Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Prices Paid: Buying & Leasing Experiences Ford Mustang Prices Paid and Buying Experience
1060 messages, Last post on Aug 29, 2009 at 9:21 PM
You are in the Prices Paid: Buying & Leasing Experiences Forum. Your Hosts are car_man & kyfdx
|
|
|---|---|
I may be in the minority, but I think the coupe is a much better looking car than the convertible -- the lines are better because the fastback roof is inseparable from the design of the car, the overall look. 
|
|
|
Replying to: pony_pirate (Apr 04, 2006 4:49 pm) I like them both. There are not too many ragtops that look great with the top up compared to the hardtop. IMO, the trade-off for open-air motoring is well worth it. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: pony_pirate (Apr 04, 2006 4:49 pm)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: rmackowsky (Apr 05, 2006 3:34 am)
|
|
Thanks in advance to anyone that can help me. I ruined my only car last week and there is a 95 ford mustang V6 for sale for 2400. 150k, looks excellent in and out - head gasket replaced at 130K. I know nothing about these cars and am looking for something safe for local commute and that will last me awhile. Thanks again!
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: samsam22 (Apr 05, 2006 1:30 pm) No car with 150k miles on it won't have some problems somewhere. I'd recommend the $50-100 or so it will cost to have a mechanic check it out before you sign the dotted line. Things that wear out: battery, brakes, brake cylinder, belts, suspension, generator, water pump, air conditioning compressor, hoses, tires, carburator, suspension, clutch/transmission (clutch and automatic transmission repairs are expensive). Make sure it doesn't burn oil and has adequate compression (once a car loses compression it means serious internal problems, basically, a dying enging). Don't mean to be sexist, but if you can bring along a guy who knows cars, it couldn't hurt. Brakes and tires are especially important if you're going to put kid(s) in the car -- don't cut any corners there. |
|
|
Replying to: pony_pirate (Apr 02, 2006 8:07 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: gtgtcobra (Apr 07, 2006 9:52 pm) I believe it was mentioned previous in this forum, that if you take all the complaints they'd you'd be lucky if it was 3-5% of all post. And of those posts, the majority were able to be resolved via TSB's that have come out. So the reality is there's probably 1-2% of all posts that are having continued problems. I'd doubt that's any worse than any Mustang year and probably far better than most. As far as looks, you seem little off base if ask me. You indicated that the 00-04 was the best styling since the 69-70. Well isn't it ironic that the 05-06 happen to be closer in styling to those years than any Mustang since (this is backed by virtually any write up on the new Mustang in any of the trade mags). Further if it's such a dud in styling, how is it that sales have far surpassed any previous years Mustang sales? You comments don't seem to hold water. I have an 05 GT vert and have had it since last June, thus far I've had total of zero(0)problems since had it. Maybe I'm lucky, but I doubt it. Nature of people is that they'll complain about what's wrong and say virtually little about things that are right. I've had lots of cars over the years, however, none were considered sports cars. The funny thing is that the whole thing that got me excited about the new Mustang and wanting one was it reminded me so much of the 68-69 Mustang. Yet, is was updated (particularly the ride). If wanted to have something that looked just like a 69, then I'd buy a 69, otherwise I would hope a current car wouldn't look the same as something of 35+ years ago. I wouldn't say the prototype of potential Camaro is exactly like Camaro of old either. |
|
|
Quote: "As far as looks, you seem little off base if ask me. You indicated that the 00-04 was the best styling since the 69-70. Well isn't it ironic that the 05-06 happen to be closer in styling to those years than any Mustang since (this is backed by virtually any write up on the new Mustang in any of the trade mags). Further if it's such a dud in styling, how is it that sales have far surpassed any previous years Mustang sales? You comments don't seem to hold water." "ONLY" the 2005/2006 Mustang's rear facia looks like the 69 & 70 Mustang, but the rear quarter panels are too flat. They don't even resemble the 69 & 70 Mustang styling. And the front facia of the 2005/2006 Mustang looks like the 67 & 68 Mustang. The 99-04 Mustang has wider rear quarter panels that resemble the 69 & 70 Mustang and the rear facia has a more 69 is and 70ish look to it than the 2005/2006 Mustang. The only thing which doesn't resemble the 69/70 Mustang is the front facia. But the hood on the 2001-2004 Mustang GT resembles the 69 & 70 Mustang a little bit. The 2005/2006 Mustang doesn't even have a hood scoop and it neither has any side scoops. The 2005/2006 Mustang is not ugly, but it's not as agressive looking as the 2001-2004 body style. I don't know about you, but when I look at the 2001-2004 Mustang body style and compare it to the 2005/2006 Mustang body style, I see many differences if I compare both body styles with the 69 & 70 body style. The 2001-2004 body style resembles the 69 & 70 Mustang fastback body styling than the 2005/2006 does. Look carefully and compare the 2 body styles and you will see what I mean here. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Prices Paid: Buying & Leasing Experiences Ford Mustang Prices Paid and Buying Experience
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Ford Mustang
2000 Ford Mustang SVT Cobra
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
