What are your opinions on this generation Mustang?

File: drakehlbss.jpg (81KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 640x360px

trash

>>17285881
Well, why do you consider that way? Care to give a reason instead of just typing a word and a pic and trying to be funny?

File: gty_480064128_74375466.jpg (155KB, 1000x600px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1000x600px

>>17285890
It's pre-2011 Ford trash.

>>17285895
>Ford

ftfy

File: 2s9vyis.jpg (36KB, 720x501px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 720x501px

>>17285903
Cheers.

>>17285880
It's shit. Slow, pigfat, can'tturn shit.
Slower than a Camaro six years older.

its garbage

its good if youre a teenaged girl who wants a Mustang because Mustangs are popular

>>17285880
They were alright for the time they were released in, but when the Coyote engine was released in the next generation it btfo the old 4.6 3v. However i will say i think the 4.6 3v sounds better.
t. owner of a 4.6 3v

>>17285963
>They were alright for the time they were released in,
I think you mean "Because GM made no natural predators for the Mustang at the time".

>>17285880
Sucks dick.

>>17285880
It was btfo by m3

>>17286071
Now there's an old shitpost.

>>17285880
bad.
worse than the mustang II

>>17286029
Cause no one wanted the camaro for 8 years kek

File: B_seOV_VAAENFyF.jpg (30KB, 600x380px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 600x380px

official car of my sweet sixteen

Shittiest /ugliest Mustang.

>>17285880
I like the body but the engine is fucked. ~2000-~2010 ford engines suck.

>>17286186
What are you smoking m8? 4th gen mustangs are objectively the worst looking mustang

>>17286215
wrong

Foxbody is the worst with no competition

then comes the S197

>>17286233
fox body takes some getting used to but it's not the worst

File: 1459785541521.jpg (439KB, 2550x1650px) Image search: [Google]

439KB, 2550x1650px

>>17286247
yes

yes it is

worst Mustang

File: Ford_Mustang_II.jpg (164KB, 1200x741px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 1200x741px

>>17286250
>worst Mustang
>not the II
Then again, your spacing gives you away...

>>17286320
:eyeroll

ofc you go shitposting retard

yes the car that saved the Mustang is the worst compared to the ugly shit stain that nearly killed it

>>17286322
The II is far uglier - it looks fat, and it doesn't help that it's slow and shit to boot.
>i-it saved the Mustang!
The Mustang didn't deserve saving.

File: 2004_Ford_MustangGTRConcept13.jpg (107KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1024x768px

>>17285880
It's not THAT bad...

File: monroe%20handler%20adelbert%20en%20nicole.jpg (966KB, 3234x3093px) Image search: [Google]

966KB, 3234x3093px

>>17286333
lolno

Foxbody is hideous cant even be saved aesthetically

Mustang II is much lighter too

>>17286346
The Cobra is a meme.

>>17286367
thats not a Cobra

even if it was its not a meme you cringelord

>>17286375
You're a meme.

>>17286384
Well you're a poop head.

>>17285880
It's probably the most douchiest looking of the bunch

I like the look better than the newest model

>>17285880

if you can get one for way under 10k, they are worth it.
yes the 5.0 is faster but it's not a kys faster comparison.

4.6 owner here, I love it.

>>17285880
Love the body work but the interior is fairly spartan. Couple that with the Modular and you're kind of wanting for more.

>>17285895
Pretty much this. I wouldn't say that stuff before '11 is trash but 2011 is when Ford really got their shit together across the board.

Frankly I love the first run S197 and would love to have one as a project but other than that stick to '11 and thereafter.

>>17285895
Wow thanks for contributing invaluable information to this thread. /o/ needs more people like you. Keep up the good work.

>>17286422
A 2011 v6 is faster and turns better, that's KYS status

>>17286497
no it's not lol.
I always BTFO all the V6 mustangs.

>>17286440
Great design for the time, but looks way too fat now.

Good bargain for performance. Fixes all of the Fox platform's suspension geometry issues, and the 3v 4.6 makes decent power and has plenty more on tap.

>>17285880

I live in an air force dormitory/barracks that houses at least 170 people. There are at least 6 mustangs of that generation alone. Almost every owner of a muscle car here is an aircraft maintainer or security forces, and every single one that owns one is broke as fuck.

>>17286643
Maybe older models pal, newers are just as fast and they can easily BTFO you at a track

>>17286808
This is probly true but it'll never be as iconic as the Fox. especially since the Coyote came along and outshined it after the facelift. All of the "lolcantturn" memes have been erased with time, the new models are a corner carving spectacle.

>>17287365
Was just pointing out how it was different from the SN95 and Fox cars that came before it. The S197 has ackermann that actually works correctly and a panhard bar, for example.

File: CAB00FOC051A0101.jpg (49KB, 840x500px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 840x500px

I still say this is the best looking mustang.

>>17287348
>muh track
lol I hope you know someone that can actually drive on a track. I waste m3s because the drivers are garbage. Just because it's better on the track doesn't mean I'm going to lose. It's all about the driver. Lol did initial D teach you anything?

boomer/10

>>17286233
Fuck you foxbody fastbacks are dope

>>17287348
I think it'd be close but the old v8 has a better torque curve and will have a limited slip and better brakes.

>>17287434
>fake hood scoop
>fake rear vents
Gross

>>17287365
>All of the "lolcantturn" memes have been erased with time, the new models are a corner carving spectacle.
Which is a problem for anyone who isn't a racetrack driver. All that technology made the Mustang too expensive for the average Joe who just wants to burn rubber and go fast quickly.

>>17287540
Overall shape is cool though, and front and rear fascias look nice. Just needs to be lowered and needs a new set of wheels. 90s cars are seriously let down by their OEM wheels most of the time.

>>17287552
>32000 for a new base by
>expensive

>>17287553
I'll give you that, the front looks extremely nice compared to everything else on the road at that time. It's low and streamlined look beat out all the bubble faced cars in contention. And that gen Camaro is a Frankenstein looking sonuvabitch.

The rear I'm indifferent on. It's average.

>>17287558
*base GT fucking autocorrect

>>17287558
Even if you made 60k a year, that's still isn't cheap. Don't be stupid.

>>17287558
>>17287577
32000? Where are you seeing those prices? I see 33,195 MSRP for the base GT Manual Coupe, and you and I both know that nobody is getting any new car at or under MSRP.

At least it's not like the GT-equivalent Camaro which is nearly 39000 fucking dollars. That's ridiculous. They don't know their market anymore.

>>17285881
>>17285895
>>17285911

I don't much care for this thread but you are a fucking infectious human waste for posting Aubrey Graham

>>17287480
>did initial D teach you anything?
That fags who use the gutter win.

>>17287593
>>17287584
Then buy used. That's pretty damn cheap for the performance you get. What would be your definition of cheap?

>>17285880
Cheap car that can be made a decent track car for not really that much
at the very worst it's a good source for an engine, tranny, and diff

>>17285890

>seriously responding to drake poster

you dont have to be this dumb

>>17287613
>for the performance you get

I agree, but it's not exactly cheap anymore.

>>17287613
For a recent current gen Mustang I would consider 25K-28K a reasonable price.

File: samuraijacklyn.jpg (144KB, 959x960px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 959x960px

.>bad mpg
>okay sports car
>normie sports car
>good aesthetic

i guess its good?

Ugliest mustangs. People who have a hard on for foxbodies are your typical broke boxy shitblox lovers you find all over /o/ for whatever reason.

sn95>foxbody>gen2

>>17287697
In order of ugliness ofc

>>17287697
>typical broke boxy shitblox lovers you find all over /o/ for whatever reason.
Reason being most posters here are 18-30 years old and poor to middle income. Young people can only afford old shit, older people either still have old shit or have nostalgia for old shit. That, and Initial D influence of 80s/90s shitbox loving.

Modular sucks dick.

>good
>Not even worth mentioning
>Shittier than a turd gen
>Shittier than pushrod
>Shit until it get the coyote 5.0
>Good

>>17285880
1>3>2>5>6>4

File: ccr-1_1280.jpg (134KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 1280x1024px

>>17287732
You shut your whore mouth.

>>17285880
I love how they look but I've never even been inside one. I've driven the previous gen mustang GT though, it felt really cramped inside and was made of shit plastic but it was pretty quick.
Heavy as fuck too.
Not sure how much of that applies to that gen though maybe they fixed it.

File: 1496085781689.jpg (103KB, 540x720px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 540x720px

>>17287594
t. nigger

>>17285880
its fucking ugly god damn

>>17285880
I own a 2006 GT.

Don't listen to the haters, it's no 5.0 but 300 horses is more than you'll ever need in a daily driver. It's fun, fast enough and sounds pretty good. Easy as hell to mod to your hearts content.

>>17287967
As a 2010 GT owner I'm in this group here. Like I was saying the Coyote eventually made it very forgettable by comparison but that can be attributed to Ford getting everything right in the '11-'14 models. (Suspension improvements, 120 increased HP over prior models with no weight increase at all.

The 4.6 is a little asthmatic out of the factory, but standard breather mods fix that issue.

>>17287528
Track performance is superior, mainly because of the better suspension and higher revs.

Drag racing is pretty much the same, the GT has more torque but less revs, the V6 has an easier time staying on the power band while shifting. It's more of a driver's race really.

>>17285880
5th gen span from 2005-2014
2005-2010 had the crappy engines
2011- the current 6th gen have the 3.7 and 5.0
not to mention 2014 got the "facelift"

all that aside, i love the exterior look, all retro and whatnot, i wish they did what dodge is doing with the challenger and kept that retro look, more money could have been spent on the interior or something. other than the exterior look, i can't really say i would buy one

>>17288881
>not to mention 2014 got the "facelift"
2013 got the facelift for the S197 II

File: Bill1-M.jpg (56KB, 600x399px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 600x399px

>>17287348
the 2011 V6 is slower and has THE EXACT SAME SUSPENSION DESIGN.

holy shit how many times does this have to be reiterated. Very minor tweaks such as damper valving and sway bar tuning amount to fuck all when you consider that anyone tracking these cars would replace all those parts with much more capable aftermarket units regardless.

The only difference in lap times is attributed to newer tire technology. that's it.

....

Now that's out of the way...consider that a 2005-2009 GT is cheaper to buy, and if you spend the difference on mods the older GT would run rings around a stock 11+v6 with even more tuning potential to boot

File: 20 GR.jpg (66KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 1024x683px

>>17285880
>300hp/320lb-ft stock
>reliable
>massive aftermarket
>cheap to buy
>rwd V8 manual

it's literally the perfect entry level "fun" car that can be driven everyday

Dont crash that dash will cut you tm.

>>17289525
Does it really though? I've seen people telling that the 3.7 has the same potential as the 5.0 because they share the same technology, stock block can manage 600hp before needing forged internals.

>>17289525
2011 v6 has better lap times than the 2010 GT, I don't think tires evolve that much in a year though.

>>17289567
just because it can theoretically handle that much power doesn't mean it's easy to get it there. It's exponentially harder to make that kind of power from a high string v6 vs. a regular old V8

what I meant with my original post was stuff like CAI, headers, cams, exhaust...you get way more out of mods like that on a 4.6 than you do on a 3.7L v6

no one should be boosting a mustang (unless it's a shelby), let alone a V6 mustang past 600hp that's just retarded. buy a better car at that point.

besides, who the fuck would want to put all that money into a V6 mustang

>>17289579
>citation needed

yeah that's total BS because the 2011 V6 has the older GT suspension. If what you're saying is true it's probably driver mod or the test was on a go-kart track

File: IMG_9409.jpg (3MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4032x3024px

I have one

It's for 348rwhp from cams, exhaust and intakes and other stuff. I love it. 26mpg on the highway. Turns heads, girls love it and it's fun. Only thing I hate is my fuel gauge is fucked right now and I have air in my brake lines but that's fixable.

>>17289767
Bleed your brakes anon

File: 15977959_1771732316482991_1249090289986410930_n.jpg (104KB, 838x642px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 838x642px

>>17285880
good v6 (2011+) when with the 6 speed crap blooper reel of a v8. but can be swapped for coyote cos LS is for fucking queers

>>17289833
Has anyone ever gone so far as even to need more to do look more like?

File: 20170529_201832.png (354KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

354KB, 1080x1920px

>>17289635
They tested the V6 2011 with the performance package though, 5hat means 3.31 gears + Mustang 2011 suspension with some Shelby nods.

I drove 2008, moved to a 2016 GT last year.

It was a fun car that sounded great (better than the 5.0 honestly), but the new GTs are a lot more refined in performance and interior

like someone mentioned they're a good entry level fun car. I had a blast

>>17290055
>Better than the 5.0

It's because 2015+ have a quieter exhaust configuration compared with the 2011 - 2014 Mustangs.

>>17290102

? All of Ford's modular engines sounded better than the Coyote - even with after market exhausts. The 5.0 sounds more "raspy"

>>17290115
Just pointing out that compared to the 2011 - 2014 models, 2015 GTs sound quite a bit quieter and different.

I prefer the 5.0 sound tho, that sound at 6-7k revs is priceless.

Retro S197s are dope

>>17285895
Had a 70 year old v6 until 2012

>>17289833
Coyote is better but it's fucking huge and the LS can be modded way more.

>>17287434
Shittiewt looking mustang desu and shit at turning while also being slower than a modern 6 cyl by a huge margin.

>>17285880
The supercharges only have carb stickers for a few years, so be careful which one you buy.

>>17286341
dat concept was fucking amazing.

>>17286422
How many valves?

>>17285880
not looking so good in bright color
and still not fully modern in terms of handling
like mustang Mach 1 it can be had cheep due to bad reputation

>>17289946
The performance package v6 also comes with stickier tires than the stock all-seasons on the old GT. Tires make all the difference

>>17291504
The 2010 GT mustang also had Pirelli P Zeros summer tires according to Car And Driver.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/lightning-lap-2009-ll1-2010-ford-mustang-gt-3133-page-7

It's mentioned right at the begining because it was much, much slower without the track package included.

>>17291504
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/lightning-lap-2011-ndash-feature-ndash-car-and-driver/features/lightning-lap-2011-ndash-feature-ndash-car-and-driver-lightning-lap-2011-ll1-class-page-2

This were CarNDriver also mentions that the V6 Mustang is faster at the track despite being almost 15 seconds hitting the governor speed limit of 114mph.
Surpassing the old 2010 track packaged GT by 0.8 seconds

Until the Challenger came along, I thought the Mustang did the best on the retro/new design combo. The next gen I liked better, however.

The current one is shit. But if I had to buy a stang, it would be an 05-14 model

>>17292741
It really was aesthetically an improvement over the SN95 to be honest.

That gen is okay, its a sharp looking car but it's not exactly fast. That's coming from a hardcore ford guy.

>>17293016
It was pretty ok fast when it came out though.
And the styling is what got a lot of old and new people into Mustangs.

Glad they ditch the SN95, it just wasn't a mustang.

>>17285880
Worse than its competition, the three years where it had none notwithstanding.

The mid-2000's were some of the roughest years for GM and yet the GTO still wiped the floor with the Mustang. Why'd they kill it?

>>17294902
What's wrong with the SN95 sportscar styling?

>>17295076
Early ones aged like milk. New edge cars are a little better but many are ruined by horrible and uninspired wheel designs.

They're also slow as fuck unless you get a Cobra, which is basically Vette money.

In all seriousness, they are actually pretty good if you're looking for something that is decently powerful and fun to drive, but don't want to spend a ton. The 3V V8 is very reliable and responds really well to simple bolt-ons (CAI/Tuner/Underdrive pulleys, etc.). Lower it an inch and half and put some good shocks/struts on it and they actually handle well.

They aren't very refined and the interior build quality isn't great, but its a great first "fast" car if you are interested in performance vehicles

File: new wheels lo res.jpg (398KB, 1632x641px) Image search: [Google]

398KB, 1632x641px

I own one, I think they still look good, don't give a fuck what you people think

>>17295766
>I don't give a fuck what you people think
>Feels the need to take a picture and upload it to a Chinese cartoon website because he "doesn't give a fuck."
Mustang owners still compensating for nothing.

>>17295794
Glad to see you felt the need to post as well

File: 20170531_002710.jpg (3MB, 3014x1780px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3014x1780px

>>17295766
This guy gets it

Bitches love stangs

>>17295878
Those rims are the worst, also, did move the exhaust to the sides? How much power is that thing making?

If 4chan cares to hate on it, it approves of it

>>17295091
Eh, for a long time they were considered fast, it's just that performance has made huge leaps and bounds in the last 7 years especially.

>>17297006
Not really, they were considered slow as in, way slower than the Camaro and the engine was worse and more difficult to mod than the 5.0,

Didn't help that a Camry, accord, Altima, Maxima or even a golf GTI was pretty much beating Mustangs GT stock for stock.

>>17286346
>>17286322
>being such a fucking hipster you like the Mustang II
those persimmon dyed jeans must be cutting off blood flow

>>17287722
>>17287697
>mustangs
>ever being expensive

>>17295091
new edge a shit
copying the new beetle and thinking its a good idea is a sign of retardartion

>>17286169
that or a jeep wrangler with a "silly boyz jeeps r 4 grilz" sticker slapped on the back

>>17297012

>Didn't help that a Camry, accord, Altima, Maxima or even a golf GTI was pretty much beating Mustangs GT stock for stock.

You don't need to make things up, anon

>>17286233
mustang II was worse. google it nigr.

File: Untitled-1.png (20KB, 645x299px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 645x299px

>>17297951
btfo

>>17295766
Love the color, same as mine.. Still using the stock pole antenna? Thinking of getting shorty or doing a delete.

>>17297012
They were comfy driving motors though
The extra torque from the SOHC 4.6s made them easy to pull out in 2nd gear with

Piss poor top end though, thats why you need 3-4 valves to open it up beyond 4500

File: maxresdefault.jpg (520KB, 3000x2250px) Image search: [Google]

520KB, 3000x2250px

I love the 2005-2009. It's my favorite generation Mustang. <3

>>17295766
It looks beautiful, Anon. I love that color.

>>17297006
>Slower than the aging F-body twins and the new (at the time) GTO
No, Anon. They were fast compared to your local boyracer's horrible Integra, that's it.