What do you think of this gen of Moostank?
Too pigfat to be a fox body, many fox body mods don't work on it yet too primitive to have "modern" crazy output engines. Worst of both worlds.
>>17348434
Its literally an updated Foxbody, will take Windsor's stock and you can get IRS for it.
Try again.
>>17348420
I like the cobra front end with the foglights on that
>>17348472
>updated Foxbody
Mistakes were made.
>>17348420
Ugliest gen. Foxes were better looking than these, and foxes are butt ugly.
Second best gen behind the Foxbody
>>17348555
Having shit taste like this should be punishable by death.
>>17348555
kys
>>17348555
Fox body best body you fucking nigger.
>>17348555
7/10 you got replies
best looking Mustang since 1968
makes sense 64-68 and 94-98 are great
better than the Foxshit it replaced despite what fanboys say
imo it's the worst looking mustang. I don't like mustangs to begin with but I reaaaally don't like that generation. Driven by spics and poor ass highschool kids. They've ages like shit.
>>17348420
I like the Foxbody better but it's certainly not the worst gen of stang.
cool enough engine
>>17348420
Is this car mid engined? There is a went just near to the real wheels.
>>17348420
too slooowww
>>17348894
>When 69 was the best year of the classic Mustang
>when in 99 the new edge, which changed the modern mustang came out
>2019 755hp 7.0l gt500
Greatness with the #9
Favorite looking Mustangs ever. Fox bodies were nice but just a little to "plain" looking. I think this was a great improvement on that while still allowing it to be subtle. The newer bodies like that on GT are just to boxy and flashy to me (still a great car).
Not much of a Mustang fan either. Always liked riding passenger in them but never desired to own one. What was this Gen even called? I'm kinda a newbie when it comes to which gen each model belonged to.