2004-'08 Mustang

the 04-08 ones look too "dudebro" to me imo

I'm more of a 11-14 fangirl

>>17111328
>04

lol??

>>17111336
the early fifth gen mustangs came out in 2004

>>17111339
no

File: Ford-Mustang_GT_Convertible-2005-1600-12.jpg (137KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1600x1200px

>>17111283
The 2005-2009 is my favorite body style of the Mustang. The 2010-2014 looks more generic and busy. The 2015+ looks less busy, but even more generic.

The 2005-2009 is just so clean and classic.

>>17111348
Just to clarify, "The 2010-2014 looks more generic and busy [than the 2005-2009]. The 2015+ looks less busy [than the 2010-2014], but even more generic."

>>17111283
Whats not to love? They are newer, get more out of their engines, drive smoother, handle better and since they were mass produced, they are cheap. They are just grreat cars. Not as good as the fox body but the best since.

File: Ford-Mustang_GT-2005-800-19.jpg (121KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 800x600px

>>17111339
2005 was the first model year of the S197. It recieved a mid-cycle refresh for 2010, a new engine and transmission for 2011, and another refresh in 2013.

>>17111339
They were released in August of 2004, but even those cars were 2005 model year cars. So while production started in 2004, all the 2004 built cars are 2005 model years.

>>17111283
I love the look of them, but the engines are trash. The V6 can't get out of its own way, and the 4.6L 3V V8 was outperformed by the 3.7L V6 after the 2011 powertrain refresh.

I'd say get a V8 and coyote swap it, but that's also very expensive.