 351 and everything, but the body style for that gen. was too heavy, too long, and you couldn't see out the back windshield hardly. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif[/img] I'll stick with '69 mach 1 with a 351 [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/icon_mrgreen.gif[/img]
4/27/06, 07:56 PM
#17
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: August 12, 2004
Location: Roselle
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any redesign should be DIFFERENT from the current and not build on it. The reason I love my 2005 Pony is b/c it looks nothing like my 1999 Mustang, which makes both that much more appealing. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif[/img]
These are cheap cars, so unlike Audi's and BMW's, Ford can differ their designs significantly and still count on die-hard fans and/or buyers.
These are cheap cars, so unlike Audi's and BMW's, Ford can differ their designs significantly and still count on die-hard fans and/or buyers.
4/28/06, 12:30 PM
#18
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: February 17, 2004
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The price of the car is not what determines the model change rate. It depends heavily on the cost of the assembly system that builds it. BMW's and Audi's use very similar equipment to build their cars as Ford does to build the Mustang. It takes more then 4 or five years to pay off all the equipment they had to buy to build an all new mustang, so no matter how loyal the diehard the fans and buyers are it won't happen. The days of the 2-3yr full model change are gone. Hardware (robots, jigs, computes, weld guns, conveyors, presses, etc) aside, in the body area alone every single weld has to be manually programmed into a PLC that controls the individual robots and then further refined to prevent spatter and weld peal. Not to mention the manpower it takes to engineer a properly functioning assembly line and number of contractors it takes to install one. That is why you see refreshenings (minor change/reskinniing) at 4-5 yrs. Dies and molds are not cheap either, so difficult shapes like framing sheets, floor pan, A B and C pillars, and structural components are not likely to change. You will probably see a reskin, ie new fenders, doors, hood, bumpers, and quarters, and a freshened interior but much shape beyond that is unlikely. Be prepared for a change like your 99 was from the 98.
4/28/06, 06:04 PM
#20
Needs to be more Astony
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(71m07hySm17h @ April 26, 2006, 10:57 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
Why is that the best mustang ever? I like the boss 351 and everything, but the body style for that gen. was too heavy, too long, and you couldn't see out the back windshield hardly. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif[/img] I'll stick with '69 mach 1 with a 351 [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/icon_mrgreen.gif[/img]
[/b][/quote]
too bad the Boss 351 runs circles around a 69 Mach 1 with a 351. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/icon_mrgreen.gif[/img]
Why is that the best mustang ever? I like the boss 351 and everything, but the body style for that gen. was too heavy, too long, and you couldn't see out the back windshield hardly. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif[/img] I'll stick with '69 mach 1 with a 351 [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/icon_mrgreen.gif[/img]
[/b][/quote]
too bad the Boss 351 runs circles around a 69 Mach 1 with a 351. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/icon_mrgreen.gif[/img]