I'm Sorry, but the new mustangs are ugly
Bruce Musgrove
The first one I saw I saw it from the rear and I thought it was a Mercedes .
Took me awhile to figure out where the Mercedes symbol was!!!!
Drove by a new black one on the garage today and I thoughto myself, "that's
a nice looking Honda" When I relized it was a Mustang I cried. It just
doesn't have that Muscle car feel to me.
The Cobra's are the only ones that come close as long as you don't see the
back end.
bruce
89 sedan
kevin
Scott Chamberlain
the more I dislike them.
Bruce Musgrove wrote in message <7b7mru$ihg$1...@news-1.news.gte.net>...
kevin
Scott Chamberlain
they took an SN95 Stang and carved up all of the curved lines and made them
straight. Plus a lot of little details bug me:
-No passenger door look cylinder,
-Interior c-pillar moulding is from last gen-Mustang and doesn't match the
new window quarter shape
-Taillights off an 81 Cougar
-Those silly scoops!
But who am I to judge? I drive a 4-wheeled box.
kevin wrote in message <36D773A8...@ibm.net>...
Keane Gruending
performance :-)...but then look what I'm driving, hehe
the 3rd Gen stang definetely Kill 3rd gen fbody looks though ( except for a
91-92 Black Formula with a Ram-air hood :-)
Dagon7
>From: "Bruce Musgrove" <katkom*nospam*@gte.net>
>Date: 2/26/99 7:13 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <7b7mru$ihg$1...@news-1.news.gte.net>
>
>I can't take it anymore. I have to say it. They are UGLY.
>
>The first one I saw I saw it from the rear and I thought it was a Mercedes .
>Took me awhile to figure out where the Mercedes symbol was!!!!
>
>Drove by a new black one on the garage today and I thoughto myself, "that's
>a nice looking Honda" When I relized it was a Mustang I cried. It just
>doesn't have that Muscle car feel to me.
>
>The Cobra's are the only ones that come close as long as you don't see the
>back end.
>
>
>bruce
>89 sedan
>
They don't look as bad as I thought...One thing though. They really need to
lose the cheap hood, with that cheap intake thingie. Make it a smooth hood, or
something else.
Jim Thomas
couple in person and I must say I love them even more. I think they are the best
looking mustangs since the late 60's (or early 70's). Just my 2 cents.
Jim
Mr. Fun wrote:
> The more I see them the more I like them. The best looking Mustangs
> in years.
>
> On Fri, 26 Feb 1999 19:33:55 -0800, "Scott Chamberlain"
> <hyperf...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
> >Have to agree with you. I work at a Ford dealer, and the more I see them,
> >the more I dislike them.
> >
> >
> >Bruce Musgrove wrote in message <7b7mru$ihg$1...@news-1.news.gte.net>...
Jeff Foster
panels look like the thinnest, stamped chunk of sheet metal Ford could
find????? Look closely at the front of the door where the crease is joined
with the front fender. What a sad sight. I will not buy one just for that
reason.
--
Jeff
94 GT Coupe Blue - Black Leather
Eibach - TR Motorsport 17"
S281 Wing
Saleen 96+ TailLights
Flowmaster Cat-back Rest is stock.
Michael Gamba
has attempted. The combination of a new body with the "attempt" at a retro
with similar lines of the 65 has been a flop and will prove to be the
destruction of the Mustang. Don't get me wrong, I still believe the Mustang
will live forever but the design team needs a lesson in "If it's not broke,
don't fix it" Non-functional air scoop and no passenger key entry is just
two of the down falls (I could go on)... I cannot fathom the logic.
Michael
Scott383
>they took an SN95 Stang and carved up all of the curved lines and made them
>straight.
Yep.
> Plus a lot of little details bug me:
>
>-No passenger door look cylinder,
Anybody notice that the '99 preproduction pseudo-Cobra that MM&FF tested in the
March issue (the one that was an assortment of '98 and '99 mechanicals) *did*
have the passenger side lock cylinders? The locks must have been axed late in
the program, after that particular prototype was assembled.
>-Interior c-pillar moulding is from last gen-Mustang and doesn't match the
>new window quarter shape
>-Taillights off an 81 Cougar
>-Those silly scoops!
>
Yeah, I agree about the scoops -- they are overdone, to put it kindly.
>But who am I to judge? I drive a 4-wheeled box.
>
So do I, an '89 LX notchback. Not exactly the pinnacle of automotive styling,
but that isn't why I bought it.
After seeing the '99 for a while it is starting to grow on me. I still don't
love it, but I no longer want to puke like I did the first time I saw the
pictures. It does look a *little* better in person, IMO. On the other hand, I
liked the '94 - '98 styling immediately when it came out.
I think that Ford's "New Edge" styling works well when it is applied to a new
design, but it doesn't look that great when applied to the rounded aero styling
that was trendy a few years ago. It looks "forced", kinda like some marketing
geniuses decided that *all* Ford redesigns would use New Edge, no matter how
poorly it integrated into the rest of the car.
Scott Williams
'89 Mustang LX 5.0, 14.29 @ 97
'72 Camaro 383, 12.92 @ 108
Wolfman's Brotha
I fall deeper and deeper in love with it everytime I see her. Sure, everyone
has their own opinion - but calling it a flop is a bit extreme. If it was a
flop - there would be 99 Stangs all over sales lots. I was bidding against 5
people to get the only GT in my area for about 6 months. Flop is too
strong....I personally think the early 90's style looks blah...Either way, it
is a Mustang. At least I ain't driving my Honda shit box anymore...
Peace...
Josh
--
1999 Mustang GT
M Mason
beautifully.
M Mason
lined up perfectly.
M Mason
in the sales lot for a month here. And every ford dealership in the area has
at least one. I do love them though.
Bill S.
it's not that they are ugly, it's that their new and different. I
can remember the same thing being said about the 69 body style changes,
and then again the 71/73 74/78, and yes, even the 79 and up body stylem
changes( no, I'm not that old, but had family in the business at the
time).... To each his or her own, but eventually, you'll come around to
the new body changes, just like everyone else time and time again.
Just my 2 cents on the subject.
Yours in Fords,
Bill S.
PS: It's amazing to me that so many people could hate the fact that Ford
is at least attempting to try something new, instead of having a
stagnent set of rules in car design.....
KDavis0247
love my '99 GT.
You have to give Ford credit for giving the Mustang a new look and significant
performance improvements for the same price point as the previous year. I'm
sure a lot of '85-'93 owners weren't enamored with the SN95's when they first
came out (though I appreciate many things about each of those generations). If
the styling was stagnant, the Mustangs sales would go the way of the Camaro and
Firebird.
This Mustang body looks hot. If you like performing mods, there is great
potential in producing a serious "in your face" muscle car Mustang. Go to the
Roush site and check out the '99 Roush Mustang GT. The aftermarket hasn't even
tapped into the '99's potential yet.
As for the silly scoops, they've always been non functional. Even muscle
classics like the '69 Mach 1 (stock fake hood scoop, fake side scoops) and as
far as i know, only the Shelby's had functional brake vents (and ram air/hood
scoops). There were the shaker scoop OPTIONS for all those 351's and they came
standard with CJ's and Bosses. Please don't rag on the fake scoops within the
context of a Mustang discussion, 'cause in the Mustang heritage they're nothing
new.
Personally, I think the '99 is the most muscular looking Mustang to come out
since the '65-'71 era (and actually they are the most muscular mustangs since
the '65-'71 era) . There are a number of nice references to the 1st generation
in the styling. Ford did a nice job of stroking 35 extra HP to give Mustang
some added performance that all Mustang lovers have been hoping for. Handling
is better than the Camaro, and competitive w/ the 'vette. Getting clocked at
flat 14's in the quarter, bone stock, is nothing short of impressive.
>they took an SN95 Stang and carved up all of the curved lines and made them
>straight.
Let me see. The hood is completely different. New valance. Taillights are
verti-tri-bars that slant inward. The rear bumper is flatter and protrudes
lower. The C molding and vent is wider and not as deep, like the old Mustangs.
I don't see the "carved up" thing.
>Plus a lot of little details bug me:
>
>-No passenger door look cylinder,
Uhhh... What is a door look cylinder?
>-Taillights off an 81 Cougar
I thought it they came from a Mercedes?!?
>-Those silly scoops!
See above (fake scoops have ALWAYS been around, though I admit, functional is
very cool).
>
>But who am I to judge? I drive a 4-wheeled box.
>
I couldn't have said it better myself >:P
-Ken
'99 Chrome yellow Mustang GT
KDavis0247
>beautifully.
Ditto. The '99 is bold and beautiful. Definitely a throwback of in bold looks
AND performance. My favorite Mustangs were the '65 fastbacks and the '69
fastbacks (GT's, Bosses and Machs especially). The departure from smoothy
round curves is welcome IMO. I do like the SN95's a lot, but the Mustang
needed a new look for the 35th anniversary to take us to the changes to come
around the 40th.
Jeff Foster
look like they were repaired from an accident. They look like crap.
--
Jeff
94 GT Coupe Blue - Black Leather
Eibach - TR Motorsport 17"
S281 Wing
Saleen 96+ TailLights
Flowmaster Cat-back Rest is stock.
M Mason wrote in message <36d7...@news.toast.net>...
Jeff Foster
Under the sideview mirrors the gap between the fender and the dorr
increases... ICK! Its not just in the picture, ive seen it on the lot.
Follow that gap just a few inches below the mirror (to the top of the "c"
stripe) And see how the metal on the door distorts, especially when you see
a reflection in it you can see how crappy it looks. And guess what! Go to
the botom of that same gap (bottom of "c" stripe) and notice that the fender
doesnt line up there either!
Zéphyr
Bruce Musgrove a écrit dans le message <7b7mru$ihg$1...@news-1.news.gte.net>...
KDavis0247
w/ an S281 wing and Saleen 96+ TailLights (LOL, though I do agree that the 96
taillights are an improvement over the horizontal). Personally, I would keep
something like taillights, a giveaway on the year, as stock. So, you sort of
created a '96 clone.
What's the matter, stock appearances didn't set right with you? With all the
COSMETIC improvements, your Flowmaster Cat-backs aren't going to be enough to
keep you from getting smoked by an ugly '99 GT (wish it could be me). You
should be an expert on the rear view of the '99 by now. Well I guess I'm done
with you (llloserrr) and your assnine thread.
-Ken
'99 Chrome yellow Mustang GT
Jeff Foster said in a rather feminine tone:
Dan Lukiw
> This Mustang body looks hot. If you like performing mods, there is great
> potential in producing a serious "in your face" muscle car Mustang. Go to the
> Roush site and check out the '99 Roush Mustang GT. The aftermarket hasn't even
> tapped into the '99's potential yet.
>
Roush has a site?If you don't mind, can you give me the URL for that
site?
-Dan-
CinsCobra
I have to agree...I hated the 99's when they first came out..but Im starting to
like them...dont get mewrong..I hate the rear, the side scoops and the hood
scopps..but other then that there ok.I love the new interior in the GT's.
just thought Id put my 2cents in
Cindy
96 Mystic Cobra
KDavis0247
The Roush site is http://www.roushracing.com/. I justed went there, and
they're making a lot of changes right now. I'll mail 3 high quality Roush '99
GT jpgs to you. If anyone else wants them, send me e-mail. It's a handsome,
handsome car.
-Ken
wes...@my-dejanews.com
considered waiting on a 99 Cobra but even with IRS and a few more ponies, I
couldn't be happy with New Edge design. Maybe in a few years....
Greg
1998 Cobra convertible, #2698 of 3480
Laser Red Tinted Clearcoat, Black Top, Black Leather
SCOA# 1409
In article <7b7mru$ihg$1...@news-1.news.gte.net>,
"Bruce Musgrove" <katkom*nospam*@gte.net> wrote:
> I can't take it anymore. I have to say it. They are UGLY.
>
> The first one I saw I saw it from the rear and I thought it was a Mercedes .
> Took me awhile to figure out where the Mercedes symbol was!!!!
>
> Drove by a new black one on the garage today and I thoughto myself, "that's
> a nice looking Honda" When I relized it was a Mustang I cried. It just
> doesn't have that Muscle car feel to me.
>
> The Cobra's are the only ones that come close as long as you don't see the
> back end.
>
> bruce
> 89 sedan
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Michael J. Stepanek
I'm pretty sure he meant door lock cylinder. I missed this the first
time I looked at one, but you'll notice that the '99 Mustangs do not
have key holes on the passenger-side door. The only way to unlock the
car is through the driver's side (or with the remote botton, of course).
Not a big deal, in my opinion.
Dan Lukiw
Bruce Musgrove wrote:
>
> I can't take it anymore. I have to say it. They are UGLY.
I tend to disagree. I like the fox body style better then those damn
aero dynamuc ones. It seems like every car out there in the market is
trying to make their car aero-dynamyic styling. Ford actually did
something a little different.
>
> The first one I saw I saw it from the rear and I thought it was a Mercedes .
> Took me awhile to figure out where the Mercedes symbol was!!!!
You mistakened it for a Mercedes? Nope, don't see the resembelence. I
must say, the back of the car is the best part of it. I see a lot of
pictures of the front of the car and it does nothing. Then, I decided to
take a look at one in person a few months ago and fell in love with it.
So, I decided to order me onw which comes in next week.. or so says the
dealer!
>
> Drove by a new black one on the garage today and I thoughto myself, "that's
> a nice looking Honda" When I relized it was a Mustang I cried. It just
> doesn't have that Muscle car feel to me.
Ok, I can see the resembelence to the new Honda Prelude from the back.
However, how can it not have a muscle car feeling if you didn't even
drive it? Let's see, I have my likes and dislikes about the car and let
me list them right here:
Likes:
Lower to the ground
3 brake lights (I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this yet)
Additional horsepower
Fox body style
Better tourque
True Dual exhaust
Traction Control
The black color to hide the scoops
It's faster then my 96 Grand Am I am turning in this week!
Dislikes:
GT didn't have Independent Rear Suspension as the Cobra did (Though I
know you can bolt the IRS on)
Non-Functional Hood scoops (They're just plain plastic scoops!)
High Insurance Costs
That's all for the dislikes of the car.
>
> The Cobra's are the only ones that come close as long as you don't see the
> back end.
I don't know.. I still like the back end of the car. Of course, you're
opinion is what matter to you. I've only been driving for about 6 years
and of all those 6 years, I have owned a 65 Mustang, and still do own it
to this day. I won't get rid of it because I like to take it to cruisin
nights at our local town. I don't drive it on an every day basis. Before
I got my Grand Am, I wanted a Mustang but knew at the time I wasn't
going to be able to afford it and I wasn't going to be able afford
insurance on it as well. I've been a Mustang lover since I started
driving and will continue to be... whatever you're opinion is, won't
matter to me because I have my opinion as well. Oh well.
-Dan-
Cobra2442
>to
>like them...dont get mewrong..I hate the rear, the side scoops and the hood
>scopps..but other then that there ok.I love the new interior in the GT's.
Hey Cindy, isn't the interior basically the same as all the other SN95's ( I
guess that's why you and I like it) but the exterior has to go.. and so far all
the 99's that I've seen made have only been able to see my tail lights...
Rexford Dundon
1997 Green Cobra Coupe #2442
<a href="http://members.aol.com/cobra2442/auto/index.htm">My Cobra Page
Cobra2442
>What's the matter, stock appearances didn't set right with you? With all the
>COSMETIC improvements, your Flowmaster Cat-backs aren't going to be enough to
>keep you from getting smoked by an ugly '99 GT (wish it could be me). You
>should be an expert on the rear view of the '99 by now. Well I guess I'm
>done
>with you (llloserrr) and your assnine thread.
>
>-Ken
>'99 Chrome yellow Mustang GT
>
hmmm a 99 GT with 260 hp.. too bad it's still slower than my stock 97... :-)
Wolfman's Brotha
I have to disagree on the insurance...The price is totally dependant on the
company you roll w/ (excuse the pun.) My insurance went up $100 annually based
on the 99 GT vs. a 97 Honda Civic. May I suggest you look into Nationwide.
They rate the car on the safety devices and the retail cost of the car. They've
done great by me...
Now if you'll excuse me...it's 50 and sunnier than shit in the North East right
now. I'm going for a drive.
Josh
--
1999 Mustang GT
Schlol
>design, but it doesn't look that great when applied to the rounded aero
>styling
>that was trendy a few years ago.
Please do something about the Taurus
Brian97gt
Jim Thomas
side badges beeing the same on the 99 GT's and base models. I am not a fan of
that. The fact that is says 35th Anniversary is nice but if I had a GT I would
not want the guy next to me to not know it. He would know after the light turns
green, however. Is there any way to tell if the car is a GT from the front or
sides. I know the back says GT and it has duel exhasts.
Jim
Dagon7
>From: Keane Gruending <kea...@sk.sympatico.ca>
>Date: 2/26/99 9:20 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <36D78086...@sk.sympatico.ca>
>
>I have to agree, the F-bodies have a definite edge in this area ( as well as
>performance :-)...but then look what I'm driving, hehe
>the 3rd Gen stang definetely Kill 3rd gen fbody looks though ( except for a
>91-92 Black Formula with a Ram-air hood :-)
Stock?
Are you talking about the 4th gens or a thirdgen with a aftermarket hood?
Well, I'm not going to get in a looks arguement in the Mustang NG . Lets just
say that my opinon differs. =) Hell, I think the new /older 4ths gens are
uggggly, cept maybe the TA's.
Ryan
' 89 IROC-Z
KDavis0247
lack of driving skill. Just don't rev to loud when you get caught next to a
'99 Cobra at a traffic light in about a month.
This NG is starting to lose it's appeal. This is supposed to be a NG for
Mustang appreciation, not TRASHY comments and divisive mud-slinging on other
Stangs because you don't like the styling. Differences of opinion are OK, but
jaded trash talk is for losers and POSER Mustang lovers.
-Ken
'99 Chrome yellow Mustang GT
>
>Hey Cindy, isn't the interior basically the same as all the other SN95's ( I
>guess that's why you and I like it) but the exterior has to go.. and so far
>all
>the 99's that I've seen made have only been able to see my tail lights...
>
>
>
>Rexford Dundon
>1997 Green Cobra Coupe #2442
>My Cobra Page
>
>
>
KDavis0247
We're all really impressed that your awesome Cobra is faster than a GT. What
you obviously fail to realize is that you expose what a pathetic little twit
you are comparing your Cobra to a GT. Care to run your stock '97 Cobra against
a stock '99 Cobra? Hurry, maybe you can put a blower on credit and bolt it on
before the '99 Cobras come out!!!
I thought may be you were a kid, but it turns out your a 27 year old POSER (one
that pretends to be a Mustang lover).
-Ken
'99 Chrome yellow Mustang GT
>hmmm a 99 GT with 260 hp.. too bad it's still slower than my stock 97... :-)
>
>
Jim Manson
>I can't take it anymore. I have to say it. They are UGLY.
>
>The first one I saw I saw it from the rear and I thought it was a Mercedes .
>Took me awhile to figure out where the Mercedes symbol was!!!!
>
>Drove by a new black one on the garage today and I thoughto myself, "that's
>a nice looking Honda" When I relized it was a Mustang I cried. It just
>doesn't have that Muscle car feel to me.
>
>The Cobra's are the only ones that come close as long as you don't see the
>back end.
>
I agree- blech.
I'm hoping the 2002s are a lot better.....
--
'97 Cobra Convertible
'92 Talon TSI
Jim Stoltz
came out there was a GREAT divide among the '87-93 owners
and the '94s. I think in a lot of ways there still is. To widen that
divide, Ford abandoned the 5.0 in '96 in favor of the 4.6. The
bang-for-the-buck days were gone for a long time, and still
may be. I don't know how the 4.6 takes to mods and will
probably never find out. The '87-93 owners are clearly a
different breed of Mustang owner. Ford aimed at a different
audience with the '94+ cars, and it shows in this NG
sometimes.
I'd be curious to see if Ford's 320 horsies are as big as
GM's 320 horsies. In the past, they've been a wee bit
smaller - as evidenced by the "305" HP Cobra vs. the
"305" HP WS6 cars. Plus, IMNSHO, 260 HP in the GT
is way too little waaaay too late. The 305 HP Z28 is
comparable in price and will kick the crap out of the
GT. I think, blind brand loyalty aside, that '87-93 5.0
guys are the LS1 buyers of the future - that's where
the current bang-for-the-buck is. I'm a car lover, not
necessarily a Mustang lover. I love my car, but when
it becomes a chore to keep up with box-stock Camaros,
my eyes begin to stray in that direction.
I don't think, and I may be wrong, that this NG is about
people with blind loyalty to everything that is "Mustang".
It's about sharing experiences with cars we happen to
own and love - maybe just for the moment or a period
of time. If this NG is "losing its appeal", then don't
frequent it. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way
out.
If, however, you take a moment to stop and think that
a lot of what people are saying is the result of ignorance,
and don't take it so personally, then maybe you'd loosen
up and realize that the choice you've made in a '99 GT
is yours and no one elses. You should be able to justify
it yourself and not take what people say here to heart.
As the months go on, plenty more '99 owners will begin
to appear and defend them as happened with the '94-'98
cars.
Jim
--
1988 Mustang GT Convertible
1987 Buick Regal Grand National
www.jimmyz.net
KDavis0247 wrote in message
<19990227172149...@ng-fb1.aol.com>...
>You racing stud! Racing those GT's with your Cobra should compensate for
your
>lack of driving skill. Just don't rev to loud when you get caught next to
a
>'99 Cobra at a traffic light in about a month.
>
>This NG is starting to lose it's appeal. This is supposed to be a NG for
>Mustang appreciation, not TRASHY comments and divisive mud-slinging on
other
>Stangs because you don't like the styling. Differences of opinion are OK,
but
>jaded trash talk is for losers and POSER Mustang lovers.
>
>-Ken
>'99 Chrome yellow Mustang GT
>
>>
>>Hey Cindy, isn't the interior basically the same as all the other SN95's
I
>>guess that's why you and I like it) but the exterior has to go.. and so
far
>>all
>>the 99's that I've seen made have only been able to see my tail lights...
>>
>>
>>
KDavis0247
happy with my decision anyway.
-Ken
BB is WAR
I like the SN-95 design a lot more than the '99s, but I'd take a '99 over the
SN-95 anyday. Why? Performance.
Vibrant Red (Bright-Ass Red aka Arrest-Me Red) '95 5.0 GT AOD-E
-Flowmaster 3 Chamber Force II Catback System
-K&N
-No Silencer
-Coming in 2 weeks, 3.55s, B&M ShiftPlus
"AOD's suck? I've never missed a shift in my life."
Boond...@webtv.net
have to say that the only reason I'm here is because of the '99 GT. I've
never considered a Mustang before, didn't like the styling, and my
father was a GM mechanic for over 50 years. Needless to say, liking a
'Stang goes against my grain. So get this -- I'm a new convert because
of this model. Say what you want about the '99, I'm buying one, BECAUSE
Ford made the changes. Look guys, maybe the new style isn't what you're
used to, but IMHO, it's the best looking Mustang Ford ever made. (Sorry,
Dad!)
"Some mornings it just doesn't seem worth it to gnaw through the leather
straps." - Emo Phillips
Scott Chamberlain
Scott Chamberlain wrote in message ...
>Well that's just my opinion and you are entitled to yours. Just looks like
>they took an SN95 Stang and carved up all of the curved lines and made them
>straight. Plus a lot of little details bug me:
>
>-No passenger door look cylinder,
>-Interior c-pillar moulding is from last gen-Mustang and doesn't match the
>new window quarter shape
>-Taillights off an 81 Cougar
>-Those silly scoops!
>
>But who am I to judge? I drive a 4-wheeled box.
>
>
>kevin wrote in message <36D773A8...@ibm.net>...
>>blasphemy! you should be flogged!
>>
>>Scott Chamberlain wrote:
>>
>>> Have to agree with you. I work at a Ford dealer, and the more I see
them,
>>> the more I dislike them.
>>>
>>> Bruce Musgrove wrote in message <7b7mru$ihg$1...@news-1.news.gte.net>...
>>> >I can't take it anymore. I have to say it. They are UGLY.
>>> >
>>> >The first one I saw I saw it from the rear and I thought it was a
>Mercedes
>>> .
>>> >Took me awhile to figure out where the Mercedes symbol was!!!!
>>> >
>>> >Drove by a new black one on the garage today and I thoughto myself,
>"that's
>>> >a nice looking Honda" When I relized it was a Mustang I cried. It
just
>>> >doesn't have that Muscle car feel to me.
>>> >
>>> >The Cobra's are the only ones that come close as long as you don't see
>the
>>> >back end.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >bruce
>>> >89 sedan
>>> >
>>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Scott Chamberlain
edges.... the square front parking lights with the great big black area
between the fender and light is what bugs me most.
Mr. Fun wrote in message <36d9a1b0...@news.primenet.com>...
>On Fri, 26 Feb 1999 21:09:51 -0800, "Scott Chamberlain"
><hyperf...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
>>Well that's just my opinion and you are entitled to yours. Just looks like
>>they took an SN95 Stang and carved up all of the curved lines and made
them
>>straight.
>
>Yes... that's why it looks so much better... I am SO sick of curved
>this and curved that and jelly bean shapes.
Scott Chamberlain
what you're paying for it. I get up close and personal with these cars
everyday and I have formed an opinion accordingly.
KDavis0247 wrote in message
<19990227072656...@ng-fx1.aol.com>...
>I'll add an opinion, though the thread is a borderline flame. Besides, I
just
>love my '99 GT.
>
>You have to give Ford credit for giving the Mustang a new look and
significant
>performance improvements for the same price point as the previous year.
I'm
>sure a lot of '85-'93 owners weren't enamored with the SN95's when they
first
>came out (though I appreciate many things about each of those generations).
If
>the styling was stagnant, the Mustangs sales would go the way of the Camaro
and
>Firebird.
I love the package Ford has put together with the engine improvements and
all, I just don't like it's wrapper Ş
>
>This Mustang body looks hot. If you like performing mods, there is great
>potential in producing a serious "in your face" muscle car Mustang. Go to
the
>Roush site and check out the '99 Roush Mustang GT. The aftermarket hasn't
even
>tapped into the '99's potential yet.
I have seen the Roush and it improves on what is there, but to me the
original body shape screams through.
>
>As for the silly scoops, they've always been non functional. Even muscle
>classics like the '69 Mach 1 (stock fake hood scoop, fake side scoops) and
as
>far as i know, only the Shelby's had functional brake vents (and ram
air/hood
>scoops). There were the shaker scoop OPTIONS for all those 351's and they
came
>standard with CJ's and Bosses. Please don't rag on the fake scoops within
the
>context of a Mustang discussion, 'cause in the Mustang heritage they're
nothing
>new.
Well I have more experience with newer Mustangs than old, so I can't exactly
judge. But the scoops just look SO FAKE! They just have a flat cover on
them, no depth inside the scoops. Even the little splats behind the doors on
87-93 GTs look like they function as brake cooling or something. Ditto with
82 and 83 GT's hoodscoops. At least those scoops actually were open into the
engine. I would rather have a car that is fast but doesn't have all those
boy-racer cues. Look at the AMG E55 sedan. Blistering fast but no silly
scoops or wings, etc. Just a clean uncluttered design. But I guess that
could be due to the fact that I would rather own a sleeper car that looks
like a rolling turd but is really fast than be a riceboy with a fast-looking
car that isn't. PLEASE don't imply that I think the new Stang is a riceboy
car. That is totally opposite of the truth. Even the V6 Stang make more
power than my 5.0 puts out. Pretty impressive, but does it really need all
of those scoops?
>
>Personally, I think the '99 is the most muscular looking Mustang to come
out
>since the '65-'71 era (and actually they are the most muscular mustangs
since
>the '65-'71 era) . There are a number of nice references to the 1st
generation
>in the styling. Ford did a nice job of stroking 35 extra HP to give
Mustang
>some added performance that all Mustang lovers have been hoping for.
Handling
>is better than the Camaro, and competitive w/ the 'vette. Getting clocked
at
>flat 14's in the quarter, bone stock, is nothing short of impressive.
Again, I cannot fault the performance at all. It's great, but I would rather
have it in the looks of an 85/86 Stang. <-- personal opinion, not flame
bait.
>
>>they took an SN95 Stang and carved up all of the curved lines and made
them
>>straight.
>
>Let me see. The hood is completely different. New valance. Taillights
are
>verti-tri-bars that slant inward. The rear bumper is flatter and protrudes
>lower. The C molding and vent is wider and not as deep, like the old
Mustangs.
> I don't see the "carved up" thing.
It's the same basic shape as the early SN95s, but with a lot of straight
lines that seem to conflict with the rounded edges. At least my car is ALL
straight edges!
>
>>Plus a lot of little details bug me:
>>
>>-No passenger door look cylinder,
>
>Uhhh... What is a door look cylinder?
Lock cylinder.....fat fingers. Has no place to put the key on the right
door.
>
>>-Taillights off an 81 Cougar
>
>I thought it they came from a Mercedes?!?
Have you seen taillights on an 81 Cougar? I posted a picture once on this
newsgroup comparing the two.
>
>>-Those silly scoops!
>
>See above (fake scoops have ALWAYS been around, though I admit, functional
is
>very cool).
Yup.
>
>>
>>But who am I to judge? I drive a 4-wheeled box.
>>
>
>I couldn't have said it better myself >:P
Scott Chamberlain
Bruce Musgrove wrote in message <7bagr7$r25$1...@news-2.news.gte.net>...
>Its not the fact that the scoops are fake, but the shape and style just
does
>not blend well. They look like aftermarket generics that were just bent
and
>twisted to fit.
> The inward slanting lights are one of the things that just makes my eyes
>hurt to look at it.
>
>KDavis0247 wrote in message
><19990227072656...@ng-fx1.aol.com>...
>>I'll add an opinion, though the thread is a borderline flame. Besides, I
>just
>>love my '99 GT.
>>
>>You have to give Ford credit for giving the Mustang a new look and
>significant
>>performance improvements for the same price point as the previous year.
>I'm
>>sure a lot of '85-'93 owners weren't enamored with the SN95's when they
>first
>>came out (though I appreciate many things about each of those
generations).
>If
>>the styling was stagnant, the Mustangs sales would go the way of the
Camaro
>and
>>Firebird.
>>
>>This Mustang body looks hot. If you like performing mods, there is great
>>potential in producing a serious "in your face" muscle car Mustang. Go to
>the
>>Roush site and check out the '99 Roush Mustang GT. The aftermarket hasn't
>even
>>tapped into the '99's potential yet.
>>
>>As for the silly scoops, they've always been non functional. Even muscle
>>classics like the '69 Mach 1 (stock fake hood scoop, fake side scoops) and
>as
>>far as i know, only the Shelby's had functional brake vents (and ram
>air/hood
>>scoops). There were the shaker scoop OPTIONS for all those 351's and they
>came
>>standard with CJ's and Bosses. Please don't rag on the fake scoops within
>the
>>context of a Mustang discussion, 'cause in the Mustang heritage they're
>nothing
>>new.
>>
>>Personally, I think the '99 is the most muscular looking Mustang to come
>out
>>since the '65-'71 era (and actually they are the most muscular mustangs
>since
>>the '65-'71 era) . There are a number of nice references to the 1st
>generation
>>in the styling. Ford did a nice job of stroking 35 extra HP to give
>Mustang
>>some added performance that all Mustang lovers have been hoping for.
>Handling
>>is better than the Camaro, and competitive w/ the 'vette. Getting clocked
>at
>>flat 14's in the quarter, bone stock, is nothing short of impressive.
>>
>>>they took an SN95 Stang and carved up all of the curved lines and made
>them
>>>straight.
>>
>>Let me see. The hood is completely different. New valance. Taillights
>are
>>verti-tri-bars that slant inward. The rear bumper is flatter and
protrudes
>>lower. The C molding and vent is wider and not as deep, like the old
>Mustangs.
>> I don't see the "carved up" thing.
>>
>>>Plus a lot of little details bug me:
>>>
>>>-No passenger door look cylinder,
>>
>>Uhhh... What is a door look cylinder?
>>
>>>-Taillights off an 81 Cougar
>>
>>I thought it they came from a Mercedes?!?
>>
>>>-Those silly scoops!
>>
>>See above (fake scoops have ALWAYS been around, though I admit, functional
>is
>>very cool).
>>
>>>
Michael J. Stepanek
>'99 Chrome yellow Mustang GT
Calm down Ken... you're gonna be making enemies around here. Everybody
is entitled to their own opinion. Don't take these things too personal.
I'm on your side, but I'm not going to start any wars over looks. We
all know looks are way too subjective to be fighting about.
BTW, the '99 Cobra will probably only be a tiny bit faster than a '98.
Be careful about who you insult.
Michael J. Stepanek
>I have to say that the only reason I'm here is because of the '99 GT.
>I've never considered a Mustang before, didn't like the styling, and my
>father was a GM mechanic for over 50 years. Needless to say, liking a
>'Stang goes against my grain. So get this -- I'm a new convert because
>of this model. Say what you want about the '99, I'm buying one, BECAUSE
>Ford made the changes. Look guys, maybe the new style isn't what you're
>used to, but IMHO, it's the best looking Mustang Ford ever made. >(Sorry, Dad!)
I think this is going to be a common trend for '99. I'm not sure if
this is what Ford intended, but, according to my impression of things,
there seems to be a great division here. It seems that the '99 are
atracting a lot of the older folks (due to the 60/70's cues and the
comercials) and some converts (because of the looks, I think)... mostly
from the former-rice crowd, I think, but not exclusively. I think
that's great. We need all the support we can get, or the Mustang will
join the axe rumor mill, like the F-bodies. If people see the light, I
say that's great... better late than never.
Unfortunately, the 20/30-something crowd (the bread and butter of this
group, I think) seems to be going against the '99s. I'm not sure why.
I won't even go into a couple of suspicions. Hopefully, these folks
will come back to us, because we can't afford to lose them. I think
it'll happen. This new body style just takes some getting used to... it
did for me. In fact, the more I think about it, the '99s are not as
different from the '98s as we all may think. That's what I've realized
in the past month. I'll bet that the general population won't even
notice the differences at first glance (except for a few things in the
back). Don't call me dumb. There are obvious differences. I'm just
saying that they're not as obvious as we may think. After all, we can
all probably recreate every line and curve of the SN-95s by now. We're
not exactly the general populus.
Obviously, however, everybody likes the performance increases... that's
not even an issue here.
In any case, I like the new look. I think Ford made the right move.
I'll back them up all the way.
BB is WAR
taillights are an improvement over the horizontal).>>
That brings up another good point...
In everyone's opinion, should 94-95 GT owners keep the horizontal tail lights
as a tell-tale sign of having a 5.0? The '96+ tail lights may look better in
some people's eyes, but I fell like I should keep the horizontals just to show
that I have a 5.0, but that's just me. Almost like 5.0 pride, you know?
KDavis0247
cheap myself. Sorry about that, and sorry to any owners of earlier GT's.
Anyway, everyone is entitled to their opinion on the '99. In time, I think it
will get it's proper due.
Seriously, have you squared off your Cobra against any '99 GT's, or were you
just talking shit, knowing what your Ford quoted HP is?
-Ken
'99 Chrome yellow Mustang GT
>>What
>>you obviously fail to realize is that you expose what a pathetic little twit
>>you are comparing your Cobra to a GT. Care to run your stock '97 Cobra
>>against
>>a stock '99 Cobra?
>
>
>
>Hey Ken, if you remember in your post you were the one knocking on the
>earlier
>GT's... saying that your 99 is faster than a 94 with 96+ tail lights and a
>flowmaster exhaust... Well it sounds like your the one who is a POSER and
>dosn't like Mustangs... I've yet to see a 99 GT on the road, seen alot of the
>V-6 versions and they are growing on me a little bit.. not much though...
>
Joe Breitenbach
SN95 or later.
Joe
Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies
http://www.tranquilitybase.com/joe/
Jeff Foster
99s, but the fit and finish is simply HORRIBLE.
I wanted to like the 99s, but Im NOT going to buy the 99 IRS Cobra I wanted
to buy just because it looks cheap as hell when the body panels dont even
line up. I wishj I didnt have to bash them. I was looking forward to owning
one, so you could imagine that it bothers me even more that they are messed
up looking.
What are YOU going to do to sruce up your body panels??? LOL Mr. 4X4!
--
Jeff
94 GT Coupe Blue - Black Leather
Eibach - TR Motorsport 17"
S281 Wing
Saleen 96+ TailLights
Flowmaster Cat-back Rest is stock.
KDavis0247 wrote in message
<19990227084050...@ng-ft1.aol.com>...
>I guess your so in love with the looks of your '94 that you had to spruce
it up
>w/ an S281 wing and Saleen 96+ TailLights (LOL, though I do agree that the
96
>taillights are an improvement over the horizontal). Personally, I would
keep
>something like taillights, a giveaway on the year, as stock. So, you sort
of
>created a '96 clone.
>
>What's the matter, stock appearances didn't set right with you? With all
the
>COSMETIC improvements, your Flowmaster Cat-backs aren't going to be enough
to
>keep you from getting smoked by an ugly '99 GT (wish it could be me). You
>should be an expert on the rear view of the '99 by now. Well I guess I'm
done
>with you (llloserrr) and your assnine thread.
>
>-Ken
>'99 Chrome yellow Mustang GT
>
>Jeff Foster said in a rather feminine tone:
>>
>>Under the sideview mirrors the gap between the fender and the dorr
>>increases... ICK! Its not just in the picture, ive seen it on the lot.
>>Follow that gap just a few inches below the mirror (to the top of the "c"
>>stripe) And see how the metal on the door distorts, especially when you
see
>>a reflection in it you can see how crappy it looks. And guess what! Go to
>>the botom of that same gap (bottom of "c" stripe) and notice that the
fender
>>doesnt line up there either!
>>
>>--
>>Jeff
>>94 GT Coupe Blue - Black Leather
>>Eibach - TR Motorsport 17"
>>S281 Wing
>>Saleen 96+ TailLights
>>Flowmaster Cat-back Rest is stock.
>
>
Jeff Foster
yes, maybe I insulted the car. You seem to feel the need to insult the
owners....
I like many different year mustangs for specific reasons. I loved my 68 and
my 400hp90LX, however, the body panels never lined up as poorly as the new
99s.
--
Jeff
94 GT Coupe Blue - Black Leather
Eibach - TR Motorsport 17"
S281 Wing
Saleen 96+ TailLights
Flowmaster Cat-back Rest is stock.
KDavis0247 wrote in message
<19990228081155...@ng-ft1.aol.com>...
>Yeah, well I thought the '99 was getting some really cheap criticism, so I
got
>cheap myself. Sorry about that, and sorry to any owners of earlier GT's.
>
>Anyway, everyone is entitled to their opinion on the '99. In time, I think
it
>will get it's proper due.
>
>Seriously, have you squared off your Cobra against any '99 GT's, or were
you
>just talking shit, knowing what your Ford quoted HP is?
>
>-Ken
>'99 Chrome yellow Mustang GT
>
Jeff Foster
thats all that counts. People that are interested in mustangs should be able
to tell. Those that arent, it shouldnt matter to them. Which one are you?
--
Jeff
94 GT Coupe Blue - Black Leather
Eibach - TR Motorsport 17"
S281 Wing
Saleen 96+ TailLights
Flowmaster Cat-back Rest is stock.
KDavis0247 wrote in message
<19990228012310...@ng-ca1.aol.com>...
>I would keep them. To illustrate, if I had a '70 Mustang, I would also the
>inset tri-verti-bar tail lights and honeycomb paneling between the tail
lights
>even though I prefer the protruding tri-verti-bar tail lights and smooth
>paneling between the tail lights on the '69. There are probably a lot of
folks
>in the NG that disagree, but I think those cues that define a given year
should
>be left alone, or what you have is a clone. I wouldn't feel right driving
a
>car that would be perceived incorrectly by year, or model in the case of
GT's,
>bosses, Cobra's, etc.
>
>Especially in the case of the '94-'95, since the engine changed, I would
>proudly show the horizontal taillights as a clear indication that "I am a
>5.0!!!". Like you said, 5.0 pride, not a '96-'98 cloner.
>
>-Ken
>'99 Chrome yellow Mustang GT
>
>><<(LOL, though I do agree that the 96
>>taillights are an improvement over the horizontal).>>
>>
Jeff Foster
about how shitty your car looks.
Also, did you just call anyone that changes their cars cosmetics a loser????
Classy...
--
Jeff
94 GT Coupe Blue - Black Leather
Eibach - TR Motorsport 17"
S281 Wing
Saleen 96+ TailLights
Flowmaster Cat-back Rest is stock.
KDavis0247 wrote in message
<19990227084050...@ng-ft1.aol.com>...
>I guess your so in love with the looks of your '94 that you had to spruce
it up
>w/ an S281 wing and Saleen 96+ TailLights (LOL, though I do agree that the
96
>taillights are an improvement over the horizontal). Personally, I would
keep
>something like taillights, a giveaway on the year, as stock. So, you sort
of
>created a '96 clone.
>
>What's the matter, stock appearances didn't set right with you? With all
the
>COSMETIC improvements, your Flowmaster Cat-backs aren't going to be enough
to
>keep you from getting smoked by an ugly '99 GT (wish it could be me). You
>should be an expert on the rear view of the '99 by now. Well I guess I'm
done
>with you (llloserrr) and your assnine thread.
>
>-Ken
>'99 Chrome yellow Mustang GT
>
>Jeff Foster said in a rather feminine tone:
>>
>>Under the sideview mirrors the gap between the fender and the dorr
>>increases... ICK! Its not just in the picture, ive seen it on the lot.
>>Follow that gap just a few inches below the mirror (to the top of the "c"
>>stripe) And see how the metal on the door distorts, especially when you
see
>>a reflection in it you can see how crappy it looks. And guess what! Go to
>>the botom of that same gap (bottom of "c" stripe) and notice that the
fender
>>doesnt line up there either!
>>
KDavis0247
Come on, man. I apologized, and now you want to take a shot at me calling me
cheap. I'll restrain from perpetuating meaningless mud-slinging. I mean, I've
taken a step back, and I basically don't care what you think or say about the
'99's. OK? But consider how you might have reacted if shots were being taken
at SN95's that way.
>yes, maybe I insulted the car. You seem to feel the need to insult the
>owners....
My mistake, I humbly apologize AGAIN. Can we find some common ground on other
Mustang related stuff and agree or disagree with some measure of class? I know
where you stand on the '99's. Not put very eloquently, but hey, fine. I
respect you opinion. I'll be more liberal in my judgement of what constitutes
a cheap shot, and refrain from any owner attacks. It was out of character.
>I like many different year mustangs for specific reasons. I loved my 68 and
So do I, and I think my previous posts have indicated such. I find something
good about all Mustang generations, even the Mustang II's (used to own a Silver
'77 Ghia sedan w/ a 302).
>my 400hp90LX, however, the body panels never lined up as poorly as the new
>99s.
OK, you think the body panels line up poorly and won't be purchasing a '99
anytime soon. We've established that I think. I've already tossed my 2 cents
on the '99 looks, and casted my consumer vote by buying one, and am quite
content with that decision. I'll attempt to put an end to our barbed
exchanges. Sorry I ragged on your '94. In all honesty, I'm sure that if I saw
it in person, I'd appreciate it a lot. Peace...
KDavis0247
Ummmm, yeah. I don't get the connection between me, '99 body panels and
4x4's. On the other hand, I don't really care to know anyway.
BB is WAR
Hey now, my '95 has "functional" side scoops! :)
KDavis0247
>Classy...
>
Nope, at the time it was just YOU. You pissed me off with your picky '99
criticisms, so I got out of line. Hope you accept apologies documented in
other posts.
I like modified cars. I really like the '99 Roush a lot (it's my Windows
wallpaper at this time). Saleens and Steeda mods are beautiful. Shelbys are
beautiful. And body modification is as good of a hobby as any. AND I'm sure
your '94 looks sweet. Just thought I caught you in a little contradiction
since you modified the cues for the '94 / '95 models for whatever reason
: ).
>BTW, Im sure after you read that you were out in your garage whimpering
>about how shitty your car looks.
Yeah, like your incredible opinion really rates that high. Puh-leasssse.......
Still think it's the nicest Stang to come out since '65-'71, and plan to give
it the company of a '69 Mach 1 someday, complete w/ stock fake side and hood
scoops (unless the shaker is already there), AND even if it's a late assembly
line shift car w/ a misaligned deck in the rear...
Enjoy your '94. Peace.
Wolfman's Brotha
- how many of you have one? How many of you have put any miles on one and how
many of you spent any time w/ them other than the pictures in Road and Track or
some magazine like that? It's not a rip on anyone, if you have then more power to
you...
The fit and finish thread is a little overblown...My 99 GT is perfect. Maybe
there were some shitty ones off the line but mine is perfect. Not a thread, not a
scratch not a blemmish in the paint. This is my first American car and I can't be
happier w/ it.
Hey, it's a Mustang when it comes down to it...
Happy motoring all!!!
Josh
--
1999 Mustang GT
Cobra2442
>Anyway, everyone is entitled to their opinion on the '99. In time, I think
>it
>will get it's proper due.
>
>Seriously, have you squared off your Cobra against any '99 GT's, or were you
>just talking shit, knowing what your Ford quoted HP is?
>
>'99 Chrome yellow Mustang GT
>
I saw a 99 GT last night, but I was driving my Geo Tracker unfortunatley. It
didn't have any plates on it and it was a silver grey color, but it did sound
nice. I've yet to go up against any other Mustangs at all so I will be
definitley looking forward to the meeting with a 99 GT..
Rexford Dundon
1997 Green Cobra Coupe #2442
<a href="http://members.aol.com/cobra2442/auto/index.htm">My Cobra Page
Marc Warden
color from the girl-friend's hair color and the gf will spot that across
a dark room...
MarcW. (Who simply has to stop petting long haired dogs...)
Mike Burmeister wrote:
> <snip>
> I think you're right about the general public not noticing the
> differences between the '99 and the '94-'98. I just went an auto show
> in Raleigh, NC tonight with a (female) friend of mine. When we got to
> the Ford section, my eye was immediately drawn to the green '99 GT
> convertible on the big revolving platform. As we're admiring it, I
> comment on the new body and she says "new body? What are you talking
> about? It looks the same". I had to point out all of the changes to
> her. I'm not singling her out because she's a woman, either.
<snip>
Kevin Winters
been told they were applied between april 1989 and april 1990. I was
recently trying to buy an 89-93 model and every Bozo with an 89 that had
the badges were just a little to proud of that emblem. I am not sure but
believe there is a good chance that if someone crunched the numbers the
'89s without the badges are probably rarer than the ones with. . . .so much
for limited production
Michelle Smyth
stick up your ass! how is it you know exactly what the 99 COBRA looks like?
the magazine was a prototype and the PRODUCTION models are not out yet! oh
yes, i know they are based on the std model which you have seen, but the
point still remains, YOU ARE COMMENTING ON HOW SOMETHING LOOKS WHEN YOU
HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN ONE!
chill...
Jeff Foster wrote in message ...
>Man, guess you showed me... Hey, I could get used to the body style of the
>99s, but the fit and finish is simply HORRIBLE.
>I wanted to like the 99s, but Im NOT going to buy the 99 IRS Cobra I wanted
>to buy just because it looks cheap as hell when the body panels dont even
>line up. I wishj I didnt have to bash them. I was looking forward to
owning
>one, so you could imagine that it bothers me even more that they are messed
>up looking.
>
>What are YOU going to do to sruce up your body panels??? LOL Mr. 4X4!
>
>
>>-Ken
>>'99 Chrome yellow Mustang GT
>>
tal...@bellsouth.net
the pleasure of driving Mustangs and Camaros from almost every
generation, and I can tell you that the 99GT has it hooked up RIGHT.
It has looks, (I happen to LOVE), and fit and finish is way above what
Ford has been doing in the past, and performance is improved over ALL
of the recent past GTs. So maybe it's not quite up to a Z28-level, but
you have to admit that it is a BLAST driving this car. It drives very
solid, sounds awesome, and straightens curvy roads effortlessly. What
else could you expect from a $22,000 vehicle?
bbi...@aol.com (BB is WAR) wrote:
><<I'm Sorry, but the new mustangs are ugly>>
>
>I like the SN-95 design a lot more than the '99s, but I'd take a '99 over the
>SN-95 anyday. Why? Performance.
>
>
Bruce Musgrove
few times. But this...... I don't know
kevin wrote in message <36D76451...@ibm.net>...
>driving an 89 sedan wouldn't have anything to do with your taste would it?
;-)
Bruce Musgrove
It just doesn't blend well to my view. The trunk looks like its been
chopped a little short.
CinsCobra wrote in message <19990227091228...@ng60.aol.com>...
>Mr. Fun...
>I have to agree...I hated the 99's when they first came out..but Im
starting to
>like them...dont get mewrong..I hate the rear, the side scoops and the hood
>scopps..but other then that there ok.I love the new interior in the GT's.
>
>just thought Id put my 2cents in
>
>Cindy
>96 Mystic Cobra
Bruce Musgrove
Michael J. Stepanek wrote in message <36D890...@vt.edu>...
snip
>I think this is going to be a common trend for '99. I'm not sure if
>this is what Ford intended, but, according to my impression of things,
>there seems to be a great division here. It seems that the '99 are
>atracting a lot of the older folks (due to the 60/70's cues and the
>comercials)
Well, My first car was a 68 fastback (I wished I still had that beast) and
that's part of what bothers me about the 99's. I don't mind ford tryting to
play on its traditions, but the new 99 just looks like a poor knockoff of
the 60 styling instead of a new more aerodynamic (that almost broke the
spell checker) version
Bruce Musgrove
Scott383 wrote in message <19990227014311.12162.00000840@ng-<snip>
>
>So do I, an '89 LX notchback. Not exactly the pinnacle of automotive
styling,
>but that isn't why I bought it.
Nothing wrong with that style. I think its the best of the mustang V8 after
the 60's But then again I drive a black 89 LX sedan
>snip
>I think that Ford's "New Edge" styling works well when it is applied to a
new
>design, but it doesn't look that great when applied to the rounded aero
styling
>that was trendy a few years ago. It looks "forced", kinda like some
marketing
>geniuses decided that *all* Ford redesigns would use New Edge, no matter
how
>poorly it integrated into the rest of the car.
>Scott Williams
>
>'89 Mustang LX 5.0, 14.29 @ 97
>'72 Camaro 383, 12.92 @ 108
Thank You. You said what I was trying to say in my first rant. The styling
looks like someone at ford who has no touch with the public or reality,
decided he wanted these features and told the designer to find a way to
stick them on the car or find a new job.
Bruce Musgrove
not blend well. They look like aftermarket generics that were just bent and
twisted to fit.
The inward slanting lights are one of the things that just makes my eyes
hurt to look at it.
KDavis0247 wrote in message
<19990227072656...@ng-fx1.aol.com>...
>I'll add an opinion, though the thread is a borderline flame. Besides, I
just
>love my '99 GT.
>
>You have to give Ford credit for giving the Mustang a new look and
significant
>performance improvements for the same price point as the previous year.
I'm
>sure a lot of '85-'93 owners weren't enamored with the SN95's when they
first
>came out (though I appreciate many things about each of those generations).
If
>the styling was stagnant, the Mustangs sales would go the way of the Camaro
and
>Firebird.
>
>This Mustang body looks hot. If you like performing mods, there is great
>potential in producing a serious "in your face" muscle car Mustang. Go to
the
>Roush site and check out the '99 Roush Mustang GT. The aftermarket hasn't
even
>tapped into the '99's potential yet.
>
>As for the silly scoops, they've always been non functional. Even muscle
>classics like the '69 Mach 1 (stock fake hood scoop, fake side scoops) and
as
Bruce Musgrove
flame war).
When I bough my 89, ford was claiming thatn the 90 is the 25 anniversary
car. That means the Mustang first year must have been 65. BUTT we all no
that Mustangs were produced and titled as 64's with 64 part numbers and
VINS.
Then Ford has the 30th anniversary hupla in 94 (wait a minute, If it was
first produced in 65, 94 would be the 29th anniversary right ????????:0)
And on and on and on and on and on
th
Jim Thomas wrote in message <36D84B79...@polaris.clarkson.edu>...
>I'm suprised this hasn't been mentioned yet but what does everyone think of
the
>side badges beeing the same on the 99 GT's and base models. I am not a fan
of
>that. The fact that is says 35th Anniversary is nice but if I had a GT I
would
>not want the guy next to me to not know it. He would know after the light
turns
>green, however. Is there any way to tell if the car is a GT from the front
or
>sides. I know the back says GT and it has duel exhasts.
>
>Jim
>
PKetelaar
looking than the 96-98's, but for some reason i like the new 99 taillights too.
Keep the horizontals to show its a true 5.0
patrick
Patrick J. Ketelaar PKet...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/pketelaar/
Spreadman
<< I can't take it anymore. I have to say it. They are UGLY.
(SNIP)
The Cobra's are the only ones that come close as long as you don't see the
back end. >>
Man, I forget to check my NG for a couple of days and look what
happens....dang! That was one LONG thread....made my head hurt. =) I have
always thought that of the late model stangs (84-present) the late 80's/early
90's FOX body-LX notchback was the most attractive of the bunch. It was the
"recess bully coming to kick your ass" styling that I loved. I test drove the
SN95 when it made it's appearance and was not impressed with the look. The
rounded edges just didn't get the heart racing. But when Ford unveiled the 99,
it looked as though they combined the FOX body with the SN95 to give the
Mustang that "gimme your lunch money!" look again.
Did Ford do right with the 99 design? Well, opinion appears to be divided.
All I know is, it got my heart racing enough to buy one. And I can't wait to
drive it off the lot. Cheers.
Scotty
'97 Ford Explorer Sport (FOR SALE)
'99 Yellow Mustang GT (coming March 1st)
RAMFM since 11/98
KDavis0247
inset tri-verti-bar tail lights and honeycomb paneling between the tail lights
even though I prefer the protruding tri-verti-bar tail lights and smooth
paneling between the tail lights on the '69. There are probably a lot of folks
in the NG that disagree, but I think those cues that define a given year should
be left alone, or what you have is a clone. I wouldn't feel right driving a
car that would be perceived incorrectly by year, or model in the case of GT's,
bosses, Cobra's, etc.
Especially in the case of the '94-'95, since the engine changed, I would
proudly show the horizontal taillights as a clear indication that "I am a
5.0!!!". Like you said, 5.0 pride, not a '96-'98 cloner.
-Ken
'99 Chrome yellow Mustang GT
><<(LOL, though I do agree that the 96
>taillights are an improvement over the horizontal).>>
>
>That brings up another good point...
>
>In everyone's opinion, should 94-95 GT owners keep the horizontal tail lights
>as a tell-tale sign of having a 5.0? The '96+ tail lights may look better in
>some people's eyes, but I fell like I should keep the horizontals just to
>show
>that I have a 5.0, but that's just me. Almost like 5.0 pride, you know?
>
>
Cartman
go out and buy a '98 Cobra :)
The GT has grown on me since then and they look much better in person. Still
don't like the '99 Cobra but I have yet to see one in person. There are tons
of GTs at dealers here in S. California.
Live close to Saleen. I REALLY like what they did with the '99 mustangs! '99
Saleens look really sharp but kinda ricy. If it wasn't for the side scoop
(don't like the way it kinda droops down) I might consider getting one.
Im really hoping Ford takes the cobra up a notch in 2002 (or is it 2004 now)
to compete head on with the Vete. I know a lot of people are wanting it to
stay affordable but as Fords flag ship performance car the Cobra should be
competing with the likes of Vetes and Vipers from the factory.
My next car will be either a vete for viper if I don't like whats available
from ford in 2002.
-1998 SVT Mustang Cobra Convertible.
wes...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7b92il$g63$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Gotta agree with you. Although from the rear it screamed Honda Prelude. I
>considered waiting on a 99 Cobra but even with IRS and a few more ponies, I
>couldn't be happy with New Edge design. Maybe in a few years....
>
>Greg
>1998 Cobra convertible, #2698 of 3480
>Laser Red Tinted Clearcoat, Black Top, Black Leather
>SCOA# 1409
>
>In article <7b7mru$ihg$1...@news-1.news.gte.net>,
> "Bruce Musgrove" <katkom*nospam*@gte.net> wrote:
>> I can't take it anymore. I have to say it. They are UGLY.
>>
>> The first one I saw I saw it from the rear and I thought it was a
Mercedes .
>> Took me awhile to figure out where the Mercedes symbol was!!!!
>>
>> Drove by a new black one on the garage today and I thoughto myself,
"that's
>> a nice looking Honda" When I relized it was a Mustang I cried. It just
>> doesn't have that Muscle car feel to me.
>>
>> The Cobra's are the only ones that come close as long as you don't see
the
>> back end.
>>
>> bruce
>> 89 sedan
>>
>>
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
KDavis0247
But they observe '64 as the birth year of the Mustang for anniversary
editions. Your '89 was on the 25th anniversary. For whatever reason, Ford
dropped the ball and didn't commemorate the anniversary w/ a special edition
Mustang.
-Ken
'99 Chrome yellow Mustang GT
>That brings up another ppint (please don't take this as a troll to start a
Ron Mighton
it new on the trunk and on the dash saying 25th Anniversary. I would have
expected something a little more, but Oh Well. I sold it and bought a 97
GT, and seem to enjoy it just as much.
KDavis0247 wrote in message
<19990228013134...@ng-ca1.aol.com>...
Ron Mighton
one when my lease is up in June. But, according to Ford Canada's Web site,
MSRP on a loaded GT is around $33,000 and a Convertable Cobra is a whopping
$42,000!!! Then add 14% tax on top of that too. I remember when I bought my
LX 5.0 new in 89 for $15,000 incl taxes. When the lease is up in June on my
car, I am going to buy it as a New 99 is a little out of budget, and I am
still undecided if I really like them. A picture may tell a thousand words,
but seeing it in person says it all. I am going to check out one as soon as
it hits the showroom here.
tal...@bellsouth.net wrote in message
<36d8c24f...@news.atl.bellsouth.net>...
Tino
plastic scoops and things make it look so cheap. I am sad to say that my '86
will be the last Ford product I will purchase. My next will be some kind of
3 series BMW. It may not have the power but it does almost everything very
well.
Bruce Musgrove wrote in message <7b7mru$ihg$1...@news-1.news.gte.net>...
NoOption5L
(KDavis0247) writes:
>I'll add an opinion, though the thread is a borderline flame. Besides, I
>just love my '99 GT.
>You have to give Ford credit for giving the Mustang a new look and significant
>performance improvements for the same price point as the previous year.
Yes, I agree! At least the '99 GT is a runner. Something that could not be
said about the GTs of last 5 model years. If fact the '99 GT is one of the
fastest, if not the fastest, GT ever built.
>I'm sure a lot of '85-'93 owners weren't enamored with the SN95's when they
first
>came out
Yep, many said it looked like a Celica....a 4X4.....too fat....
>(though I appreciate many things about each of those generations).
>If the styling was stagnant, the Mustangs sales would go the way of the Camaro
>and Firebird.
I like to look at something new. The previous design was four years old...it
was time for a change.
>This Mustang body looks hot. If you like performing mods, there is great
>potential in producing a serious "in your face" muscle car Mustang.
I think it looks like a cross between the Fox and the previous Mustang.
>Go to the Roush site and check out the '99 Roush Mustang GT. The aftermarket
>hasn't even tapped into the '99's potential yet.
I can't wait to see the magazine build-ups on the '99 GTs. Something that was
rarely (never) done with the previous 4.6L GTs.
>As for the silly scoops, they've always been non functional. Even muscle
>classics like the '69 Mach 1 (stock fake hood scoop, fake side scoops) and as
>far as i know, only the Shelby's had functional brake vents (and ram air/hood
>scoops). There were the shaker scoop OPTIONS for all those 351's and they
>came standard with CJ's and Bosses. Please don't rag on the fake scoops
>within the context of a Mustang discussion, 'cause in the Mustang heritage
>they're nothing new.
Exactly.
I wish they'd stop using the non-function scoops and just make a deep body line
in the side.
>Personally, I think the '99 is the most muscular looking Mustang to come out
>since the '65-'71 era (and actually they are the most muscular mustangs since
>the '65-'71 era) . There are a number of nice references to the 1st
>generation in the styling.
Give it time. In a few years everyone will be saying how much better the '99s
look compared to the previous generation.
>Ford did a nice job of stroking 35 extra HP to give Mustang some added
>performance that all Mustang lovers have been hoping for.
The '99 GT is the fastest non-Cobra Mustang ever and people are complaining
about it's new styling and scoops. What's wrong with these people. If you
just want something pretty buy a picture; if you want performance buy a car
that can dip into the 13s factory stock.
>Handling is better than the Camaro, and competitive w/ the 'vette. Getting
>clocked at flat 14's in the quarter, bone stock, is nothing short of
impressive.
Again, the '99 GT is as fast as a '93, '96-'97 Cobras and '87-'88 SD LXs. Ford
finally builds a fast GT again and people are complaining...? I think these
people need to putt around in an old '65 six cylinder coupe.
>>they took an SN95 Stang and carved up all of the curved lines and made them
>>straight.
I like the flatter panals.
>Let me see. The hood is completely different. New valance. Taillights are
>verti-tri-bars that slant inward. The rear bumper is flatter and protrudes
>lower. The C molding and vent is wider and not as deep, like the old
>Mustangs. I don't see the "carved up" thing.
I don't either. Have you seen the pictures of the special edition Mustang. I
wish it had a few extra ponys more than the standard GT, but the car looks very
nice.
>>Plus a lot of little details bug me:
>>-No passenger door look cylinder,
>Uhhh... What is a door look cylinder?
They're bitching about missing a stupid little key hole on the passenger door.
Big F*^$#*ing deal!
>>-Taillights off an 81 Cougar
>I thought it they came from a Mercedes?!?
They'll be even more pissed when that's all they'll see after racing a '99 GT.
>>-Those silly scoops!
>See above (fake scoops have ALWAYS been around, though I admit, functional >is
very cool).
The previous generation had the same fake scoops.
Patrick
'93 Cobra (track numbers will be posted soon)
'95 Accord EX (faster than a LX...an Accord LX)
'87 5 liter 5 speed LX - SOLD! (14.2 @ 98 stock, 13.8 @ 101 lightly modded)
NoOption5L
(Cobra2442) writes:
>hmmm a 99 GT with 260 hp.. too bad it's still slower than my stock 97... :-)
What numbers did you record with your stock '97 Cobra? I'll bet that new '99
GT will be all over you at the track.
Cobra2442
>you obviously fail to realize is that you expose what a pathetic little twit
>you are comparing your Cobra to a GT. Care to run your stock '97 Cobra
>against
>a stock '99 Cobra?
Hey Ken, if you remember in your post you were the one knocking on the earlier
GT's... saying that your 99 is faster than a 94 with 96+ tail lights and a
flowmaster exhaust... Well it sounds like your the one who is a POSER and
dosn't like Mustangs... I've yet to see a 99 GT on the road, seen alot of the
V-6 versions and they are growing on me a little bit.. not much though...
rze...@my-dejanews.com
> is entitled to their own opinion. Don't take these things too personal.
> I'm on your side, but I'm not going to start any wars over looks. We
> all know looks are way too subjective to be fighting about.
>
> BTW, the '99 Cobra will probably only be a tiny bit faster than a '98.
> Be careful about who you insult.
>
I agree. Looks are subjective and everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
I hated the looks of the new Mustang when I first saw the photos but my
opinion has softened once I've spent some time looking at the car in person.
I still am not wild about the front but I LOVE the side view. The back has
even begun to grow on me too. Have you heard one yet ? They have a much more
aggressive bark than the sn95 GT. The performance is nothing to sneeze at
either (5.4 secs. 60MPH, 14.0 1/4). I love the new seats ! From the extra 2+
inches of leg room (I'm 6'2" and squeeze into my 98' Cobra) to the very nice
embroidered logo of either the Mustang or Cobra. I do not like the hood, the
coral around the mustang, or the egg-crate. The front also looks very narrow
to me ~ kind of like the front of a Honda Accord.
Overall: I'd buy one. I might spend a little $$$ fixing the hood and front
view but I think that FORD is listening to us and trying to provide the right
blend of improvements to keep the enthusiast happy and retain the top of the
muscle- car market share that they have captured over he past few years. Hit
the SVT web-site and tell them what you like and dislike. I think we can make
a difference and be a part of the future of this car if we provide our
thoughts, ideas, and insights in a clear and positive manner.
Regards,
~Rich
1998 Cobra Conv.
PS. In response to Ken's flame comparing a 97/98 cobra to the 1999 Cobra in a
1/4 run, in the March 1999 issue of MM&FF, the best time they got on the 1/4
in the stock 1999 COBRA was 13.72. The best time they got in the stock 1998
COBRA was 13.70.
rze...@my-dejanews.com
mste...@vt.edu wrote:
> >-Ken
> >'99 Chrome yellow Mustang GT
>
> Calm down Ken... you're gonna be making enemies around here. Everybody
> is entitled to their own opinion. Don't take these things too personal.
> I'm on your side, but I'm not going to start any wars over looks. We
> all know looks are way too subjective to be fighting about.
>
> BTW, the '99 Cobra will probably only be a tiny bit faster than a '98.
> Be careful about who you insult.
>
If this posts more than 1 time, I apologize. The stinking newgroup is having
problems tonight due to increased volume (infrastructure).
Jeff Foster
panel thing is because I so looked forward to buying one. I wanted the xtra
HP!! :) Ill keep looking, maybe as the year progresses, some refinements
will be made?? Does that happen?
--
Jeff
94 GT Coupe Blue - Black Leather
Eibach - TR Motorsport 17"
S281 Wing
Saleen 96+ TailLights
Flowmaster Cat-back Rest is stock.
KDavis0247 wrote in message
<19990228111002...@ng-ce1.aol.com>...
>>Indeed, you seem to be cheap. Everything I said about the 99s is true.
and
>
>Come on, man. I apologized, and now you want to take a shot at me calling
me
>cheap. I'll restrain from perpetuating meaningless mud-slinging. I mean,
I've
>taken a step back, and I basically don't care what you think or say about
the
>'99's. OK? But consider how you might have reacted if shots were being
taken
>at SN95's that way.
>
>>yes, maybe I insulted the car. You seem to feel the need to insult the
>>owners....
>
>My mistake, I humbly apologize AGAIN. Can we find some common ground on
other
>Mustang related stuff and agree or disagree with some measure of class? I
know
>where you stand on the '99's. Not put very eloquently, but hey, fine. I
>respect you opinion. I'll be more liberal in my judgement of what
constitutes
>a cheap shot, and refrain from any owner attacks. It was out of character.
>
>>I like many different year mustangs for specific reasons. I loved my 68
and
>
>So do I, and I think my previous posts have indicated such. I find
something
>good about all Mustang generations, even the Mustang II's (used to own a
Silver
>'77 Ghia sedan w/ a 302).
>
>>my 400hp90LX, however, the body panels never lined up as poorly as the new
>>99s.
>
>OK, you think the body panels line up poorly and won't be purchasing a '99
>anytime soon. We've established that I think. I've already tossed my 2
cents
>on the '99 looks, and casted my consumer vote by buying one, and am quite
>content with that decision. I'll attempt to put an end to our barbed
>exchanges. Sorry I ragged on your '94. In all honesty, I'm sure that if I
saw
>it in person, I'd appreciate it a lot. Peace...
Jeff Foster
--
Jeff
94 GT Coupe Blue - Black Leather
Eibach - TR Motorsport 17"
S281 Wing
Saleen 96+ TailLights
Flowmaster Cat-back Rest is stock.
Michelle Smyth wrote in message <36d9...@news1.us.ibm.net>...
>i must say this thread is quite amusing! but dude, you seem to have a
large
>stick up your ass! how is it you know exactly what the 99 COBRA looks
like?
>the magazine was a prototype and the PRODUCTION models are not out yet! oh
>yes, i know they are based on the std model which you have seen, but the
>point still remains, YOU ARE COMMENTING ON HOW SOMETHING LOOKS WHEN YOU
>HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN ONE!
>
>chill...
>
>Jeff Foster wrote in message ...
>>Man, guess you showed me... Hey, I could get used to the body style of the
>>99s, but the fit and finish is simply HORRIBLE.
>>I wanted to like the 99s, but Im NOT going to buy the 99 IRS Cobra I
wanted
>>to buy just because it looks cheap as hell when the body panels dont even
>>line up. I wishj I didnt have to bash them. I was looking forward to
>owning
>>one, so you could imagine that it bothers me even more that they are
messed
>>up looking.
>>
>>What are YOU going to do to sruce up your body panels??? LOL Mr. 4X4!
>>
>>
>>--
>>Jeff
>>94 GT Coupe Blue - Black Leather
>>Eibach - TR Motorsport 17"
>>S281 Wing
>>Saleen 96+ TailLights
>>Flowmaster Cat-back Rest is stock.
>>
>>KDavis0247 wrote in message
>><19990227084050...@ng-ft1.aol.com>...
>>>I guess your so in love with the looks of your '94 that you had to spruce
>>it up
>>>w/ an S281 wing and Saleen 96+ TailLights (LOL, though I do agree that
the
>>96
>>>taillights are an improvement over the horizontal). Personally, I would
>>keep
>>>something like taillights, a giveaway on the year, as stock. So, you
sort
>>of
>>>created a '96 clone.
>>>
>>>What's the matter, stock appearances didn't set right with you? With all
>>the
>>>COSMETIC improvements, your Flowmaster Cat-backs aren't going to be
enough
>>to
>>>keep you from getting smoked by an ugly '99 GT (wish it could be me).
You
>>>should be an expert on the rear view of the '99 by now. Well I guess I'm
>>done
>>>with you (llloserrr) and your assnine thread.
>>>
>>>-Ken
>>>'99 Chrome yellow Mustang GT
>>>
>>>Jeff Foster said in a rather feminine tone:
>>>>
>>>>Under the sideview mirrors the gap between the fender and the dorr
>>>>increases... ICK! Its not just in the picture, ive seen it on the lot.
>>>>Follow that gap just a few inches below the mirror (to the top of the
"c"
>>>>stripe) And see how the metal on the door distorts, especially when you
>>see
>>>>a reflection in it you can see how crappy it looks. And guess what! Go
>to
>>>>the botom of that same gap (bottom of "c" stripe) and notice that the
>>fender
>>>>doesnt line up there either!
>>>>
Jeff Foster
bit high (a little too much wheel well for my taste anyways).
--
Jeff
94 GT Coupe Blue - Black Leather
Eibach - TR Motorsport 17"
S281 Wing
Saleen 96+ TailLights
Flowmaster Cat-back Rest is stock.
KDavis0247 wrote in message
<19990228111525...@ng-ce1.aol.com>...
>>What are YOU going to do to sruce up your body panels??? LOL Mr. 4X4!
>
>Ummmm, yeah. I don't get the connection between me, '99 body panels and
>4x4's. On the other hand, I don't really care to know anyway.
Jeff Foster
--
Jeff
94 GT Coupe Blue - Black Leather
Eibach - TR Motorsport 17"
S281 Wing
Saleen 96+ TailLights
Flowmaster Cat-back Rest is stock.
KDavis0247 wrote in message
<19990228113340...@ng-ce1.aol.com>...
>>Also, did you just call anyone that changes their cars cosmetics a
loser????
>>Classy...
>>
>
>Nope, at the time it was just YOU. You pissed me off with your picky '99
>criticisms, so I got out of line. Hope you accept apologies documented in
>other posts.
>
>I like modified cars. I really like the '99 Roush a lot (it's my Windows
>wallpaper at this time). Saleens and Steeda mods are beautiful. Shelbys
are
>beautiful. And body modification is as good of a hobby as any. AND I'm
sure
>your '94 looks sweet. Just thought I caught you in a little contradiction
>since you modified the cues for the '94 / '95 models for whatever reason
>: ).
>
>>BTW, Im sure after you read that you were out in your garage whimpering
>>about how shitty your car looks.
>
>Yeah, like your incredible opinion really rates that high.
Puh-leasssse.......
> Still think it's the nicest Stang to come out since '65-'71, and plan to
give
>it the company of a '69 Mach 1 someday, complete w/ stock fake side and
hood
>scoops (unless the shaker is already there), AND even if it's a late
assembly
>line shift car w/ a misaligned deck in the rear...
>
>Enjoy your '94. Peace.
Jeff Foster
panel gap more at the top of the door than it is at the bottom? If you did
that crazy ball bearing test on the TV commercials, would it be even all the
way down? (front fender to door seam is what Im talking about)
I really want to know if its just been messed up on the 5 or 6 GTs that Ive
seen out there (and every one of 20+ 6 cylinders) or if its like that with
all of them.
Thanks
Jeff
94 GT Coupe Blue - Black Leather
Eibach - TR Motorsport 17"
S281 Wing
Saleen 96+ TailLights
Flowmaster Cat-back Rest is stock.
Wolfman's Brotha wrote in message <36D92C55...@stny.lrun.com>...
>I have to ask all those that have had a negative attitude towards the 99
Mustangs
>- how many of you have one? How many of you have put any miles on one and
how
>many of you spent any time w/ them other than the pictures in Road and
Track or
>some magazine like that? It's not a rip on anyone, if you have then more
power to
>you...
>
>The fit and finish thread is a little overblown...My 99 GT is perfect.
Maybe
>there were some shitty ones off the line but mine is perfect. Not a
thread, not a
>scratch not a blemmish in the paint. This is my first American car and I
can't be
>happier w/ it.
>
>Hey, it's a Mustang when it comes down to it...
>
>Happy motoring all!!!
>
>Josh
>--
>1999 Mustang GT
>
KDavis0247
The MM&FF article did not run a real '99 Cobra. It was a an independent effort
to assemble the '99 Cobras which are just starting to be assembled by Job One.
Based on the types of changes made (and if the Ford quoted HP is correct), a
stock '99 Cobra should be faster than a '98, if only slightly. Just my
opinion. Not a flame...
-Ken
'99 Chrome yellow Mustang GT
KDavis0247
painted surface of the door. Where the fender comes to a point, the gap between
it and the door increases slightly, which is what you've observed. The mirror
is mounted and styled in such a way that it's base continues the line set by
the front fender. Dunno if it would pass the proverbial ball bearing test. I
never held a car up to that particular styling standard or benchmark of
perfection (not a flame).
-Ken
99 Chrome yellow Mustang GT
>Seriously, Im curious... Look in front of the side mirror. Is the body
TFrog93
<ji...@jimmyz.net> writes:
>The '87-93 owners are clearly a different breed of Mustang owner. Ford
>aimed at a different audience with the '94+ cars, and it shows in this NG
>sometimes.
A woman's hairstyle changes many times in her life. The way a man has his hair
in high school may well be the way it looks when he dies.
I am the owner of a '93 LX hatchback, having previously owned an almost
identical '84 LX hatchback. When the 1979 restyle was introduced, I absolutely
hated it. THIS was no Mustang, it was a Fairmont in disguise. The Mustangs I
was used to had much more style, more sweeping lines. The '79 was just too
radical a departure for me. I bought a 1978 Mustang II hatchback.
The 1994 restyle was just too much of a radical difference for me. Too round,
too big in the rear, and a tick slower to boot. I ran out and bought my '93
leftover. But those new models are growing on me, and the '99 actually begins
to fix my particular problems with that design. The rear is slimmer, trimmer
and the rear bumper valance just put some aftermarket bumper makers out of
business. The car is much more aggressive, much more..."hip", if you will.
Yep, it's definitely calling to me.
Probably when the next redesign comes out (2005?), I'll buy a 2004 leftover,
'cause the new design won't thrill me and I'll want to stick with the Mustang I
know...
No, Ford's not aiming for a different market. It's all about change, and how
readily you accept it. Me, I'm a little slow coming around, but I eventually
learn to appreciate what Ford has done. Other than the body panels, it's still
the same car: long hood hiding a V8, two doors, short deck, and a whole lot of
fun for the money.
Yep. Still a Mustang.
dwight
TFrog93
(KDavis0247) writes:
>This NG is starting to lose it's appeal. This is supposed to be a NG for
>Mustang appreciation, not TRASHY comments and divisive mud-slinging
>on other Stangs because you don't like the styling. Differences of opinion
>are OK, but jaded trash talk is for losers and POSER Mustang lovers.
Where DO you get your impressions?
In all the years I've been here, there has always been trashy comments and
divisive mud-slinging on ALL Mustangs. Now, if you'd like to change the rules,
you can put it up for debate and then vote on an RAMFM charter change.
But I gotta tell ya... Odds are, you're a moron and your '99 is a piece of
fake Jap crap posing as a real Mustang.
(Let me know if that was too trashy or divisive...)
dwight
98GT
> That brings up another good point...
>
> In everyone's opinion, should 94-95 GT owners keep the horizontal tail lights
> as a tell-tale sign of having a 5.0? The '96+ tail lights may look better in
> some people's eyes, but I fell like I should keep the horizontals just to show
> that I have a 5.0, but that's just me. Almost like 5.0 pride, you know?
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
BB is WAR
[bitch slap]
Vibrant Red (Bright-Ass Red aka Arrest-Me Red) '95 5.0 GT AOD-E
-Flowmaster 3 Chamber Force II Catback System
-K&N FilterCharger
-No Air Silencer
-Coming in 1 week, 3.55s
Mustangs: Helping people have sex for over 35 years.
KDavis0247
Oh, is this the part where I'm supposed to kiss your 10 year RAMFM ring, and
plead for clemency?
-Ken
Mister
one in person. It's over-stylized, like they're trying extra hard to make
it look cool, it just looks tacky. Also It seems to sit higher than the
already top heavy SN95 model, screaming for lowering springs and 18" tires.
The performance on the GT models is definitely an improvement, and the IRS
on the Cobra will be nice (although early indications are that the 99 Cobra
isn't any faster than the 98).
The 99 is definitely not a bad looking car, much better than the Camero or
Firebird, but I do think it's a step down from the SN95.
-Dan Henley
98 Cobra Convt.
TFrog93 wrote in message <19990301065708...@ngol06.aol.com>...
Randy
says...
>
>>This Mustang body looks hot. If you like performing mods, there is great
>>potential in producing a serious "in your face" muscle car Mustang.
>
>I think it looks like a cross between the Fox and the previous Mustang.
>
Thats exactly what I've thought since the first time I saw one.
I like it better then the SN95.
>
>>within the context of a Mustang discussion, 'cause in the Mustang heritage
>>they're nothing new.
>
>Exactly.
>
>I wish they'd stop using the non-function scoops and just make a deep body
line
>in the side.
>
What would be wrong with a factory cowl hood?
Not a standout like the Cobra R but maybe a 1 1/2" or 2" cowl.
Would that shut-up the complainers?
--
Randy Cook
1989 LX 5.0
"Tonight it ain't right, I'm gonna need me a week.
But I'll be back for you jack and I'll let the machine speak."
REMOVE * FROM E-MAIL ADDRESS TO RESPOND.
Jeff Foster
--
Jeff
94 GT Coupe Blue - Black Leather
Eibach - TR Motorsport 17"
S281 Wing
Saleen 96+ TailLights
Flowmaster Cat-back Rest is stock.
KDavis0247 wrote in message <19990301045356...@ng31.aol.com>...
Cobra2442
>>I think it looks like a cross between the Fox and the previous Mustang.
>>
>
>Thats exactly what I've thought since the first time I saw one.
>I like it better then the SN95.
It is a SN95 just a little different body panels on it than the 94-98...
Dagon7
I saw a picture of the 99 with, saleens or steedas ground effects(I can't
remember which one). IT looked COOL!
It helps alot, rounds out the car and makes the car look less overweight, and
more low to the ground.
Ryan
' 89 IROC-Z