Talk:Ford Mustang/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Generation split?

I'm wondering if these articles are large enough to be split into separate generations (1st through 5th). Each one seems to be long enough to warrant its own page; plus, the ease of finding information would increase and more could be added without being concerned with page length. The similar car Chevrolet Camaro has the article split up by generations, since it is the flagship pony car for Chevrolet. And since the Mustang is the flagship pony car for Ford, its likely that it will have around as much information available about it. So what do you think, split into generations and leave a one-paragraph summary of changes for that generation on this page? Zchris87v 02:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

1971 generation

If 1971 was total redesign, why isn't that the 2nd generation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.88.212.189 (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

because the car used the same basic falcon platform that the first 65 mustang used. then the 74-78 were the same. the 79-2004 were all the same basic fox platform although mustang people normally split them into Fox(79-93) Sn95(94-98) and new edge(99-2004)then the new s197 platform(2005-2010) and the restyled 2011+ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.157.170.147 (talk) 06:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a glaring inconsistency within Wikipedia about dividing up Ford products into "generations". Here at the Mustang article the definition of first generation runs from 1964 to 1973, and is based on the cars sharing the same chassis. Looking at a 73' Mustang and comparing it to a 65' would make one question that argument, as they look like, are sized different, and seem to be totally separate vehicles. But no matter.

OK.

Over at the Ford F-Series truck article they play by different rules. For example, the 1965 to 1979 trucks share the same chassis, but are divided into three generations. Then the 1980 to 1996 trucks, which also share the same chassis, are also divided into three separate generations. It's quite obvious that the 80'-96' "generations" are merely facelifts, but no matter.

Meanwhile the full size Ford article divides up "generations" sometimes by only two years. Often noting that these generational divides are nothing more than a "mild update". (i.e.styling)

Then back here at the Mustang article the 94-04' cars are said to the be fourth generation, even though they are based on the same Fox platform that the 79'-93' cars were built on. Oh albeit Ford "updated" the platform/chassis, so that's why we are told they are different than the preceding cars. One could argue that they are simply major facelifts.

Anyway, the point of all this is that this article plays by different rules for defining a car generation, both with other Ford articles and even within itself.

Personally I think the F-Series truck article makes more sense. To the general public when a vehicle looks significantly different it is a "new" design. It also seems that car makers play by this rule as well. I've read all the footnotes and comments here that essentially say that since the 65'-73' used the same basic chassis they are the same generation, that such and such a book says this as well, and that's it well known in the enthusiast community etc. Well fine, then the F-Series article needs to be redone, and the 94'-04' cars need to be rolled into the previous generation as well. And someone needs to seriously clean up the full size Ford article, instead of fifteen generations there will probably be six or seven.

Or the first generation Mustang article needs to be separated into four separate generations. That would make more sense and be more consistent with how other Ford products are described, as well as how the public experienced the cars.

My two cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcheath (talk • contribs) 03:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Pic Image:4WP.jpg

This car is not a GT. If one looks at the side markings is clearly denotes the running horse which is indicative of the V6 Mustang. This car did not come with clear GT fog lamps nor did the GT for that matter. Also, the headlight in this car are the clear Cobra not the standard Mustang or GT. Car pics per policy must be stock or with factory options for model year per policy Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions Lastly the car is in front of a residency which policy also says to avoid. 206.125.176.3 (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a load of BS. I have reread all Wikiproject autos image standards and it does not fail any of them. It is bone stock, and although it is pictured on a redestiantal street, only images that show addresses or license plates are banned. This image meets all of our standards. I think you are making this up because you want a picture of your car to represent the article. Karrmann (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Karrmann I'm surprised at your behavior. If you read the policy the car clearly breaks the following rule sets:

• 5 Images of complete cars in good original condition should be used whenever possible—they should include all original parts and represent vehicles in reasonably good condition. Cars should be reasonably clean in most cases.
• 7 Pictures of private cars should be avoided especially if they display private home addresses, license plates, or people unless they are of high quality or extreme rarity. License plates, if any, should be blurred out of respect. If you are photographing your own vehicle, you should remove the front plate.
• 11 Avoid taking pictures of heavily customized cars as they may not be very representative of the vehicles most common appearance, unless the text in context to the picture is dealing with the customization of the vehicle.

I think you need to re-read: Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions also 206.125.176.3 is right this card is not a GT; maybe a GT wannabe but it's no GT.

NathanielPoe (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Karrmann, that the old red 4th gen pic is fine, but replaced the image with what I hope is less controversial. The image I found from the commons is not as high quality as the old red 4th gen pic as it has other vehicles in it, but is certainly far better than the 4WP image in question. I would have no problem switching back if others feel it would be better. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the striped GT. It seems clear, meets criteria, and shows the optional stripe talked about in the article. NathanielPoe (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It has custom rims and only the front end is really visible unless you supersize the pic. Karrmann (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There is more wrong with it then that. 1st the blackout background is a very odd look and doesn't fit with any of the other images on the page. 2nd the lighting is not very even it looks like it was taken indoors with poor light and a flash. 3rd it is a convertable, not the most representative model. So for all these reasons I see no need to use the image in question. The old red 4th gen pic was the best as far as I could tell, but apparently the head lights are not stock. Even if that is true I still think it is a better image overall the stripped GT pic. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. Although that stripe package is factory, it's not common (I've seen exactly one on the roads) so it's not a particularly good representation of the SN95, and as a photograph that picture has issues, namely the lack of any background. A residential street isn't the ideal backdrop but I know other articles have even used photos of cars in parking lots - I would say that it's better than a blacked-out background. Ayocee (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The background is odd; so what? No policy against odd backgrounds better then someone's house. The lighting is fine and the car can be seen as well as any other pic in the article. So it's a convertible; so what. There should a picture of a convertible since there aren't any; are convertibles forbidden now? I've but the red mustang back up so there's no reason to remove the GT. 206.125.176.3 (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree. To replace an image, a superior one must be offered. The white convertible pic is not as good as the red V6 for all of the reasons that have been laid out. It is as simple as that. A picture of a convertible would be great, but it wont be this one, it has too many problems. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Your statements are all POV. Again, nothing specially wrong with the GT pic other then "You don't like it".206.125.176.3 (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

POV is not an argument for image selection. WP:NPOV refers to article content being neutral. Of course my feeling that the white image is inferior is my "point of view" what else is it going to be. We can judge quality for ourselves no one else is going to do it for us. Currently myself, Epa316, Ayocee, Banray, and Karmann have all expressed there feeling that the red v6 is. Assuming that the IP and NathanialPoe are separate users that makes 5 to 2 which should be enough to not change the image. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

None of Daniel J. Levick's statements are POV. As stated per Wikipedia guidelines, the original image (the red car) meets all of the criteria for being a good image, while the white car breaks nearly all of the criteria for being a good image. Therefore, by standard logic, the red car is a better image to use on Wikipedia - it is a stock car that is not customized and shows what the car looked like from the factory. I own a Chevrolet S-10 Blazer which is fairly modified (different tires, brushguard, lighting) but it is still the stock ride height and shows the factory "Tahoe" package offered in 1992. On the page is a plain white Blazer, shown with a minimal suspension drop. The reason this is better is because even though it doesn't show "accessories" or "customization", it shows the basic design of the vehicle without anything else. Most of the S-10 Blazers that left the factory looked like the white one, obviously higher up. Not saying my car is rare, but I would not add a picture of it simply because it is not stock. This also shouldn't be a competition of any sorts to show off a car. I also own a Chevrolet Camaro and even though it is the most commonly-produced color for the third generation, I will not put an image of my vehicle up because of the paint condition on the front. I feel that images should be representative of the vehicle as it left the factory, and it certainly didn't leave there with chipped paint on the ground effects. In summary, the image is not a good image because a.) it doesn't meet Wikipedia's criterion for a good image to be used in a vehicle article, b.) it is a repetitive image which is already visible on the page, and c.) it is modified to an extent far beyond the stock condition and is not representative of what the vehicle looked like when it left the factory. Thank you. Zchris87v 07:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The 4WP car is mine, no it is not a GT, I didn't say it was, someone else put that "GT" stuff in there. The clear corner lights and foglights are still the same shape and style as stock, they are just clear instead. Cars on here do NOT have to be 100% stock; just look at the gold Mustang in the 1999-2004 section. That huge black hood scoop is not stock. I blocked out the license plate. It is parked in a residential neighborhood; so what? Better than a parking lot with oil spots all around it. I originally put my car off to the side and left the white convertible picture alone, but then someone moved my 4WP picture and made it the only one, and now the white convertible owner keeps erasing my picture. There's no rule that says there can't be more than one photo; look at how many 99-04 and 2005 & up Mustang pictures there are. As long as my picture is in there somewhere, I won't bother anyone else's, but if you keep erasing it for no good reason, I will keep putting it back. It's a good picture, and it violates no wikipedia policies.Epa316 (talk) 08:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The white convertible photo is of awful quality, it clearly doesn't belong in a featured article (how this one became featured is another story). Cars photographed for Wikipedia of course SHOULD be 100% stock (unless you want to illustrate a mod), but I guess we can do with the red picture even if we know it's slightly modified because the photo quality is superb.PrinceGloria (talk) 06:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The white Mustang convertible being used as the infobox image is hysterical. OMG. Please find a example that shows the vehicles profile in daylight. Or does this Mustang need the darkness because it has something to hide? The vehicles lines are completely obscured and the front bumper, while being OEM stock, actually looks aftermarket from a JC Whitney catalog. A profile photo would be a much better example. Wikicommons doesn't have a better example? (Dddike (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC))

The white convertible image is pretty lame, but doesn't look a great deal worse than the images currently used for the First generation and Fifth generation infoboxes. The 4WP image is not brilliant either but is a slightly better photograph than the white convertible. Overall though this is a petty row about a very minor detail in a huge article which has major issues. The whole page only has 15 references - for a car as well-known as the Mustang that is absolutely appalling! Get the basics sorted before you start arguing over trivialities Mighty Antar (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The white convertible image is just as good as the red V6 and that's the reason both are shown. If the objection is that the image size is not as large; it is because picture sizes are suppose to be as small as possible while still providing "some" detail. It also has the advantage of:

• A. Showing a convertible (The only one in the article as far as I know). Of all the pictures in the articles do convertibles not get representation?
• B. Shows the OEM stripe option that the article talks about.
• C. Purposely has a solid background to look "like it wasn't taken at someone's house". Last I checked most

prefessional car images are NOT taken at people's residencies.

• D. It utilizes a 3/4 shot specified by wiki policy for Infobox pictures.

Everything is stock on the vehicle; and yes Dddike even the bumper which by the way is NOT Aftermarket. The only exception are the side lights which where touched up; if ANYONE read the discussion paragraph above by FrankWilliams who owns the car, you would know this. I just don't see what all this fuss is about. I've seen tons of worse pictures in the article. 206.125.176.3 (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Summary:

• The white convertible is best: User:NathanielPoe and User:206.125.176.3 who might or might not be the same editor (1 or 2).
• The red coupe is best: User:Karrmann, User:Daniel J. Leivick, User:Ayocee, User:Epa316, User:PrinceGloria, User:Dddike, User:Mighty Antar, User:Chryslerforever1988 (8).

8-1 or 8-2. That fits the definition of Wikipedia:Consensus. Can we ask the guy who blocked people from editing the page to unblock it, since there's agreement on the talk page that the red coupe photograph is better for the infobox? Chryslerforever1988 (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Why haven't the owners or photogs who created the white or red examples go out to that particular car and take another crack at it, instead of complaining that the photo meets all Wikipedia requirements and that the objections the examples are creating are "petty"? If the general consensus is that neither is a good example, GO TAKE ANOTHER ONE. It's a digital camera. They're really easy to use. I'm sure the cars won't mind having to sit for more photos. Enough Already.(Dddike (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC))

I think consensus is pretty clear (8 to 2) the White convertible image is not high enough quality for this page. If anyone feels that consensus has not been reached please post now, otherwise I will request unprotection and remove the White car with a blacked out background. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This is hilarious, so much fuss over 2 pictures. Unbelievable. Just leave them both up there, they're fine! I may just take another shot at the red coupe when I find a good background. Then I'll post it and we can have a big debate because there are too many pieces of gravel stuck in the tire treads. Or, if someone out there has a BETTER 94-98 Mustang picture to post, go for it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epa316 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I finally figured out why the white one looks terrible; it looks like one of those deep-ocean aquatic bottom feeders that live down by the Titanic wreck. The pasty white paint looks like this vehicle has never seen the light of day and those aftermarket headlights and turnsignal lenses aren't doing it any favors. The stripes on the hood are so that other creatures don't try to eat it.(Dddike (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC))

I have requested unprotection. I think we have come to a consensus about the image and agree that the one of the red one is the better image. Karrmann (talk) 12:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested edit

This is a request for an administrator to change the following line that was vandalized: "Over the years, third party vendors and ng point for their own designs." to "Over the years, third party vendors and independent car designers have utilized the Mustang as a starting point for their own designs." Thanks, Zchris87v 04:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Mustangs in Popular Culture

I was a bit surprised to find that there wasn't a section in the main article outlining the Mustang's pretty substantial appearences in Pop culture (over 500 individual tv/movie spots and 'walk-ons' according to one site). Yes there is a reference to Bullit (of course! :) in the intro, and I realise that an exhaustive list of *all* appearances would be...well...just that. But if its appearance in Goldfinger (albeit as a kind of model release) can make it in then surely references to the cult status the pony received in both Gone in 60 Seconds films is warranted, as well as the fact that it's to be the new KITT? Others that immediately spring to mind are its use as a character defining ride for Clarice Starling in Hannibal (the book at least, can't remember the film), its use to represent classic American muscle in films like Apollo 13 and of course as '00' in the Dukes of Hazzard, the only car that ever beat the near-invincible 'General Lee'. I'm reluctant to just throw a pop culture section together though because surely somebody's done it before (at least with references to Gone in 60 Seconds) and I'm not going to put one up just for it to get excised. However it may just be that it hasn't happened, in which case anybody like to suggest what it should and shouldn't include? (Oh and if it's just about only allowing 'pure' mustangs to participate, pop over to the Delorean DMC-12 page. That's got a four para Pop-culture section, three of which are devoted to the Back to the Future version which could hardly be classed as stock. :) In short, any reason why there isn't a separate Popular Culture section? And if not isn't one warranted? Ozlucien (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Forking hell

This article has been forked in a format the same as the Camaro and Corvette. I created all the new articles today. Lets try and keep them concise and accurate, and put an end to the fancruft and minutiae CJ DUB (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, talk about a major improvement in readability :) Ayocee (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Head infobox image

The photo that currently graces the very top of this article is covered with reflections and shadows, and should be replaced with something of higher quality. My suggestion for that improvement was voted down, but there must be something somewhere that is better than the photo that is there now. IFCAR (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur with IFCAR. There is nothing wrong with the car itself, but the photo is not the best. Zach4636 ^Talk 18:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

We could always use an image from a different generation. There are plenty of high quality 5th gen pics. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The head image should be the best Mustang image anywhere on this Wikipedia or in the Commons. I had just gone with the same generation the first time in an attempt to avoid conflict. IFCAR (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion this is the best image from the commons. High quality, good light and little distraction. There are quite a few good images of early Mustangs, but almost all of them have there hoods open. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Good looking photo, but doesn't look stock to me. IFCAR (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with IFCAR, the fog lamps are in the wrong place and there is a Shelby badge where the GT badge should be. The number 3 (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. We better keep looking. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

These ones aren't perfect, but I think that they are stock enough. Zach4636 ^Talk 20:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we can do better than those, even if we do limit ourselves to the fifth generation. IFCAR (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I would be hesitant to replace the current lead image with either of these. I don't think they offer an significant improvement. The bottom one isn't bad but I am not sure we should be using a convertible in the lead info box. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should just stay on the lookout for a better picture. It is highly unlikely that we will ever get the perfect picture so we might have to accept the second-best or just leave it like it is. Zach4636 ^Talk 20:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

How about this?

The current picture is, in my opinion, the best picture of the 1st Gen Mustang. The Camaro and Challenger pages both still have a picture of their 1st generation models, so maybe we should keep it as is. The number 3 (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

What generation the photo is shouldn't be an issue, as long as it's better than what's up now. There should be many available images that are better than what is there now, but as long as it's being discussed, we might as well take a bit of extra time to find one that everyone agrees on. However, a bit of disagreement shouldn't lead us to throw up our hands, say "oh well," and stick with the current image. IFCAR (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the generation does not matter, but as I said, we will be waiting a long time for the perfect picture so we have to take the best we have right now. Personally, I like the the last one in the "list" as it is the best I have seen so far. Zach4636 ^Talk 21:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to avoid the inherent bias of an author-nominated photo, but as long as another of mine is a current favorite, I'll suggest the one at right. I would think we can find something better of some generation at some point, but I personally prefer it to anything else that's been suggested today. IFCAR (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I must agree with IFCAR: I like that photo more, too. Zach4636 ^Talk 00:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If another picture must be chosen, I'll have to go with the fifth gen gray V6 Mustang. The number 3 (talk) 01:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Picture should be distinctive of the marque: pony car, performance, timeless style, i.e. no poverty edition models. Go look on other famous marques like Porsche 911, Camaro, and tell me if the entry level model is the representative picture. By the way this topic came up before and we agreed with my statements. CJ DUB (talk) 03:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

File:1978sapporo.jpg

I wonder why the Challenger guys don't use this for their representative shot? CJ DUB (talk) 03:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You will notice that the 911 and Camaro photos are also much better than what the Mustang article is using. But I get POV vibes from choosing an image based on what car the editors decide is the nicest. IFCAR (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

There seemed to be a fairly strong consensus that we can do better than what's up now. Is the current image going to be replaced or not? IFCAR (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

All of the pictures in the commons are either modified or don't offer much improvement over the current image. Until we find a image we can all agree on; the current one will have to stay put. The number 3 (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That's one form of compromise: choose one that no one thinks is very good. IFCAR (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, I think the current image is more or less as good as the 5th gen pics that have been proposed. I see no reason to switch at this point unless someone can offer a clearly superior photo preferably of a first gen Mustang. A shadow and couple of refelections arn't that big a deal. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Just got uploaded onto the Fifth Gen page; its stock and a new GT model. Best one yet. The number 3 (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this can replace the current image. It does not show the front end well enough. Which is very important for an iconic vehicle like the mustang. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is another suggestion for a lead image. Late first gen and pretty clean image. Any thoughts? --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The car is definitely better than the current image, but that's a lot of extrernal distractions for the head image of such a major article. IFCAR (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I betcha not many people would recognize that as a mustang. CJ DUB (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

wow!

Great job on the forking! I was part of the initial discussion to do this, and it was done very competently - and I see my interior descriptions for the early model mustangs were left intact. The summary paragraphs do not mention interior at all- would it be prudent to add a line or two in the summaries? The mustang's notability had as much to do with interior customization as with exterior and engine configuration options - arguably moreso in the early years. Seriously fantastic job. I'm planning on jumping back into the interior descriptions on the forked articles. Cheers! - superβεεcat  02:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks dude. It just took one guy to sit down and punch it out. Now if people would stop filling up the individual generations and variant pages with needless fancruft, and putting up poverty-edition pictures, we'd be set. CJ DUB (talk) 06:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

4th Gen

Great job on the major edit, it's been a while since I looked at this page. I have a comment on the 4th Gen section: Although the 1994-2004 cars are all the same "generation", the styling differences between the 94-98 and 99-04 series of cars is quite significant. More so than in any ofthe other generations in my opinion. (A 1968 and 1966 look fairly similar, an '82 and an '86 have a strong resemblance. But a 2002 and and a 1995 look like different cars.) When Ford went to the "New Edge" design in 1999, it was a big design philosophy change that was reflected through most of Ford's US car lines. The two designs should really be treated as separate paragraphs in the 4th Gen section. Additionally, the GT got a big horsepower boost in 1999.

Something along the lines of: "In 1999, the Mustang underwent a significant styling change in keeping with Ford's "New Edge" design philosophy. The softer, rounded edges of the car were replaced with a more sharp-edged, angular look. In addition, the 4.6 Liter V8 in the GT model gained a significant power boost (bringing it up to 260hp) with a new cylinder head design."

Obviously it would be good to find a decent picture of a 94-98 style Mustang for illustration. Nne3jxc (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of what you are mentioning is already incorporated in the main article. Furthermore the roof line of the new edge design is the same exact one taken form the original Sn95. And they're both the SN95 platform, Ford doesn't call it the new edge, so it should stay as it is.MustangAficionado (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

needed fix for "eye sore"

When reading this article to get some information about the car without the extra information is extremely difficult. on wikipedia most articles like the Honda Accord for example have an infobox at each generation detailing the specs of that particular car. Perhaps something like that would be in order here. Each generation seems to have a very short section. There is no info (cited or otherwise) about the concept of that generation, what the main points were etc. This is very good information for an article of this type and its all missing. Just some food for thought. I know there is alot of work that needs to be done here. Anubis1055 (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok i dont agree with the guy above who says Ford doesnt call it New Edge so it wont be mentioned in the artcle. Ford also didnt coin the term pony car either but car enthusiasts know what you mean when you say pony car just as any Mustang lover knows New Egde means 99-04. Whether Ford calls it New Edge doesnt matter as its been accepted by magazines and the general public as being called New Edge. If an article is to inform someone who knows nothing or a little of a subjuect popculture nicknames are valid I think if the majority of people accept it. Next in the 94-04 section it states the Cobra returned with gt40 parts to make 320hp. The 99 Cobra was a disaster having a recall made and Ford having to add an extrude honed intake, exhaust and computer reflash. The part where it says gt40 parts were added to the Cobra is ridiculous. GT40 parts are made for 302/351 Windsor engines not modulars. The Cobra was also not offered in 2000 since 99 was such a bad model. The 99 GT gained its power from new cylinder heads and intake. They were the big reason. It might of also had a bigger throttlebody im not sure. How in the 79-93 section does it not mention the 302v-8 making 225hp when it lists all of the other engines. The 225hp engine is what made the Mustang so popular in the 80's early 90's yet its not even mentioned? In the 94-04 section there is no mention of the 302 now making 215hp. The article is ok but is missing alot of info and has some false info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.198.79 (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

4th gen engine info

like the "eye sore" guy above me, the engine info for 99+ was all scrambled up. so I tried to fix it.

it said "now using Thunderbird intake and 60 mm throttle body" re the 99 GT engine. but that was the 94-95 GT's 302

it said "GT-40" blah.blah. regarding the 99 cobra engine. But that is really the 94-95 Cobra engine.

the wording made it sound like the 4.6 was brand new for 99. but of course it just got the PI parts.

One of a kind Ford mustang

Hi to everyone involved with this article, my brother has just returned from a holiday to the USA during his time he went to the 2008 EAA AirVenture Oshkosh air show in Wisconsin. There was a ford mustang there which is a one of a kind built especially for the event. I have a photo of it, if you guys would like a copy of it to add to this article just let me know.--Theoneintraining (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I just found a reference for it here [1]--Theoneintraining (talk) 03:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! If it's a suitable picture a good start would be to upload it to the Commons.—Writegeist (talk) 02:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Link to Ford's Autoshow site

Ford's Autoshow website offers the most authoritative resource for any upcoming non-production/concept and production Ford Mustangs. I think it would be beneficial to include this alongside the link to Ford Vehicles which has in-market Mustangs. Ford Autoshows Whipster81 (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Please add weight information

The weight information is now shown in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick brade (talk • contribs) 18:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The story of a horse and a fly

I've heard that because the "Mustang" was a horse another car made by a different company was named after a fly known for attacking horses on thier loins and setting them crazy or something alike... But I have not found any mention here... Am I wrong or is that a tidbit of popular culture (or maybe a common misconception) that is being forsaken?Undead Herle King (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I never heard anything about that. I suspect it's false.

Insides

Does anyone know what the interior of the 5th gen 'Stang is like? 'cause ive heard that american cars have really bad interiors... J (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead section too large

Article doesn't conform to lead guidlines. Lead section should summarize the article. One paragraph. (Vegavairbob (talk) 04:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC))

Sixth generation?

The article currently has a section titled, "Sixth generation (2010-present)". However, it doesn't present any information that suggests that a sixth generation even exists. Historically, Mustang generations have been distinguished by distinct changes in body style, but the 2010 Mustang is not significantly different to any Mustang produced since 2005. Indeed, the "Fifth generation (2005–2009)" section contains information about the 2010 model year as if it belongs in that section.

Can someone more knowledgeable about Mustangs clear this up and, if necessary, edit the article? Thanks! -- Hux (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, the "sixth generation" Mustang is not on the market. The false information has been removed once more. It seems that there are a few enthusiasts that seem to add this to the article. The current model year (2010) continues to be the same platform as introduced in 2005. The best examples of "facelifts" or "re-skins" that newbie Mustang enthusiasts should become familiar with is the first generation. Although the exterior apperance was twice heavily altered from the original Mustang, the basic platform remained the same. On the other hand, there is no mistaking that the current redesign of the 2005 platform is not even that much different visually and mechanically. CZmarlin (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Details about the sixth generation are starting to emerge, with 2015 as the likely model year. I added information to this effect. There was also a point to add this info in the "to-do" list, which I removed.Geno the Great (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

This page has been a recent target of vandalism. Could anyone with more knowledge of the topic take a better look at it and clean up any vandalism that has slipped through?

Thanks. Empty Feeling (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Iacocca Promotion

This article says that Iacocca became president of Ford in 1964, while the article titled "Ford Mustang (Second Generation)" says 1970. Did I miss something? NameThatWorks (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the error! He was named President of Ford on December 10, 1970. see the "Ford Motor Company chronology" page by The Henry Ford Museum here. CZmarlin (talk) 06:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Bloat in the "Fifth generation" section

I have been trying to clean up certain sections of this massive article. The main issue is that someone keeps adding another picture in the "Fifth generation" section (apparently their car), even after I removed it the first time. Not only does the image not have a proper caption (what does "FM V cabrio" mean?), but it's taken from a bad angle, where most other images are at a 3/4 view. It also has custom tires, but that doesn't really matter. Besides problems with the image itself, having three separate images within a subsection is ridiculous. I'm okay with two, but all the other generations only have a single image.

Also, the sentence I removed which states that "the 2010 continued on the D2C platform" got reverted. That model year only received a minor facelift from 2009; if there was a major platform change, it would be considered a new generation and that change would be stated there. This, along with references to "the 4.6L pushrod used previously", which was stated in the previous paragraph, are bloating the section.

My point of posting this is to see if others agree with my changes, and to tell Vizu to stop undo my edits, or respond to this?

Another area that needs cleaning in the First generation section, which is a lot longer than the others. 99.149.19.123 (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Some of the bloat has been pruned from the fifth generation. However, this section needs further reduction! CZmarlin (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Changing transmission oil on 2003 Mustang

Italic textI hear that 2003 mustang transmission (automatic) can be changed by a layman/novist. Is there a diagram or clear instruction on how to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.238.53 (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent roll back

I rolled back the article to April 24, 2013. It looks like an IP edit just after this version decided to roll back the article to a very very old version. You can tell by the use of the {{convert/mi:h}} template, which hasn't been around for several years (since 2008). Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 22:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

"Mustang"

The usage of Mustang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see Talk:Mustang horse -- 65.94.78.70 (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)