I know we look for more obscure cars on the Cool Wall but I thought that in tribute to Top Gear having a GT on the wall that we should also do the same...






Link to official tech specs for Mustang GT.

Cool. It may not be a great car, but it's still a cool car. Retro, it's a Mustang, etc.

Frozen: It's a 'Stang!!

Uncool. I agree that it's good performance for the money, but it's fugly.

Solid rear end...same chassis as a family saloon...ugly looks (for those of you who voted "frozen" or "cool" see one in person...you may change your tune.

and what is with the friggin "multi colored dash..."

I want to say uncool because the concept was so much more gorgeous but I don't know. On the fence for the moment.

I'm between cool and frozen.

On one hand, it's retro, and that isn't frozen, but it's retro done so damn WELL! Mechanically it's hard to fault and its performance for the money is extraordinary. Hell, I'd say it's the best interior Ford has made since...ever.

BTW, I voted for cool on this one....not exactly what everyone wants because it is American but ultimately much more the bulldog-type car that Americans love (large engine, RWD) at a low cost. Plus, it looks gorgeous....

Frozen. Who can pass by the great value and sleek looks?

Cool - mainly for the rarity factor in this country

Frozen. Retro and perfomance

And you know there's going to be a huge aftermarket supply for it too.

what country are you in?

its finally gone on a diet it should have yeas ago and regained some of its lost sexyness. but it still isnt what the original mustangs were so only a cool.

Frozen! Stang as it should be..

Just breaks into cool in stock mode, but the GTR and modified versions I've seen are Frozen

I really like the new Mustang... They have given it the style and the "x-factor" back. However the styling, compared to the conceptcar it was a bit of a letdown, sadly. Which puts it back to cool, or else it would have been frozen...

It's the first Mustang I've ever fell in love with and that means a lot. Frozen! I don't care if it does have American handling and a live rear axle, I still love it.

what are we saying to the americans here

"Give us a car with a dated chassis...a huge engine with very little horsepower...suspension from a tractor, please this is what we want!"

come on people...make a stand here and don't buy that thing until it catches up to the 21st century

He's from the motherland.

I think the concept looked better up front, but the production car looks better at the back.

I don't know how much they are charging in other countries for the 'Stang but the GT is inexpensive for a US car with the HP it produces. I will agree about the live axle thing but I'm not too broken up about how much HP it makes.

Also, in your first post you wrote as if many of us haven't seen one or something but many of us have seen one in person months before it was released due to car shows & such. And your criticism of it being on a sedan chassis is pointless considering it is not the exact chassis (it is a shortened version of the LS platform)...that is like criticizing Nissan for building the 350Z on the FM platform (which it shares with the FX SUV).

i do think it was a shit idea to build the 350Z on the FM platform...i think it was a shit idea to use an old renault engine...and i think the 350Z is a shit car made for the american market...

every road test of it outside the states calls it an uncomfortable, loud, poorly thoughtout car...with a bunk engine. People in canada who boutght one just as they came out are having trouble selling them for 2/3 of their worth...i saw one at a reasonable price sit for 4 months, befor the owner gave up trying to sell it.

sports cars should have sports car chassis...or they dont work very well

and in reference to the mustang: in person...it looks like a huge hunk of plastic...and the interior looks as if it was lifted from "Battle Star Galactica" only with worse plastics and fake chrome

ALL of your points are wrong

every single one of them

the chassis is 6 years old from the lincolin LS TRUE

the GT has 4.7L engine making 300BHP, BMW's 4.7L engine makes 507..."very little horsepower from a huge engine...TRUE

Tractors have solid rear axles TRUE

All 3 statements are true

Enjoy your fox platform mustangs...the rest of the world will buy quality

the Mustangs chassis is BASED off the LS's 6 year old platform. It isn't the same. Bing5500 pointed this out to you.

in the world of Front Engine RWD V8's, 4.6L (NOT 4.7) isn't "a huge" engine. It has the potential the far exceed the 507hp of BMW's 4.7L, and the funny part is that when the aftermarket opens up the the 3-valve head, it will be quite easy to out-horsepower that same BMW engine. And since when is 300 horsepower considered "very little horsepower" from a sub $30k sports car?

Yes Tractors have solid rear axles. They also have Engines and Transmissions. Does this mean we should do away with those too? Maybe

You are a retard

OK, you just showed your true colors with that comment about the Fox platform...this new one isn't even based on that platform (you even said in your previous post that it is the LS modified platform). And I already said that they should have had fully independent suspension...plus, like it was already mentioned, 300hp is a good figure for a sub $30k USD car.

Another thing: I am so sick of people talking about how such a large engine should produce more horsepower. You mentioned a BMW engine but is that 4.7L available on any Bimmer in the Mustang's price range? Hell, name one V8 RWD coupe in the Mustang's price range with that much horsepower...can't, can you? Yea, they can get more out of that engine but at the price they are offering I will still take the 300hp easily...

EDIT: BTW, usually the rule of the Cool Wall is to not argue about votes because everyone has their own opinion but since you broke out with the rhetoric about showing us Americans the light I had to answer...

leif ... are u non american/canadian ??

We are talking about mustangs, not 350zs. You use the word shit too much. Get over it. I really do not like the mustang i saw in person. It's the ugliest car on the market.

wow...im all alone...

the fox platform comment was directed at his love of fox platform mustangs ( he has 2) and i never said a 4.7L BMW cost the same as a $30,000 mustange...only that 300BHP from 4.7L is small compared to what the europeans are putting out...come one people...if you get this mad from my posts...read it...then go calm down...and come back...read it again and reply properly...

when ford says the "based it on the LS platform" this is a nice way to say "we changed the engine mounts...we changed the suspension pick up points...and shortend it a bit..." thats all...its still the same platform!

and finnaly i am a Canadian, one who owns many cars...has worked in garages and as a race mechanic...and who has driven everything from a freakin chrysler mini van to a rally car (in anger, in northern ontario)...I also was a profesonal driver to put my self through biochemistry

I want one person to tell me why i should buy a mustang with out using the word "BUT" or making any justifications...if anyone can flat out tell me why i should buy an american car...with out bringing price into the equasion (because it is irrelevant for some of us) or with out making any justifications...then i will concede...say you are right an leave this subject alone onece and for all...I doubt you can do it!

So basically you want a PERFECT car.

why don't you tell us what the PERFECT car is...??? Then try and find one under $30k.

The point is, its stupid not to take price into consideration, and its stupid to expect a car that is 100% flawless. The main point is, you need to open your mind.

perfect car under $30,000


2000 Porsche Boxster
1993 Porsche 911 993
1980's ferrari 308 GTS
1995 Mazda RX7
subaru WRX STi
Mitsu EVO VIII
Mazdaspeed Miata


do you want me to go on...or is that enough cars...?
Your the one who wont move into the 21st century...perhaps you are the ignorant one?

2000 Porsche Boxster
1993 Porsche 911 993

Oh ya, these are perfect until you need to haul something around other than your handbag. Not to mention the little things that will be broken in a 12 year old car. Plus, something mechanical goes wrong in your 12 year old porsche...good luck with that repair bill.


1980's ferrari 308 GTS

Oh ya, scheduled maintenance is a breeze with these. ALL cars from the 80's are PERFECT... no exceptions (sarcasm)


1995 Mazda RX7

Once again you are comparing a 10 year old car with a BRAND NEW ONE. Go look at the two side by side, maybe you'll see the difference in paint, interior wear, and mechanical reliability. Oh, have you heard of TORQUE.


subaru WRX STi
Mitsu EVO VIII

Both retail over $30k im pretty sure


Mazdaspeed Miata

Great for the family. Great for looking gay. Its more of a toy than anything. Try to haul something around, some people actually do.


-Im sure i could have picked better arguements, but if you think those cars are flawless, you have a serious problem.

Hey Porsche is widely known for having blastproof build quality... They never break down... And Leif, Porsche made no car named GT3 in 93, the designation GT3 first appeared in 99. The Model you are thinking about must be the Carrera RS 3,8

I know Ferraris arent known for particulary good build quality, but meh... That should not be your concern when you buy a Ferrari, you dont drive that every day...

eric...

Porsche 911 993...not GT3...993 was the last of the air cooled 911 phased out in 98 to make way for the new water cooled 996

and people...we are talking about sports cars here...trunk space and family practicality are irrelevant to this discussion...

and by the way...how many trunks does the mustang have...last time i counted the boxter had 2...both fairly large...

furthermore i know that the cars i mentioned are all old...however i would still rather have one of those than a 2005 mustang...or any mustang for that matter...I have an 83 RX-7 I wouldn't trade for a mustang

(and I did cheat on the STi...according to current exchange rates it is $36,000 USD all told...This summer it was $30,000 before your dollar sunk)

and any ferrari (except the mundial) is perfect...no exceptions...(except the mundial)

Despite my reservations when I first saw pics of this car, I have grown to like... no, love it.

Ice cold!

A perfect fusion of retro looks and modern design.
Ford has also done a great job with improvong the way the car brakes and handles.

I made a post in another part of the forum...one made for debate (compare and contrast)...if you want to continue this please do it there with me...as i dont think this part of the site is for this kind of stuff.

2005 Mustang debate cont.

frozen

Frozen. Now, I apologize for bringing up an old topic, but I'm using Leif's three-month-old posts to explain my vote, not primarily for the sake of arguing with him. It's just that explaining my beliefs in question-and-answer format is easier than just writing a paragraph praising the Mustang GT. Plus, bumps are okay on the cool wall.

300 hp RWD V8, manual transmission, seating for four...starting at $25,140. No other car on the market offers that. And that's just the objective stuff. Subjectively, the Mustang looks GREAT and has that unique pushrod V8 character.


Unless you just love the character of Mustangs, you can't justify buying one without price entering the equation. But that's why millionaires drive around in Aston-Martins and Ferraris instead of Mustangs. The Mustang's primary markets are working class and middle class people...the sort of people for whom money does not grow on trees, and thus must always be part of the decision-making process.


The number of trunks doesn't matter...it's their size. The EPA rates the Mustang as having 12.3 cubic feet of cargo room; the Porsche Boxster is rated at 9.5 cubic feet. The Boxster also makes 80% of the horsepower of the Mustang GT, 62% of the torque, seats two people instead of four, and costs 79% more. That's not to say that a Boxster isn't a great car for someone with the financial means to own multiple cars, and who doesn't have an addiction to the smell of burning tires. But the Mustang's virtues are undeniable when you look at what it gives you for the price.

You used the word "but" mitlov...but well stated anyway.

Not in the paragraph answering that question I didn't

uncool. i thought they had potential until i drove a GT...it's very boring for a "muscle car". too smooth, and the interior has the feel of a minivan in terms of character. i like f bodies because it feels like you're sitting in a cockpit, and low to the ground. mustangs interiors are obviously designed for women.

that, and i think they're ugly.

lmao please don't say the boxster has a lot of trunk space. it could have 2000 trunks...each the size of a shot glass, and it wouldn't do one bit of good. you can't add up the total trunk volume if it has multiple trunks and act like it's an accurate representation of what it can actually store.

It gets a cool. Would have been frozen if it was less retro, and less fatter than the early 5.0's.

You will find no pushrods in a mustang motor. Overhead cam for the win.

I stand corrected. I swore that my copy of Consumer Guide Car & Truck Test said that the V6 Mustang was SOHC, and that the V8 Mustang was OHV. But I looked back and both are SOHC.

I don't know how I voted on this one but since my reply earlier in the thread I've been in my mom's convertible V6 and it was really cool. Since my typical recipe for success is a good V8 in the front and drive wheels in the back the GT should be nothing less than Frozen for me.

At first I thought the car looked dated before it even came out. I didn't think it had the same retro cool as the Thunderbird or the Mini, but then it grew on me, and I give it a solid cool. In fact, I'll have a black GT please with red leather...

What really bugs me about the Mustang are the seats. This is a fantastic looking muscle car. Why did not Ford have the european division build them proper sports seats?

The saleen and Roush mustangs are awesome