Talk:Ford Mustang (fifth generation)

Automobiles High‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sports Car Racing

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports Car Racing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sports Car Racing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sports Car RacingWikipedia:WikiProject Sports Car RacingTemplate:WikiProject Sports Car RacingSports Car Racing articles

GT500 handling charcateristics

Coupe: 70 mph slalom-Muscle Mustangs & FF 0.92g

Vert: 68.2mph slalom-Edmunds Inside Line 0.89g

Yep terrible handling. The GT500 has got to be the best handling american car made right now other than the vette which is a two seat sportscar made of plastic or obviously the Viper. By those numbers it certainly runs with the 2-door Bimmers and whatever M-B calls a GT car. One other thing: you should see 2007 Lightning Lap by the same mag, that has the base GT500 running round the tougher 4.2 Grand Course at Virginia International Raceway matching the time of the 997 Turbo and the R8, beating everything by BMW not to mention being a few ticks back of a GT3 911. I say mention the 2007 Lightning Lap.

This full length para on how bad the car sucks at handling is usual car mag bitchfest, lacking credibility other than one POV. CJ DUB (talk) 03:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS 12.9s?...now I know they are joking. Most everybody else can get 12.6 out of these cars. CJ DUB (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph could certainly be shortened (already done), but as it is it discusses what seems to be a common thread reviews for the GT500. We don't need to argue about the statistics, what matters is that at least 3 major reviewers pointed out the nose heavy handling. WP:NPOV says that all major verifiable view points should be discussed and given weight in relation to their prevalence. Since the handling issue is a prevalent point of view in reliable sources, it should not be dismissed. --Leivick (talk) 08:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mr. Leivick. In retrospect, adding an opposing argument to the Car and Driver article would have been prudent to avoid any perceived bias, but I think removing the full quote achieves this all the same (I knew it seemed wordy). My objective in the first place though was to point out the nose-heavy situation of the GT500 without citing numerous sources because I didn't want it to seem like a bunch of publications were ganging up on the GT500 over one thing and disregarding its other merits. That said, the GT500 is obviously a high performing car and pointing out one of its few deficiencies shouldn't do much to diminish this. And even though the effect of its weight distribution on its performance may be a subjective and/or small issue overall, the fact of the matter is that it could have been better, which gets down to the fundamental point of Car and Driver's, or anyone elses criticism. It extends beyond the scope of the article, but if the GT500 had a weight distribution more in step with that of a Mustang GT, such as through using an aluminum block over an iron one (ballpark, about a 85lb difference), no one would have had anything to complain about. --MN12Fan (talk) 09:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The supposed nose heavy issue is pointless to mention, really. The car is what it is. The "its sucky" or "insert hyperbole here" headlines from a car rag industry in heavy decline, frankly have little relevance to the car itself, and yes I mean those reliable <cough> automobile manufacturer corporation funded <cough> sources you mention. A number of magzines hate the mustang interior. Tell me, is that also relevant to put in this wiki article?

It is a high performance car. Period. The nose weight is apparently a none issue on the test track anyway, since the car pounds BMWs sports cars with their "perfect" 50/50 ratio, and hangs with the 997 Turbo an industry benchmark. CJ DUB (talk) 02:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism from major automotive publications belongs in article. Just because you disagree doesn't mean it should not be included. As for your question about Mustang interiors, the answer is yes. If multiple published sources complain about the interior, which they certainly do, then it should also be included in the Mustang article. I feel like you are letting your opinions get in the way of creating a balanced and factual article. --Leivick (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Made some comments based on C&D's "other" article that featured a GT500. CJ DUB (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC) http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/features_classic_cars/the_lightning_lap_2007_feature+page-8.html[reply]

There you go. Personally, I think Car and Driver wants to like the GT500 but can't help looking for something wrong with it and preferring a foreign car in its place. However, numbers are numbers. Still, I think it would be cool for the GT500 to have an aluminum block (maybe possible still?).--MN12Fan (talk) 00:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me too, good working with you on this. --Leivick (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make a point about acceleration numbers and other performance figures regarding the Mustang, in response to whoever briefly changed the 0-60 MPH acceleration time for the example Mustang V6 Convertible, it must be taken into account the exact options in the car and the driving conditions present at the time of the test. A 0-60 MPH acceleration time of 6.9 seconds is possible for a 2005-2009 Mustang V6, but not all V6 Mustangs are created equal. A base Mustang V6 Coupe with a manual transmission, a good driver, and ideal driving conditions may well be able to accelerate in the mid six-second 0-60 MPH range but there are variables that can easily affect this. In particular, likely explaining Motor Trend's "0-60 MPH in 7.3 seconds" V6 Mustang, heavier weight can substantially diminish performance. Adding the weight of an automatic transmission and convertible top (at least 200lbs between both), along with the potentially less efficient power delivery of an automatic against a manual, does not make for the highest performance combination possible. So if a car is faster or slower than it "should" be, take into account how it is equipped, if specified. --MN12Fan (talk) 09:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Ive got some high quality images at user:neroyak/photos, if you wan to use them. --Neroyak (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mustang in movies and media

Perhaps this particular section should be deleted, as it seems random for this article. Aside from the now-canceled Knight Rider, the Mustang has made numerous other media appearances such as Transformers and Reno 911!: Miami, plus a couple of Top Gear episodes. Any thoughts on this? -Areaseven (talk) 06:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iacocca

meh. there was some crazy speculation about the Iacocca Mustang in this article. It's not a Ford product, rather a car modified in the aftermarket. Ford didn't officially call it a 2009 1/2. When the other guy made those edits, they definitely had not all been sold, let alone resold. I edited that stuff out and left the facts. --71.248.92.74 (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

News release tag

I added the news release tag because it really does read like a news release, and in fact some of the citations from the section are actually Ford news releases. It's hard to write an article about a car's stats without sounding like a press release, but things like reviews could be added. Any thoughts? NYyankees51 (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mustang GT 0-60 time listed at 6.1 seconds?

Sorry, but whoever put 6.1 seconds as the fifth generation Mustang's 0-60 time is absolutely wrong. Unless the driver is absolutely unskilled or there is something wrong with the vehicle, the time should be much better. Ford reports the stock 0-60 time to be 5.2 seconds, with times as low as 4.9 seconds reported by reputable sites. Considering the link on that information points to a "dead link," I think someone needs to fix this.

A few links to prove my point:

http://www.automotive.com/2006/43/ford/mustang/reviews/driving-impressions/index.html (This link reports 5.5 seconds)

http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2006-ford-mustang-1.htm (This link reports 5.2 seconds) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.111.50.128 (talk) 01:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2006 boss 427 ford mustang

             Hello my name is Michael and I am trying to find out more information on my car.

I bought this car two years ago at a ford dealership and they didnt provide enough information. I do know that it is very simaler to the GT however I cant find anything about it. If anybody can direct me in the right direction i would highly appreciate it

                                  Thank you
                                           Michael  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.181.21 (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 24 external links on Ford Mustang (fifth generation). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Ford Mustang (fifth generation). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]