Last post on Oct 22, 2012 at 6:38 AM
You are in the Classic Cars
What is this discussion about?
Ford Mustang, Coupe
#122 of 141 Re: I'll hate to ask [fezo]
Aug 24, 2007 (7:28 pm)
Didn't these use the thermal reactors? Or did that come later? Major negative.
#124 of 141 Re: I'll hate to ask [texases]
by Mr_Shiftright HOST
Aug 25, 2007 (7:52 am)
Those are later. Major knock on these cars is the gas mileage and the flaky AC/Heat systems. Still it seems like a very nice car and doesn't show the usual 450SL rat-mobile danger signs.
worth a look I'd say, definitely. Only 60K miles, too.
#125 of 141 I hate to ask Mr_Shiftright, but I need to know...
Oct 06, 2007 (12:27 am)
Why are Mustangs being sold at relatively low mileage at dirt cheap prices? What is wrong with these cars that they're being sold this fast? Is it 10 years later and the fall apart?Is it because they require alot more maintenance than usual? Do people actually not like the older models and would rather have a 2005 and up version? What do you look for in a Mustang to tell if some stupid kid had the car to destroy it doing donuts in a parking lot?
What is it like living with this car? Do you get pulled over more becuase its a high-performance car? It is more likely to get stolen because its a sports car and might not have as good a security system as Audi or BMW? Can anybody who has either a used '95 or so Mustang and one made in '99 and up- what's the insurance rates for that car?
Which mustang with the v8 or the v6 is harder to pass emissions inspections? What can be done to the car to make it pass emissions? What can happen to an 8 year old Mustang that can drastically affect the car's performance for the worst?
Why are Ford owners properly maintaining THESE cars only to sell the at 80,000 miles when they beat the crap out of other cars, put high mileage on them, and then sell them "as is?"
Approximately, how many accidents each year are caused as a result of a Mustang being involved in, or contributed to, an accident(s) featuring injury or death to driver(s) and passenger(s) of other vehicles as a direct link to: drunk driving, speeding, reckless driving, street racing, etc? How many people are injured or killed while riding in or driving Mustangs each year?
Would I be better off driving a 135i twin turbo BMW? They go for the same price as a fully loaded Mustang but hold their value well, has better engine, suspension, transmission, very sporty, etc?
Thank you for your response.
#126 of 141 Re: I hate to ask Mr_Shiftright, but I need to know... [joyrider147]
by Mr_Shiftright HOST
Oct 06, 2007 (9:01 am)
Well, lotta questions here. I'll try to answer the interesting ones.
First off, modern Mustangs are mass-produced cars. There are a gazillion of them around, so one would expect the equation of supply and demand to dictate a very reasonable price for an older used one. Your gain, original buyer's loss. This would be especially true for the V6, which, when new, could be purchased for relatively little money to begin with.
Sure, the V8s are likely to have been raced around. I suppose you could tell abuse by: 1) certain types of street racing equipment 2) rubber deposits under the rear wheel wells 3) repair receipts for a lot of clutches 4) no service records, lots of chips and dings, stained carpets or a list of non-working items ("the AC just needs a re-charge; it just needs a tune up; haven't had time to replace the arm rest, blah blah"). Deferred items you can see suggest deferred items you cannot see.
I also have to challenge the idea of a Mustang as a "sports car". That's a stretch.
Of course a BMW will hold value better over time but I suspect that neither car will be a great "investment". Also the BMW will cost far more to maintain once the warranty runs out.
As for insurance, if you are a) young b) unmarried and c) want to insure a high horsepower car....well, bend over.
Last of all, if you are asking why you don't see any ultra high mileage Mustangs for sale....well...you've kind of answered your own question....
Selling ANY used car while it is still clean and under 100K makes total sense. I would do the same. A banged-up, 150K Mustang V6 is worthless.
PS: Sure they get stolen, Easy to part out. Any car is easy for a professional to steal. If they can't slam it and wire it, they'll flatbed it, and if they really want it bad, they'll put a gun to your head and ask you want you think.
So give up on the idea of a "theft-proof" car. All you can do is deter the very amateur types.
#127 of 141 Re: What should be a "Solid Investment"?
Oct 06, 2007 (7:13 pm)
I see that you have a very good perspectivee on cars like these. I've been reading about Saabs, Volvos, and Honda Civics driven cross-country for years and they end up putting 900,000 to 1 MILLION miles. True, most likely, my car won't see that many miles and I don't drive that much, but a car that is capable of accomplishing feats like that are ASTONISHING! I even seen an Audi A8 diesel travel 800 miles on one tank of fuel!
I'm looking for an astonishing car, not one that is JUST looks, but is beautiful to look at, yet I can love that car for doing what people regard as impossible or absurd. Although Mustangs and BMWs don't sound like good investments, what should I look for in a car that I can enjoy driving, yet is very dependable, peppy and exciting, but yet the car can hold its value and get a reasonable amount of usage out of? Or if not hold the value, at least one that doesn't break down once a week.
#128 of 141 Re: What should be a "Solid Investment"? [joyrider147]
by Mr_Shiftright HOST
Oct 06, 2007 (7:32 pm)
Well maybe something like the Honda S2000? How about a new Corvette?
Personally I don't believe those "one million mile" stories. In theory you can keep ANY car alive for one million miles if you pump enormous sums of money into it. Sure, one million miles on 4 engines, 5 transmission and 6 paint jobs. Well, so what?
Whenever I really investigate high mileage claims, they don't have an evidence in 99% of all cases. It's bar talk mostly. You'd be quite fortunate to get 250K out of any car--that's statistically speaking the best most of us will ever see...either accident or structural failures will get us after that.
Besides, what is the point of driving a car beyond 250,000 miles? Unless you restore it, it probably becomes dangerous and unreliable anyway, or if not that, certainly rather shabby-looking.
Cars are built for a certain lifespan, like people. A few beat the odds but they aren't in their prime when they do so.
I think a Porsche Cayman would be a nice car to own as well.
#129 of 141 Re: What should be a "Solid Investment"? [Mr_Shiftright]
Oct 08, 2007 (2:06 pm)
Well, it's not all bar talk. One of my employees has 225,000 plus miles on a '99 Accord that he bought new. He drives it about 25K annually on business. He says it still runs like new with only recommended maintenance having been done.
In his case, age will likely start to take its toll before mileage does.
#130 of 141 Re: What should be a "Solid Investment"? [cccompson]
by Mr_Shiftright HOST
Oct 08, 2007 (2:43 pm)
Well 225K is within statistical lifespan limits. That's a LONG way from 500K or the one million fairytales you hear now and again on the Internet.
And you're right, his car will literally fall apart, even if he could rebuild and coax and lovingly drag his engine to 500K.
#131 of 141 Re: What should be a "Solid Investment"? [joyrider147]
Oct 09, 2007 (1:44 pm)
what should I look for in a car that I can enjoy driving, yet is very dependable, peppy and exciting, but yet the car can hold its value and get a reasonable amount of usage out of?
NSX, if you can find a good one.