I'm surprised that the mustang represents anything to you. I always thought that most mustangs were under-powered poser cars that were more wanna-be. I guess I grew up in the 90's where a mustang is what you got if you wanted to pay too much for a rental car. Or this? please... smoking cigarettes was cooler. Now classics... that's a different thing. I guess it represents peak America "good old days" what ever the hell that is. But it also shows that you understand your cars at least a little bit and you have a love for them. A lot of those older cars wont run without constant TLC so you need to know a little bit about cars. Its not really just a car at that point its more of a hobby.
a status symbol? 
Lord Mercy, you're putting out a skewed image of the Mustang. This is a car, like the Corvette, with over 50 years of very rich history. Your pictures, while they support your argument, are far from impartial. That's like saying “Oh. Picasso was a painter? Here's a picture of a blank canvas. La dee daa. Big fucking deal.” First of all . . . Both cars you just showed, the Fox Body and the early SN-95 were underpowered. EVERYTHING from that era was underpowered. The Malaise era was real and it wasn't until the late '80s and early '90s that we started to see a change from that. The production cars sucked. Yes. What people could do with them though and are still doing with them? That's fucking magical. Furthermore, people love the engines in those cars and in return, those engines love being modded. The 302 Windsor V8 found in the Fox Body? Easy to mod. The Modular 4.6L V8 in the SN-95 and the first half of the S-197 series? Easy to mod. The Modular 5.0 in the second half of the S-197 series and the current S-550 series? Fucking same. There are after market parts from body kits to suspension to dress ups to really make your car unique. Don't believe me? Go shopping for a bit this morning. People take, what you've shown, and turn them into works of art like pretty much every damn thing you see here. They're beautiful. They're fast and powerful. They're points of personal pride to their owners. In short, they're fucking amazing. I'm not even gonna get into how the classic Mustangs are fucking iconic. For good fucking reason too. They're stylish. They're sexy. They're timeless. Now, I know what you're gonna say next because I hear this argument all the time. “Mustangs are only good for going in straight lines.” 1. So what? Drag racing is awesome enough as it is so that's good enough. 2. That's true for the majority of American cars up until recently and while that's not defendable in and of itself, at least the Mustang wasn't alone in this regard. 3. If you want a Mustang that handles well, there are suspension mods for that. The car is a blank canvas, make it personal. “Up until the S-197 all the previous Mustangs were based on commuter cars platforms.” So? That shit is auto industry standard and it's still going on today. The Audi TT is on the same platform as the VW Golf. The Mazda RX-8 has the same underpinnings as the Miata. Subaru's WRX and STI are built off of the Impreza and on and on it goes. The S-197 and the S-550 though? Built from the ground up. Their own dedicated platforms. And both cars, while flawed, ARE FUCKING AMAZING. So you know what? Everyone and anyone can fucking shit on the Mustang all day long. Be all bourgeoisie about your car choices and engines and all that. I don't give a fuck. All cars have their flaws and all cars have their strong points. Good luck trying to afford a fucking McLaren and using it as a daily driver. Me? I'm gonna continue to love my FR-S, because it's amazing fun despite its lack of power. I'm gonna continue to oggle Mustangs and Camaros cause they're amazing. I'm gonna chat it up with the guy who has the MG Midget about how his car left him stranded on the side of the road for the third time this year and reaffirm that despite its flaws, it's still awesome. I'm gonna continue to love cars that people like to poo on like El Caminos and Rancheros, Hyundai Tiburons and Genesis (because hey, at least Hyundai is trying), VW Vans and Unimogs, and Pintos and Vegas and Gremlins and everything else out there. Fuck, shit, I know a guy who has a Kia Optima that he's making his own because he loves the lines and you know what? I fucking support him too because it's his and it makes him so damn happy. I'm gonna love peoples' cars whether they're purely stock or highly modified, whether they're classic American Muscle or European Roadsters or a 20 year old Chevy S10 that's been repainted, filled to the brim with speakers, and slammed to the ground. Just remember this. Cars are amazing. Period. Cars are a point of passion for so many people. Period. When you diss on a car, whether it's a Honda Civic or a Ford Mustang or a Porsche 911, you're not only insulting the car, but you're actively dismissing the opinion of the people who love those cars, and even worse, marginalizing countless man hours of hard work from researchers and engineers to designers and factory workers. I've heard that Gale Halderman is one of the nicest, approachable guys in the car world. 50 bucks says if you told him your opinion on the legacy of a car that he was there for from the start, you'd probably break his heart. I'm done talking cars today. Cause you all broke mine.I always thought that most mustangs were under-powered poser cars that were more wanna-be. I guess I grew up in the 90's where a mustang is what you got if you wanted to pay too much for a rental car.
1) Righteous burn. 2) One man's history is another man's notoriety. 3) Your choice to take our disdain for the mustang personally is exactly that - your choice. The fox body mustang was and is a piece of shit. However, to say everything that era was shit is revisionist; GM was at a suckitude nadir back then and Dodge was bleedin' on fire. Nobody has said jack about your Scion - and most of the opinions here have been solicited, not volunteered. And by all means - continue loving every car ever made. But I'm here to tell ya - I've forgotten more about cars than most people will ever know. I have the wet weight of five engines committed to memory. I can wire the plugs for four different V-8s without having to consult a manual. AND THERE ARE BAD CARS IN THE WORLD. My first car was a '66 Falcon Futura. It was my grandmother's. She got it because the '66 Mustang convertible she bought was so uncomfortable that she traded it back after a week. It was like this, only in a wretched spidercracked maroon with cream top. It was an execrable piece of shit. It had a three-speed column shift. It had four wheel drum brakes. Its handling was not so different from a bass boat's. And I regretted, every day, that it was not a '66 Mustang convertible. HOWEVER Another kid in my class had a '66 Mustang convertible and that piece-of-shit Falcon was faster and handled better. it was a unibody, for one. It weighed about 800 lbs less for another. But both cars had their asses handed to them - straight, twisties or braking - by my got-it-free ex-lawn-ornament RX-4. Maybe they're better now. They can't be worse. I acknowledge all the wonderfulness of the fact that Ford is making modern V8s and Chevy isn't. There might be a point in my life where I build an AC Cobra replica, in which case a gutted mustang is where things start. That'd be all right. But just 'cuz you like 'em doesn't mean I have to. I've worked on 'em, I've driven 'em, and I've suffered under Christian Walters' insufferable douchebaggery enough that i'd rather drive a Trabant than a Mustang (his best buddy had a '67 Camaro - fuck them both). Know what? The earliest 'vettes were fuggly, too, and I don't care if that would hurt Zora Duntov's feelings. How many times do you think Ferruchio's rigs were compared to tractors?
1) Not really. It was overly aggressive and uncalled for. I'm sorry snoodog for unloading on you. 2) I don't know how fair that statement is, especially in regards to cars. Every company has their smudges. I don't think it's fair to dog on the Mustang and Corvette for their poorer models, just because the nameplate has lasted for so long. It wouldn't be fair to compare an original Dodge Dart to the Dodge Neon for example, even though they fill the same niche. Likewise, the Mustang II and the S-550 are completely different creatures. 3) In all honesty,y response was a culmination of this entire thread. I'm not blaming you or anything, cause you're just sharing your opinion or knowledge, but it brings a man down a bit to keep on hearing the things that he and his friends love suck for one reason or another. As for bringing up my car, I bring it up not be a use anyone else criticized it, which they're free to do, but to just illustrate that I understand the limits to even my own car.
Hey you like what you like, I think its cool that you have a passion for mustangs even though I cant understand what they have to offer of any other competitively priced car. Personally I have no love for cars that base their popularity on the idea of the car as opposed the the actual implementation. To me the mustang was more about pretending to be a car with lots of power and failing to account for the fact that a car actually has to turn, and the actual power has to be divided out by weight. The in 96 baseline mustang with a 150hp engine had a worse power to weight ratio than than a Miata, and the 217hp version had less power to weight than a MR2-T, or the E36 all of which handle a lot better. Add in the disappointing build quality of mid 90s American cars and you get a real lackluster package. I dont really think its fair that kleinbl00 keeps comparing mustangs to cars in completely separate price points. I like to look at the car as more of a complete package: (Power, weight, reliability )/ (Weight and price). But like I said about I dont think the mustang was a good contender using those metrics. But feel free to argue otherwise If you have a good reason why you think it was Id like to hear it.
So power to weight ratio, like raw horsepower and peak torque, engine displacement, etc. is only one facet of the car. I tried looking up the E36 for you, but to be honest, BMW's and Mercede's numbering convention confuses me to no end, so I don't even know if I'd pick the right model if I tried. If you know though, here's where I'm getting my numbers. The '96 Mazda Miata had a 0-60 of 8.6 seconds and a quarter mile of 16.4 seconds. The '96 Mustang GT had a 0-60 of 6.7 seconds and a quarter mile of 15.1 seconds. The Mister Two Turbo had a 0-60 of 6.1 seconds and a quarter mile of 14.7 seconds. It spanked the crap out of both of them. The MR2 was also in a much higher price bracket and had a damn near suicidal snap oversteer. The thing is raw numbers only tell half the story. Those 0-60 and quarter mile times are just as dependent on suspension setups and geering ratios as they are raw horsepower and torque. Each car drives completely different. That's good. That's amazing. That's the spice of life. That's a huge reason why I love cars. When you actually compare Mustangs to other cars in their price point, they have features that make them competetive. They really do. If I were to compare an '85 Fox Body with cars near their price range, I'd probably favor it over the Camaro and the Firebird for the body styling alone. Four eyed Fox Bodies are sexy. But I wouldn't just be comparing it to Camaros and Firebirds, I'd also compare it against the Toyota Celica and favor the Mustang for the horsepower of the engine. I'd compare it to the MR2 and once again favor the Mustang for the price. I'd compare it to the RX7 and figure that I probably couldn't afford the RX7 either. I'd also compare it to the Dodge Charger and Daytona and know that Chrylser's cars at the time were a bit of a joke so I'd say “No thanks. I wish I could afford that Conquest though.” I'd also compare it with the Monte Carlo SS and Chevrolet El Camino. Hell, if I was lucky enough to know what the Mk II GTI was back then, I'd even compare it to that, because back then VW at least somewhat had their act together. All of those cars I listed? They have their pluses and their minuses, their gives and their takes, and I would be happy to have any one of those cars. We could obviously do the same thing with the mid '90s cars, swapping out some models for others, but you get the general idea. Let's talk about my personal experience car hunting. Let's fast forward about 20 years though and go to me in 2012, test driving cars left and right and why the Ford Mustang GT was my second choice. I test drove, over the course of 2 years, almost 30 new and used cars searching for the one, before I pulled the trigger on my FR-S. I'll make a short list of some of the modern cars I drove . . . Dodge Challenger R/T – Pros Looks great. Sounds great. Drives nice and smooth on the interstate. Cons Handles like a boat. Felt massive. Cost way too much. Chrysler has horrible reliability. Chevrolet Camaro - Pros Sounds great. Lots of power. Cons Looks boring outside and in. Car felt claustrophobic. VW GTI - Pros Interior was nice. Peppy as fuck. Small and unassuming. Cons Expensive. Questionable reliability. The VW scene is kind of full of not so nice people sometimes. Hyundai Veloster - Pros It looks pretty cool. Cons Pretty much everything else. It was really disapointing. At this point, you get the idea. By the end, it came down to the Mazda Miata, the FR-S, and the Ford Mustang GT. I pretty much nixed the Miata for the fact that it was a convertible, even though I loved the car. The Mustang? Looked great. Sounded AMAZING. Drove relatively smoothly. It has a cache to the nameplate. It was a relatively nice car. On the downside, it didn't handle nearly as well as the Miata or the FR-S and it actually felt like it had too much power. When I test drove the FR-S though, it was pretty much immediate love. The interior is small in a way that feels snug without feeling claustrophobic. It handles turns amazing well. It looks absolutely gorgeous from certain angles (though paradoxically, from some angles it looks kind of plain). It's great on gas. It's just a nice, fun car. It does have its flaws though. The paint is thin as fuck and at this point, my paint is all but jacked up. The interior is kind of cheap and chintsy. It's so low to the ground, even stock, that sometimes I do have problems with really steep drive ways. People will ask me with a straight face why I didn't get a Mustang or WRX instead. Seriously. In all honesty, it came down to an emotional coin flip. There are some days where I wake up in the morning, get in my car, and wish I had gone with the Mustang instead. It really is a nice car for its price point, power, handling, and all. The thing about the cheap plastic though? Whether we're talking my car or the Mustang or the Camaro or the WRX, I don't think that in and of itself is a fair complaint. All of the money for these cars are paying for the drive train, the suspension, the stuff that makes these cars performance cars. Compared to cars like Fortes, Civics, Cruzes, and such, they're actually pretty passable. When kleinbl00 was joking about the tupperware fantastic interior of the Corvette, that's a bit more of a valid criticism, just because of the Corvette's price point. People will compare Corvettes to the car offerings of companies such as Porsche and Jaguar. The thing is though, the people who want Corvettes aren't the kind of people who want Porsches and Jaguars. They're more often than not, blue collar Americans. Know what they demand? Reliability over a hundred thousand miles and reasonable service prices. Guess what the Corvette has that Porsche and Jaguar don't?
The corvette is kind of in the same category. For its price point its likely 1.5 of 2x the car of its neighboring competitors. It really competes quite well with exotics. Sonsidering its usually around 1/2 the price that makes its a pretty darn good deal. I tried looking up the E36 for you
Thats the M3 of that era. In my opinion that's the last M3 BMW built that wasn't a piece of shit for reliability. After that reliability ate a big one and now they are so shitty that maintenance costs will be half the cost of ownership after the first 3 years (Other half being depreciation). Still i'm sure its probably 2x as much as the GT i didnt realize it was so cheap at 18k The '96 Mustang GT had a 0-60 of 6.7
I did a bit more research and the GT had a MSRP of 17.6k which was almost half of the 29k MSRP of the MR2. So I guess you are right its only real Japanese competitor was the 240SX at a 8.8 0-60. I never really though of the mustang as a value car but looks back at the numbers is really does make sense at that price point. just because of the Corvette's price point
Genuine question. Where are you able to find the prices? I've been looking for pricing charts like the 0-60 website for a while now and haven't been able to find one. Price ranges really are a useful tool when comparing cars. As for mid '90s Japanese competitors, I'd be willing to throw the Celica in there against the Mustang too. They're all different kinds of cars, but they're all performance cars in similar price ranges,
Kind of all over the place i think MSN autos might work just kind of a pain to use. https://books.google.com/books?id=g-76CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA298&lpg=PA298&dq=1996mustangGToriginalprice&source=bl&ots=kaDO5UWxqO&sig=0fmDoP9Lskr4DdxofEwH80Upy_E&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKr-Ws9vvMAhVCwGMKHUNEBWM4FBDoAQgzMAQ#v=onepage&q=1996%20mustang%20GT%20original%20price&f=false For mustang prices MR2 http://www.iseecars.com/car/1995-toyota-mr2 240SX http://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/nissan/240-sx/1996/sd-AAbL9Q3
You can also check Toyota MR2 prices here https://carsdesk.com/Search-Cars/Make-Toyota/Model-MR2 And Nissan 240SX here https://carsdesk.com/nissan-240sx-for-sale Definetely a good choice