Talk:Ford Mustang/Archive 2

Multiple merges
Do the following article really need to be stand-alone articles? The information provided in them is, for the most part, redundant. If you actually take just the unique information these articles provide, you'll find it is very little. I say every single one of them should be merged into here. Thoughts? Votes? Roguegeek (talk) 04:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ford Mustang SVO
 * California Special Mustang
 * Shelby Mustang
 * Ford Mustang SVT Cobra
 * Ford Mustang SSP

Article_size. ''Note: This page is 60 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles.'' Some should stay, others could be merged into the article itself. --293.xx.xxx.xx 06:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's kinda what I'm thinking too. Any article above that has a fair share of unique information should stay. The question would be which ones do? Roguegeek (talk) 07:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Turbine06: Well Personally i Think these are All cars in their own right
 * to be honest this article is so bloated it sickens me. It so poorly organised it gives me headaches. But these so called seperated articles stated above (specifically those no longer produced like SVO or SSP) can be merged to respected era of mustang. for example the SSP, SVO can be combined together as a new page and can be linked from 1979-1993 mustang section.

Before you even consider any merge of anytype, cleanup the main article first. THEN worry about whether or not each model deserves it's own page or needs to be incorporated into the article itself. --Cesario (JPN) 19:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Wiki_righter:
 * Keep them separate. The generic Mustang article is already a bit unweildy. Mustangs and derivatives have been around for 40+ years - lots of info on this car. Allowing different pages together with links from the original page allows detail to be added without making the original article even more difficult to read. Hyperlinks are one of the benefits of an online encyclopedia. Lets take advantage of them.

Stongly Oppose to merge, these articles are each well developed in their own right, something i'd like to see more of for other years/models of mustangs. --Alex Ov Shaolin  19:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am removing the merge tag because it doesnt make any logical sense. I already created a seperate page for mustang variation.Jbrian80 08:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the merge. This article already receives way too many edits as it is; merging them well only compound the problem. Also, each of the articles are special enough in their own right to warrant their own article. FrankWilliams 12:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Major Revision
Time for some drastic action. I cleaned up some of the articles, Fix some factual errors, add citations, remove some POV's and weasel words. The content is pretty much the same I did some re-arranging in chronological order... if you hate it revert it. I didnt able to finished because I already spend hours editing. 24.83.153.249 10:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Separate page
Is it all right if i shorten this article and put the information another page related to the Ford Mustang.220.236.231.226 21:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, Dont worry if you scrwewed up you can revert it ;). I doubt these article can ever be merged, its getting too long. The only weay is to get these seperate article some decent exposure so they dont get obscured. Jbrian80 06:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I combined the the variants and seperate them by respected category rather then by generation...here is my crude sample (not linked pending approval) Ford Mustang Variants. Since other mustang variants was practically shutt off like from Saleen and Roush....a seperate variant page gives these obscured variants a chance to be exposed... Jbrian80 07:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * if a seperate page for variants was "approved" the burden on main article will be reduced.Jbrian80 08:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I dont want to be blunt, but face it wikipedia want 37 kb and the article was 57kb going down to 47kb. I have no choice but to put these variants on new page and its up to you to expand it. Put more info on Steeda, Roush etc. See Ford Mustang Variants. Jbrian80 19:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I approve. --293.xx.xxx.xx 06:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Big changes to the 87-93 Mustang article.
I cleaned up the fox body section of this page. A lot of the verbage was very opinionated (like how they said it was a GOOD thing that they switched to cast pistons in 93) and some of the facts were just plain wrong. It still needs a lot more information but at least now it doesn't look like some little kid wrote it.
 * Excellent, I been losing sleep trying to fix this article. Jbrian80 09:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I just rewrote the entire 79-93 section to add more info and get rid all of the incorrect statements that were in it. I'll add annotations to it when I get time. User: 84mustang_gt March 14, 2011. —Preceding undated comment added 14:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC).


 * Thank you for your contributions to the article. This article traces the entire history of the Ford Mustang, and each generation should only have a short summary paragraph about the most significant facts pertaining to all the Mustang models in that generation. The specific details and annual changes within each generation should be placed within the appropriate "generation" article; for example: Ford Mustang (third generation). Thank you! CZmarlin (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Poor representations, i.e. the images suck
The mustang represents for most people a statement of performance, since basically 1966 onwards, or whenever the GT was introduced. This is even more true today, so why is this page full of images of poverty edition V6s for the later models?? Please replace the V6s with some standard, unmodifed GT cars. Go have a look at the Porsche 911 page. They don't have boring 911 coupes, they have GT3s and Turbos up there. Jeez. 192.197.71.189 16:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Dude St*u Honestly As Long as we have pictures were good who cares if it isnt the GT model they look exactly the SAME except for a little Metal Piece that Says GT and you can put those on the v6 so you honestly do not know if the car is v6 or v8 from a picture so zip it 24.178.196.124 05:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can tell that they were all V6 models. They don't look exactly the same. If you think that, you dunno Mustang very well. Each one had the most basic options you could get for a mustang, and ones not available for the GT cars (different body panels, narrow 16 wheels, etc. CJ DUB 17:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I kind of agree. It's not so much that the pics are all V6 models, but that all the pics of models between 1987 and 2004 are badly framed, badly lit, or just plain bad photos. Can anyone get some better shots? Ideally, these should be "factory stock" appearing cars. Customized vehicles belong in another category. I've got a very good personal "poster" style photo of a 2002 GT, I can post up in place of the 4th Generation "table" photo. I'll put it in. Revert the article if you disagree. Nne3jxc 02:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks to whoever put some decent GT images in. The GT is the top of the standard mustang line after all.CJ DUB 18:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A lot of those images that I threw in there were in this article on previous revisions. Not sure why they came out in the first place, but they were easily found again. Yes, that first image should definitely stay that familiar red Mustang. Roguegeek (talk) 07:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The images were taken out because folks want to put pictures of their own cars in rather than worrying about the quality of the article. FrankWilliams 12:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * We have the nighttime picture of the "Mustang with blue LED cab lite [sic] ADD-ON" return over and over. Is there any good reason to have this image represent the car in this article? All I can clearly see from this picture is the blue light from the dome lamp. Nevertheless, the owner is persistent and wants to see their fancy dome light within this article. Perhaps this image should be the lead in the "how to increase the performance of dome lamps" article, but surely not in this page about Ford Mustang history.—CZmarlin 21:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Couldn't agree more, CZ. It's completely silly. If we have consensus that the picture stays out, let's keep it out, if not, I'll do an RfC and get it over with to avoid edit warring. - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 22:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Ford Mustang Sedan
According to AutoWeek, a Mustang sedan and station wagon are reportedly in development for the 2011 model year. It will replace the aging Crown Victoria sedan as Ford's rear wheel drive full-size car. It will also underpin the next Mercury Marquis and Lincoln Town Car. So the D2C platform will replace the Panther body. -- Bull-Doser 15:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * An enlarged D2C variant is almost certain to replace the Panther. However, I doubt Ford is stupid enough to make four-door Mustangs. This is just an "idea" they're throwing around, for now. --Sable232 16:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed - seriously calling it a Mustang would probably be second only to the FWD "Mustang" Probe fiasco. This sounds more to me like someone missed a few important words and didn't differentiate between "Mustang" and "Mustang platform". Not to mention, that 'rendering' looks somewhere about MSPaint in quality. Ayocee 19:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The rumors of sedan and wagon variants of the Mustang have been officially squashed by Ford. According to CNN, the offical Ford response to the rumor was: "The Mustang is an icon and will continue in its current form: a unique two-door, rear-wheel drive, 2+2 performance car."

Sorry to complain, but the "COMING TO THE MARKET," paragraph seems incomplete.

Vinnie Meissner.


 * I'm fairly sure this would just be Ford's "pony car gone bad" (and I mean bad as in crappy), like the Magnum was just a station-wagon Charger. Eh, it's better than a minivan, I suppose.  Zchris87v  22:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

WTH HAPPENDED ON FIRST GEN?
This guy 76.175.18.187 who vandalised the pagec deleted much of first genration section. WTH happened to 1967? 1968? I am thinking of restoring them (much shorter though) 24.83.153.249 08:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I restored the section. Yes its bloody long but deleting a chunk of section without reason is plain ridiculous@ 24.83.153.249 09:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE ADD A SECTION OF THE CONCEPT CAR AND PIC... THANK YOU

4.2 Liter?
A friend has a fourth generation, which came with a badge advertising it as a 4.2 Liter V8 -- the hell? What VIN code would I use to determine the true engine size?

Fourth generation
The fourth generation mustang are all "SN-95" cars. The line "With the SN-95 now gone, a refreshed model with Ford's "New Edge" styling themes came in 1999" needs to be revised so it is more accurate. The 1994-1998 are "round body" SN-95s while the 1999-2004 are "new edge" SN-95s. This would be akin to saying that the 1979-1986 Mustangs are fox bodies while the 87-1993 are not because the latter doesn't have four head lights. 209.169.206.130 12:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally think the "Near Death Experience" section should be moved up in the "timeline". Why not have it after the 1986 model section? It doesn't make sense to read the timeline, and then after it gets to '93, have it reference the mid 80's. Just a though. Comments?

--Othtim 21:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Poor representations, i.e. the images suck Part II
Dumpy, bad photoquality base model images have crept their way back into the SN-95 section again. somebody please replace these with GT pictures, for the reasons discussed above CJ DUB 18:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There should be good quality pictures represenattive of the full range of Mustang models. There's more to the Mustang than just Cobras, Mach 1, fastbacks/hatchbacks and convertibles! In other words, get some pictures of the coupes in the article. And when more is added to the Mustang II section, be sure to get pictures of the production version of the King Cobra. That red and black one with the flared airdam and rear spats that don't roll under the sides was the styling prototype. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 07:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

I disagree completely, with the "there's more to.." bit. This page should show what are the best example of a mustang, for the intended purpose: performance and style; and as part of of an encylocpaedic article this should be pictures of the GT (see SN-95). There is no need to show every model. This is what the gallery is for. You don't go to the Porsche page and see VW 914 model AT ALL, even though this was a big seller, because its not represenative of what Porsche is all about. On this page you have THREE pictures of the Mustang II, some the same pic. CJ DUB 16:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Mustang II
The front fenders were NOT changed to fit the V8. Other than mounting holes and studs for trim, the front fenders are identical for all years of Mustang II. The hood, grille, front header, radiator support, radiator, oilpan, front anti-sway bar, transmission bellhousings, flywheel/flexplate, clutch/torque convertor, right exhaust manifold, engine mounts and frame brackets were changed or new parts to fit the V8. The gas cap was moved to above the side crease and a new second fuel tank was installed in the left rear wheel well. That tank was optional with the 4 or 6 cylinder.

A T-Top option was farmed out to a 3rd party beginning in 1976. Any source claiming the T-Top was only available in 1977 and 1978 is wrong. I've personally seen/owned/worked on three 1976 T-Top Mustang IIs. I've tried to find out which company did the T-Top, most likely candidates are Wagner's Motortown, who did the 1976 Cobras, or American Sunroof Company (now called American Specialty Cars).

There were three variants of the Mustang II unibody. 1974, 1975-1976 and 1977-1978. Aside from the changes at the front to accomodate the V8 in 1975, the other changes were mainly in the inside structure behind the door openings and in the door sills as changes were made in the front seatbelt system. 1978 hatchbacks have provisions for mounting rear seat shoulder belts to the rear pillars behind the quarter windows. I've been unable to find out if 1977 hatchbacks or 1977-1978 coupes also had rear shoulder belt mounts. Rear shoulder belts were never factory fitted on the Mustang II, at least not in the USA.

The MPG and Stallion models were not the same car. The MPG was a no-options, 4 cylinder while the Stallion had the big stallion decals on the front fenders, a three spoke 'sport' steering wheel with stallion design in the horn button and other trim features.

The King Cobra came standard with the 302 V8 and 4-speed manual transmission, heavy duty front anti-sway bar and rear anti-sway bar. It could be ordered with the 3-speed C4 automatic but few were.

The only other Mustang II to NOT have the 4 cylinder as its standard engine was the Mach 1, which had the V6 as its base.

There are only two special packages coded in the Mustang II VIN, the Ghia coupes and the Mach 1. The Cobra, King Cobra, Stallion, MPG, Ghia Sport and any others can only be authenticated via build sheets, the buck tag or through reports available through a 3rd party who obtained all the original invoices when Ford was going to throw them away. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 03:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

sn-95 white gt pic is disgusting
of all the pictures we can have for the sn-95, a white nasty ugly riced out gt is picked. nice LightSpeed1 00:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Litespeed what picture are you referring to??? Is it the convertible with the black stripe? If so that was an optional GT packaging from Ford. Other than then that the car is perfectly stock. Nothing "Riced" about it. FrankWilliams 16:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

reply
im pretty sure clear corner turn signals in the front werent a company option last time i checked, and yes that is major because that is a key modification in a riced out car, even the wiki article for rice says it LightSpeed1 19:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right clear turn signal weren't a Ford option. The implication with "Riced Out" however has conotations of a dramatic change to a look of Japanese style cars. I hardly think one change warrants this. This however is an opionion and you of course are entitled to yours. Cheers! FrankWilliams 08:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The 302 engine is 4.9 L
The actual size of the venerable 302 V8 engine is 4.9 L. There are several notes within the Ford Mustang article that explain that the 302 V8 is known as the 5.0. The main article about this engine, Ford Windsor engine, clearly indicates, "In the 1980s the 302 became more commonly known as the 5.0 Liter, although its metric displacement (4942 cc) more accurately rounds to 4.9 L." It is Ford Motor Company's marketing and advertising departments that stretched it from 4.9 L to a "5.0". The company promoted the 5.0 as a model name and the engine was sold as a "5.0", but that does not change the fact that the engine has 4.9 L in actual displacement. This type of marketing "hype" was also conducted by other automakers. An example is American Motors' 304 V8 engine. It was marketed and some cars carried a badge (such as the Gremlin X) identifying them as "5.0 litre" (see: the decal on rear panel in this ad from 1972) long before Ford came out with its 5.0 advertising. Nevertheless, effective ads and promotion does NOT change the size of the engine. For the purposes of detail and accuracy, automobile engines should be described in their actual size. Wikipedia is not part of corporate promotional departments. --CZmarlin 19:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Lets just go with all that BS; do these articles include the high output displacement? Wiggl3sLincolns 21:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The actual engine metric displacement (4942 cc) more accurately rounds to 4.9 L. It is the Marketing Department at Ford that created the "5.0" number.—CZmarlin 00:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Since it has been extensively marketed, badged, and identified as the "5.0", I added the small note in the article to that effect. I think it would be incomplete to leave out reference to it.--MartinezMD (talk) 07:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Almost all cars with engine options ever exported abroad are several ccs below the litre threshold for taxation purposes. For example, almost all 2-litre engines in this world are actually 1995-1999 ccs. However, this especially applies to sportscars, because many countries' equivalent of the US Gas Guzzler tax is based on engine displacement in litres, rather than fuel economy (sometimes - horsepower). Since these taxes may, in some places, double or triple the price of a car, manufacturers forfeit a few ccs to fit one category lower in most areas for marketing purposes. Aadieu (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The math is a non-issue for me, and I'm really not trying to stir things up. For educational purposes only, 4.9 is the correct mathematical number if you are using decimal places to tenths. If using whole numbers only, then 5 liters (not 5.0 liters) would be correct rounding - significant digits vs degrees of certainty. However, as a side note, the very picture in the article shows the 5.0 badge on the passenger fender... --MartinezMD (talk) 05:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * For the purposes of this overview article, there is now sufficient identification of the 302 engine in terms of its "real" metric displacement, as well as Ford's promotional and marketing moniker. This discussion topic is actually from the time when there was only one long article about the Mustang. This was before it was split into separate "generation" articles. CZmarlin (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The 5.0 engine series mustang is a 4.9 OHV in the GT that is a 5.0 HO i believe because the tuning givin to the engine for the gt. I looked it up but couldn't cite it cause i don't remember. I giving in put so those that read some of these other posts. if you don't own one why make a big deal, but because someone doesn't enjoy a mustang they stat the obvious instead of beingeducated on why it's called a 5.0. and if you rounded up from 4.9 liter to a 5 and think that the .0 part of the car should not be there,be my guest and buy a mustang 5.0 and take off the .0 so you can be the cool guy rolling up in a mustang 5? or a 4.9 cause you don't want to give the car what it deserves as a American muscle car. i do not wish to offend anybody on this but lets tell the whole story. Besides, I do know that the 2011 Coyote engine fot the Mustang GT will truly be a 5.0 with 405 horses and hopefully demolish all rivals (camero ss). 93foxbod (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The fifth generation mustang's 5.0 is 302.15 cubic inches, or 4.951 liters, which does, in fact, round up to 5.0. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cruncy (talk • contribs) 07:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Mustang II's
Even though the Mustang II kept the Mustang nameplate allive, I think that they should be featured on their own page. These cars were not true Mustangs or they would have been called Mustangs without the II. They are two completely different cars that should have their own pages. The Mustang II was the succesor and predocessor of the Mustang, but it was not a true Mustang.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.115.193.221 (talk • contribs) on 01:42, 29 June 2007


 * Consumers and automakers had to contend with the Arab oil embargo. The marketplace rapidly changed. Big and sporty cars with V8 engines were rusting unsold on dealer lots, while those who owned them were willing to give them away at any price as all motorists tried to economize. Ford produced the new gasoline thrifty models and named them Mustang "II" to differentiate it from its previous versions that gas-guzzling and large outside, but cramped inside. The new model was called the "right car at the right time" and its sales exceeded the previous Mustang generation. Moreover, the Mustang II found success within a new type of market segment. On the other hand, traditional Mustang enthusiasts were not pleased and were also not impressed with styling exercises of the Mach I and Cobra II. Nevertheless, the company was very pleased, as even the sales of the loud graphics emblazoned models were good. Like it or not, Ford's Mustang II was called a Mustang, styled to look like a Mustang, marketed as a Mustang, and thus was a Mustang! Enjoy it!—CZmarlin 19:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

And the front is the same as the new mustang. LOL Sucky though it is, it is still a mustang as much as the 6-cyl '65 coupe, the "5.0" and the FR500C. CJ DUB 18:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Mustang in popular culture
I play Carmageddon 2 and I found a neat looking modified '06 Ford Mustang that looks sorta like an El Camino / Ford Mustang mix. I'll post a picture. The back end is like a truck bed. I am planning on purchasing an '06 Mustang and modifying it to look exactly like this. Leave your comments ;D
 * http://img146.imageshack.us/my.php?image=shetlandri9.jpg

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.68.39.25 (talk • contribs).

For me the most surprising omission here is any significant reference to the 68 Mustang's appearance in Bullitt, whose car chase is considered one of the best in modern cinema, and received an Academy Award for editing. For many (including me) I believe this movie elevated the car to unprecedented iconic status, and this status is now as inseparable from the car as is factual information about its engine size, or fender fixings. Subject to comments here, I'll construct something shortly. JonnyWigs (talk) 12:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This information is already mentioned in the first generation Ford Mustang article. This is important for that era, but not for all the models during the long history of the Mustang. CZmarlin (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Images of modified cars
The subject of modified and stock cars has been discussed for quite some time on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. It is not on the most recent page, but this topic is in the archives. The short version is that there are countless numbers of free web sites that owners can put up pictures of their customized cars. Even the Mustang has many dedicated sites (that people seem to keep adding to the "external links" no matter if the request is {NoMoreLinks}. The objective of Wikipedia is to present the subject as it was originally made. There are more than enough "fair use" images of completely stock Ford Mustangs. On the other hand, this may not be the case with the Acme (automobile), for example. An image of a modified Acme would be perfectly appropriate because it would be better than nothing. Think of it this way, if you found a 1987 Belchfire that you were interested in buying so you went to Wikipedia to read up on its history and came across a bunch of pictures that did not resemble the 1987 Belchfire that you just saw for sale—you would be very confused. Here is another quote taken from Archive #9: "Not only do these photographs inadequately illustrate the car in question, the modifications detract the viewer from the main features of the car. I hope you don't take this the wrong way."—CZmarlin 03:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Interior
Any reason that there's no mention of the interior options of the gen 1 mustangs? The myriad customization options available through Ford (and occasionally dealer-installed) were a very large selling point of the vehicles, along with performance and price. Also, the interior options through the 60's were certainly characteristic of the time and trends - check out a 65 pony package, compare to the sleek 67 brushed aluminum "deluxe interior", which changed in 68 to the woodgrain deluxe interior. - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 20:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Really guys, no opinion? I'm alone in thinking this article is in desperate need of interior trim descriptions? Many thousands of 65 mustangs were sold due to little embossed ponies... I'm going to begin adding this content.  super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 19:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Special editions and modified Mustangs
There are numerous companies that provide various parts, components, and accessories for Mustangs. In particular, companies such as Roush Performance and Saleen are mentioned because they also have Wikipedia articles about them. There are plenty of other companies that cater to Mustang enthusiasts and provide all kinds and levels of performance and other enhancements. There are repetitive attempts to add other firms to this section. Should these mentions or external links to these companies be included? If one is allowed, then there will the flood of others. Moreover, Wikipedia guidelines say: WP:NOT. CZmarlin 18:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Roush and Saleen are also fairly significant in terms of Mustang special editions - I'd wager their production easily eclipses that of most other 'special edition' manufacturers. Some Ford dealerships will even carry one or the other. I see no need to list the ever-growing number of companies that offer Mustang parts, seeing as nearly any company that offers performance or customization parts for American cars has at least some offering for the Mustang. Ayocee 22:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Cubic inches
I'm not sure about using "in³" to denote cubic inches. I've never seen it that way in print; it's almost universally rendered "c.i.d." (cubic inches of displacement) or CUI in literature I have / have read. Inches cubed looks odd to me. Anyone else have a comment on this stylistic issue? - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 19:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The "in³" descriptor for an engine's cubic inches is common throughout articles about American cars in Wikipedia. I think that changing it to "CID" would make things more confusing—particularly to the readers outside the U.S. -- CZmarlin 21:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * alrighty then. - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; <font style="background:#000033;color:#ff9966;">cat 22:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I just found the "official" explanation for the use of "in³" in the WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions. It is to be the unit of measure "only for automobile engines where this is standard - i.e., pre-1980s American engines."—CZmarlin 03:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's accepted on Wikipedia that articles should use the conventions that exist within the country of origin. The Mustang is an American car. CID was the accepted designation. "in³" means nothing to Americans, as well as kw's. Various European English speaking countries insist on using their own terminology: why should Americans be any different? I am going to revert the "in³" references in one week. Also, there was never a Ford Capri in America, so all references to that will be edited to Mercury Capri. -- 70.130.68.219 (talk) 05:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are going to change those read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions and
 * this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Automobile_conversion_templates --&mdash; Typ932<font color="#32CD32">T 09:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

LED Light
The Article containing the LED Light was posted by me because (if you took the time to read the article) you would see that the section talks about add-ons and other custom jobs that can be added to the mustang! The pic that was there just showed a picture of a regular mustang this one demonstrates custom add-ons including rims and LED lights. Does it really hurt? --Archer5054 23:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it does hurt. We should judiciously use images on wiki. Some articles are chocked full of images, and this is contrary to the standard wiki practice. A custom LED light is not noteworthy of inclusion in an enyclopedic article on the mustang. You can install that option on any car you choose. Why not put a picture of a stang with a big skull on the hood and 4 level spoiler? Because the article should be to the point an concise. We can't have everybody with a cool pic or mod posting it, or this page will NEVER GET ANY BETTER. The content MUST COME FIRST and it is wholly absent here. Anybody else agree/disagree? 00:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree. This is not a notable option. Even if it deserves mention (of which I'm doubtful) it certainly doesn't require illustration. -<font style="background:#000033;color:#33ffcc;"> super <font style="background:#000033;color:#ccff33;">&beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; <font style="background:#000033;color:#ff9966;">cat 00:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Then why not remove pictures that look the same for instance... Image:02GT_wiki.jpg or Image:FordMustangconvertible.jpg, Image:Ford_Probe_I_grey_vr_mod.jpg or Image:1991mustanggt.JPG... when mine looks completely different, Image:FordMustang.JPG


 * Because unlike an LED dome light, the 02 model is notable, the convertible option is noteworthy (though one picture could probably suffice for both... opinions?), and the probe picture could probably go as well, though as the near-successor to the mustang, it's much more historically noteworthy than say... an LED dome light. -<font style="background:#000033;color:#33ffcc;"> super <font style="background:#000033;color:#ccff33;">&beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; <font style="background:#000033;color:#ff9966;">cat 00:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look completely different. Its a New Edge mustang, we already have two pictures of that, both descriptive with regard to encylcopedic content. They illustrate the two man body styles for that design (1999-2004). CJ DUB 01:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Archer5054 has kept on replacing this image four times in the past 24-hours. This is not good behavior. They have exceeded the Three-revert rule and I got tired of it. They have been provided with a warning. An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. I also listed these violations on Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. I hope this will put a stop to some of the counterproductive edits.—CZmarlin 02:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I did break the rule I admit but it think many other guys did too. Talk Page
 * 14:08, 21 July 2007 CZmarlin (Talk | contribs) m (54,251 bytes) (Undid revision 146097104 by Archer5054 (talk)rv to an image where car is visible) (undo)
 * 14:08, 21 July 2007 CZmarlin (Talk | contribs) m (54,251 bytes) (Undid revision 146097104 by Archer5054 (talk)rv to an image where car is visible) (undo)
 * 02:15, 22 July 2007 CZmarlin (Talk | contribs) m (54,298 bytes) (Undid revision 146208063 by 66.87.15.230 (talk)rv to an image where the car is visible in daylight) (undo)
 * 16:48, 22 July 2007 CJ DUB (Talk | contribs) (50,972 bytes) (→Fourth generation (1994–2004) - rem redundant or crappy images) (undo)
 * 00:29, 24 July 2007 CJ DUB (Talk | contribs) (50,834 bytes) (Undid revision 146595957 by Archer5054 (talk) NP) (undo)
 * 00:40, 24 July 2007 CJ DUB (Talk | contribs) (50,834 bytes) (Undid revision 146650412 by Archer5054 (talk)undo AGAIN) (undo)
 * 01:09, 24 July 2007 CJ DUB (Talk | contribs) (50,834 bytes) (Undid revision 146654336 by Archer5054 (talk)You=wrong. No more superfluous images when there is NO CONTENT) (undo)

''An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part.—CZmarlin 02:36, 24 July 2007 So it appears that you and some others need the read the 3RR rule too, maybe you'll pay more attention to your own actions as well.

This doesn't justify my breaking it, I just read him say that there are to many pictures on that page I feel that the picture I tried to post was different cause it shows what custom add-ons that are popular for the mustang, many of the other pictures are redundant they are all stock mustangs. The problem is that it shows many pictures of the same year of mustangs but different packages... I wanted to show what kind of mustang people are most likely to see (I my version it best explains the mustang to the average person). The pictures on that page that should be deleted are the ones that show canvas convertible mustangs or the other available packages because people can picture that on their own, while the picture I posted shows stuff that is more in-tune with what people would what to see when reading about Mustang custom add-ons.


 * I would urge you to read the section on Talk:Ford Mustang. There are many web sites for owners to post pictures of their custom modified cars. Wikipedia is NOT one of them. This is an encyclopedia that represents the topics as they came about. It is not a collection of "here is what can be done" pictures. As discussed on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles, only original (factory stock) cars are to be represented. Thanks! CZmarlin 16:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah! CJ DUB 16:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Here it is: the guidelines for images of cars—WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions. Please note the following items in particular:
 * #5—"they should include all original parts"
 * #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."
 * This article is not about customized Ford Mustangs. I hope quoting these Wiki conventions here will serve as notice to editors and thus avoid problems in the future. CZmarlin 03:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "<I>Avoid taking pictures of <B><U>heavily customized cars </b> as they may not be very representative of the vehicles most common appearance</i>" The emphasis here is on <B><U>heavily customized cars </b>; the picture of the 1987 Mustang GT is not <B><U>heavily customized</U></B> by any stretch of the imagination. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 05:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please also follow the guidelines as discussed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. Wikipedia articles and their images attempt to present the subject as it was originally made. There are more than enough "fair use" images of completely stock Ford Mustangs. There is no need to have <B><U>customized</U></B> Mustangs on this page. There are many websites that will gladly host images of customized cars.—CZmarlin 05:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There are at least four (4) other pictures of 'modified' Mustangs on that page, but you knew that, right? (<I>'modified' meaning not in stock form</i>) The 1987 pictured is lightly modified, as are the others on the article. Some of us recognize the difference between 'heavily modified' and 'lightly modified'. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 12:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sorry that you are mistaken about my interpretation of the Wikipedia guidelines. I follow them and do not selectively apply their recommendations. I make the changes only as I have the opportunity to notice a particular problem. Moreover, you are completely mistaken thinking that I "own the page"—as you have written in my talk page (under "Interpretation of Wikipedia guideline"). I don’t own it, you don’t own it, and neither does anyone else. As you may have observed, I do not indiscriminately take out, or put in, any text or images that is not related to the cars as Ford made them or to the facts about the history of the Ford Mustang. For example, nobody was willing to establish a page about Donald N. Frey, without whom there would probably not be the original Ford Mustang, as we now know it. For the purposes of an encyclopedia, that is more important that showing a picture of an after-market accessory such as an LED dome light or a customized front clip. It is of course, very unfortunate that some editors insist on inserting their POV, as well as images of cars that do not belong in the article. However, I will not try to weed out all the instances of problems and will leave that task to other editors. Nevertheless, it is pretty amazing, that someone astute as yourself proceeds not only to keep reinserting an image of a clearly identified customized car, but also proceeds to leave untouched the pictures of Mustangs that you know are modified. Please stop trying to make this your "own the page" by reinserting the image of a modified car. Moreover, thank you for knowing which of the four images are of customized cars; and in the spirit of cooperating to improve the article, please go ahead and remove them.— CZmarlin 17:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You forgot another one that plays into this - #2 of image quality, proper lighting. How does a dark shot of a (questionably) modified car add to the article in the least? Ayocee 18:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You are correct. All pictures of automobiles should be properly lit. However, the image of the LED dome light at night does not show the car. It could be any generic vehicle. Perhaps it was put in this article by Mr. Magoo and he continues to be stubborn in refusing to admit the problem?—CZmarlin 01:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Who cares? The content is so bad right now we should not be talking about pictures. As for the other cars that are slightly modified, the pictures at least exemplify the car, not the MOD, which this LED picture does. CJ DUB 18:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with you, it is no longer worth the effort to even try to fix things one item at a time. There are too many battles over something that has no reason to be in an encyclopedia: a "custom" dome light! Then you have someone who keeps insisting on having a picture of their customized car in the article. They now use the excuse that the "paragraph above the picture [is] about aftermarket parts". The text refers to "the aftermarket performance industry" for the 302 in³ engines. Should there be a picture of every "performance enhancing after-market hood and front clip? I don’t think it belongs in an encyclopedia. As a result of this stubbornness, there are no pictures showing how the car should look after its first redesign in eight years.—CZmarlin 20:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "<I>The text refers to "the aftermarket performance industry</I>" One little nit to pick: <I>the hood on the 1987 GT pictured is an "<U>aftermarket performance</U>" part</I>, namely a functioning '<U>Ram-Air</U>' hood which feeds fresh cool air into the engine, enhancing the performance of the vehicle. The bumper cover (<I>not a 'front clip'</I>) is strictly for looks, though<font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 22:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The caption for this image reads: <I>"1987 Ford Mustang GT with after market hood and front clip."</I> So you are now trying to explain that the car does <U>not</U> have an after-market clip (as written), but only a different bumper "strictly for looks"? Gee ... I am an interested reader and want to see a picture of a "real" 1987 Ford Mustang GT? I guess I can't see the way the way the car was originally made!
 * Duke53's explanation and backtracking on the description of the image is another reason this picture should not be included in this article. First, because it is not representative of a car that was made by Ford. Second, the caption is obviously wrong (as originally written and now corrected above by its contributor).
 * Unfortunately, just a few editors keep insisting on including images of cars with aftermarket accessories and custom modifications. The objective of the article is to present the automobile as it was originally made. Therefore, images of modified cars are the equivalent of POV. In other words, the manufacturer made the car, but the owner did not like it that way. The owner had their personal views and made modifications to its looks, performance, or added aftermarket accessories and components. Now they insist on including a picture of it in this article. This is because the original version was not good enough. They disregard Wikipedia guidelines meant to allow some degree of flexibility, particularly when it comes to illustrating extremely rare automobiles. In the case of the Ford Mustang, there are many examples of factory-made completely stock cars. Therefore, any images that show modifications and aftermarket parts ultimately detract the viewer from the main features and original design of the car as Ford made it. Therefore, pictures that show <U>any</U> degree of owner customization make the article weaker.—CZmarlin 14:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * <I>"So you are now trying to explain that the car does not have an after-market clip (as written), but only a different bumper "strictly for looks"</i>" Backtracking my ass ... that caption wasn't written by me. <I>"Second, the caption is obviously wrong (<B>as originally written and now corrected above by its contributor</B>)".</I>". Do a little research and perhaps you can discover <B>who</B> actually came up with the caption. I <B>know</b> the difference between a 'front clip' and a bumper <B><U>cover</U></B> (<I>It is a bumper <U>cover </i>). So far you have made a couple false claims here, by assuming things; maybe you could help Wikipedia by learning a bit more about the subject matter and how WP works, so you would know exactly who wrote the original <B><I><U>false</U></I></B> caption.
 * You can give us more of your unique interpretations of guidelines if you choose ... we have the right to ignore the meaning you keep changing to make your argument.
 * "<I>I am an interested reader and want to see a picture of a "real" 1987 Ford Mustang GT</I>"? I guess I can't see the way the way the car was originally made</i>! Considering that it seems you have very limited knowledge of this subject matter I am guessing that almost anybody could show you a picture of <I>any</i> Mustang, tell you it's a bone stock '87, and you'd believe it. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 16:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If the picture exemplifies the subject matter, without giving undue attention to a OBVIOUS mod, then a tiny amount of customization might be allowed in a photo (e.g window tint, stickers), if no other pictures were available. A picture specifically focusing on a mod is way out of line. CJ DUB 15:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is amazing! Duke53 now denies that he made the contribution on 07:49, 26 July 2007 (see Revision) that inserted the picture of the car together with the "incorrect" caption. For someone who is such an "expert" on this car, this is inexcusable to keep adding material that is incorrect. Moreover, Duke53 also seems to have missed reading the sections on Etiquette and Civility. I was only asking a rhetorical question about where a reader could find a bone stock image of a 1987 Mustang within this article. That does not call for a commentary about anyone's automotive knowledge, because such a response does not speak very highly about its author. An editor does not turn to belittlement and to be judgmental when it is his or her own contributions that are the problem.—CZmarlin 17:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is really amazing: <I>"Now we find out that the caption is also wrong (as written by its <B>contributor</b>)</I>" <---(<I>that's a <U> quote from you</i>) You have misstated numerous other things here; I never paid much attention to the caption when I re-inserted the image. <I>"For someone who is such an "expert" on this car, this is inexcusable to keep adding material that is incorrect"</I>. Don't point out Etiquette and Civility when you write these type statements and then also state your opinions as fact.


 * You do not have the right to make false statements as fact here; when you do you will be called on them. Go find out who came up with the old caption and then you can whine to them.


 * I didn't call myself an 'expert' but I am fairly certain that I have owned many more Mustangs than you have so it follows logically that I would know more about them than you do. A good starting point for you to learn would probably be to find out the difference between a 'front clip' and a bumper cover. Cheers! <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 17:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is getting worse
I go away for 1 month and this article was worse even than it was. I expected it may have improved a little. Who are the knowitalls who keep making the article suck more and more? CJ DUB 13:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Heya, I agree that the section needed some major attention, but I think you could have pulled some of the more useful information from the section, and removed the rather POV and informal stuff. Also, calling the writing style of good faith contributions "worthless" and good faith picture contributions "crappy" in the edit history is probably less than constructive. -<font style="background:#000033;color:#33ffcc;"> super <font style="background:#000033;color:#ccff33;">&beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; <font style="background:#000033;color:#ff9966;">cat 03:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the contributions are junk. This was once a feature article, but because of "good intentions", (aka by worthless cruft by knowitalls) this article has slipped a long way down. Every time it starts to get a bit better a fan goes and Fs it up without thinking, adding PILEs of junk back in again. I personally am sick of it. The image contributions were in fact crappy. A pic showing a LED light at night? LOL. CJ DUB 03:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I hear ya. Just sayin, don't wanna beat people up too bad for not being hugely talented writers. In any case, I'm glad to see another editor is interested in it-- I couldn't believe there wasn't a single word about interior. This is going to be my major project for a while- let's make it a great article again. Cheers! -<font style="background:#000033;color:#33ffcc;"> super <font style="background:#000033;color:#ccff33;">&beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; <font style="background:#000033;color:#ff9966;">cat 03:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hardtop Convertible
I clearly remember hearing something about a Hardtop Convertible Mustang that was in the Fith Generation. Have they ever made one like that, or is it just a rumor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.76.19 (talk) 00:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

According to http://bradbarnett.net/mustangs/timeline/94-98/95/index.htm, "This model year was the only year for the convertible hardtop, and with only 499 models available, it has become a sought after collectible. The hardtop/ragtop was installed as a prototype on a few V6 and GT Mustangs, which have found their way into private hands, but were never "officially" produced." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.89.211.233 (talk) 04:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "Hardtop convertible" seems like an exaggerated term for those cars. Hardtop convertible implies a vehicle with a mechanically folded hard top, like the new NC Miata Hardtop, or the Volvo C70 convertible. The top folds into the trunk and is never removed from the car completely. These Mustangs, however, appear to be just a regular convertible Mustang with a single-piece, non-folding removable hardtop. You could get a very similar piece for the NA and NB Miatas, but nobody refers to them as convertible hardtops. Ayocee 16:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

To-do list for Ford Mustang heading:
I disagree with this heading here. The mustang II has a cult-like following, and has its (tiny, compared to mustangs in general) fanbase, but calling it prized boarders on silliness. Saying future generations of mustangs wouldn't exist without it is silly as well. Just as many other cars have disappeared only to reemerge in a new form years later, there's no evidence that the mustang wouldn't have done the same if the mustang II had never existed. -<font style="background:#000033;color:#33ffcc;"> super <font style="background:#000033;color:#ccff33;">&beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; <font style="background:#000033;color:#ff9966;">cat 01:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

248A
Hello everyone. I work for the Ford Customer Relationship center, and a customer recently inquired about the 248 -A Option on a 1996 Mustang. However, looking within Ford documents, i don't see any mention of this whatsoever. Not in the Ordering guides, not in the sourcebook, nothing. Does anyone, perhaps whomever edited it, have a way of citing what source they received the information from? Because it seems to be entirely customer based, at this point, and if it's an erroneous statement it likely needs to be removed, or at least revised.
 * Its an option for an LED dome light. ;) CJ DUB 15:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ever hear of a GTS? <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 16:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've quite heard of a GTS, but checking in the guide for 1996 it only states there is a Base Mustang and a Mustang GT available for that year, in addition to the Cobra that was available for that year as well. Is a Gt the same thing as the GTS? If these questions seem foolish, I do apologize, i have limited material I am provided and am trying to work with whatever resources are available...You'd think i'd be able to ask somebody here who would know...However nobody i can contact has any information on this.
 * The GTS was a GT <B>s</B>tripped of many of the features of an ordinary GT. You almost think that <I>somebody</i> there at Ford would know this. (?) <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 16:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that fact, however there is nothing within the guides that even hints that a GTS can be ordered, period. Basically there's three groups of options that can be chosen, group one, which is encoded into the vehicle's VOCI as 61A and includes power equipment (locks, windows, etc.), Group Two Which has Speed Control, Premium sound and a couple of other options, which is identified as 63A in the VOCI, and Group 3, which is essentially the GT package, and includes Fog Lamps, sport seating, Dual illuminated visors, Rear Spoiler, and a leather wrapped steering wheel, coded as 65A. There is neither hide nor hair of any other way of ordering this vehicle. And somebody at Ford more than likely does know. I work at the Ford Customer relationship Center(CRC) BIG difference ;)

One thing I <I>have</i> learned here today is that Ford has a branch of their Customer relationship Center(CRC) group in Melbourne, Florida. Cool! Every time I have spoken to one of their agents they have been in Dearborn. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 17:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * :) You are correct, that's where I currently am; However i do need to get back to work. Thanks for the help!


 * I rewrote the section to word it better and considered adding a citation tag but seeing as I'm not a Mustang nut, I decided I'd leave that to the Ford boys to answer. Ayocee 05:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * meh. 248a is clearly listed in the 1996 Mustang dealer brochure. The brochure you could pick up at any ford dealer. --72.85.55.206 (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I recently parted a totalled GTS, and it had no power options, no rear spoiler, and I don't remember it having A/C. In fact, there were no signs that this car ever had a rear sway bar, the holes in the lower control arms were completely unmarked from being used. User: 84mustang_gt —Preceding undated comment added 14:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC).

Content, This talk page
It's amazing that we've spent so much time arguing about reversions of dome lights, etc, but there is little to no discussion about improving the content of the article. Nobody had a comment about whether each series should get some interior highlights. Nobody has commented on whether or not the allegedly prized mustang II should get more coverage (as per the to-do list), or really made any proposals to make this article better. We need a game plan. The to-do list should reflect what actually needs to be done, content-wise, to make this the superior article that it can be, given the number of interested editors (unless we're mainly interested in editing talk in circles over dome lights). Once the content is there, we should worry about ancillary things like images. I think there is far too little information on the creation of the mustang, and what trends in the market led to it. The exhaustive coverage of the various engines makes up the bulk of the early sections, though I've added some exterior trim and interior information. What about a grid of important options, and a prose summary of the more interesting points? -<font style="background:#000033;color:#33ffcc;"> super <font style="background:#000033;color:#ccff33;">&beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; <font style="background:#000033;color:#ff9966;">cat 17:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

MASTER TO DO LIST FOR SUMMER-FALL 2007
No more arguing about photos. List topic areas/sections which need serious help. PLEASE BE BRIEF! style="background:#000033;color:#ff9966;">cat ]] 04:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1 Pare down exhaustive engine lists or put them in a table format (with other options?) -<font style="background:#000033;color:#33ffcc;"> super <font style="background:#000033;color:#ccff33;">&beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; <font style="background:#000033;color:#ff9966;">cat 04:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2 Add interior information for 69+ -<font style="background:#000033;color:#33ffcc;"> super <font style="background:#000033;color:#ccff33;">&beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; <font style="background:#000033;color:#ff9966;">cat 04:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3 Fix choppy prose for more consistent, encyclopedic tone -[[User talk:Superbeecat|<font style="background:#000033;color:#33ffcc;"> super <font style="background:#000033;color:#ccff33;">βεε <font
 * 4 Substantial addition to history section needed describing the Mustang I, the market, etc... -<font style="background:#000033;color:#33ffcc;"> super <font style="background:#000033;color:#ccff33;">&beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; <font style="background:#000033;color:#ff9966;">cat 04:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 5 To avoid going into too much detail for a model that has been in production for 40+ years in one article it would be good to have a general overview and then forks to individual in-depth articles for the different generations of Mustangs - similar to the Chevrolet Camaro example—CZmarlin 20:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

CZmarlin, I could not agree more with your urgent need for re-organisation. I feel, however, your #5 should be #1. I recently ran across an almost irreparable food fight on the talk pages of Cardinals, after an excellent experience with the American Robin. Both birds are distinct species on either side of the pond, thus the big stink about spelling, (US vs.UK).

We will assign people who are intersted. CJ DUB 19:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

CJ DUB,

If your willing to follow CJmarlin's & my suggestion above, that we divide it up chronologically, sign me up. I'm a 60 year-old, second generation motor head. I was born in the Motor City, still live here and only a stone's throw from the World Headquarters of the Ford Motor Company and The Henry Ford Museum. My wife's best girlfriend bought a brand new early 1965 Mustang. What a piece of crap. I "wrenched" for her brother who ran it in Mary Stock Automatic at Detroit Dragway. Our only competition was a Mopar (Valiant) slant six. Naturally we came in second.

I drove it through a blizzard to Grifiss AFB in Rome New York, overnighting in the "B.O.Q." (bachelor officers' quarters). We picked up an Air Force buddy there and then drove to NYC. I don't know which was scarier, trying to outrun a blizzard, or the terrible way the thing handled, while FLOORED, going 85MPH down the Empire State Thruway with those two love-birds CRAMMED into that joke of a back seat. The guy was from Arizona and he said, "If you don't floor it, we'll never get there by dark."

The little six and 2-speed did OK in Manhattan though, with its (in theory, although everyone floors it from a green light to the next red one) 30MPH speed limit. I had little trouble competing with the cabbies, from whom I learned to ALMOST run down the unwary pedestrian who found her/himself in the crosswalk after the light changed. The competitive driving I learned in N'Yoak stood me in good stead some years later when driving in Bahstin (Boston).

Last year, I started a brake job on my next-door neighbors '87 Mustang. I started off doing fronts only, since MY mechanic says he changes five sets of front brakes before he even looks at the back ones. When Ron told me to do the back ones too, I started off doing them, but I had so much trouble disconnecting the stupid parking cables (that's what park/2nd gear are for), I decided to put everything back on the car, and farm it out. Kasey told me he had to really work over one of the frozen back calipers to save the $400 replacement cost, so I lost money, but learned how stupid rear disk brakes are, especially on '87 Mustangs.

First car I ever legally drove was me mum's '53 V-8 3-on-the-tree wagon. One of our family cars was an Anglia (from across the pond). One winter it was so bloody cold, me old man rebuilt the little flat-head four on the kitchen floo, with some parts he machined in his basement shop. Before the big three started building such junk, I had several very nice Fords, OHV V-8s and sixes, but ALWAYS sticks. When the tranny crapped out in my Taurus, after I had invested three thousand into rebuilding the AC, cooling system, and a reconditioned head, I swore off automatics.

I have had to eat my words, though. My son's girlfriend gave him an '87 E-150 work van that had spent most of its life in California as a Sears Appliance Repair truck. Although evidently well-cared for by Sears and Athena, I found several nails and screws in the tyres, the tranny has leaked at the front main seal for quite some time. I once worked at Hydramatic (GM), assembly in Ypsilanti, so I could fix it, but the previous owner had installed a low-mileage V-8 from a motor home, and judging from the huge number of fluid cans, how nice and clean the dip-stick looked and it still shifts nice and tight, even though it's almost out of fluid. I think I'll just live with it parked over a big drain pan when I get her back on the road. My only goal is to use her to move us to the southwest. She's got a frame hitch and light hookup, and I think the with the V-8 Windsor she should have enough beans to haul our household goods ALL the way across Texas. When we get settled out there, I'll just drive her to Tijuana, Tecate, Nogales or Juarez, and see if our amigos can do a better job for many fewer pesos. We're gonna all get our teeth fixed in Mejico tambien.

I've read two books about Ford. One was by John Z. DeLorean, whose father worked for Ford. He told about a bunch of Harry Bennet's goons showing up after dark to search their house for stolen tools. If anybody complained his dad would lose their only meal ticket. The best account of the marketing and development of the Mustang is Unsafe at Any Speed, by Ralph Nader. All Mustang lovers need to read that chapter--what a hoot!

I have read a number of WP pages about cars and lorries. Too many of the contributions seem to be from enthusiasts to maintain a genuine NPOV. If I do become a participant in this project, I intend to point it more in that direction. I have been driving some kind of motor vehicle for over fifty years, and I have yet to encounter the perfect vehicle.

The original 2.6 litre Ford Zephyr/AC Cobra 260 comes close. A few years ago, at the Detroit Grand Prix, I crawled under (without touching, of course) a Superformance Shelby Cobra MKIII. All of the welding and paint work of the undercarriage was gorgeous! As soon as I hit the powerball, I will contact my nearest dealer to custom order mine. It utilizes mostly Ford drive line components (making it MUCH more practical than most exotic cars) and could be ordered with a choice of 351, 427 or 460in3 model for, at that time, $45,500US, which is 1/10 of what the oldies were bringing. I would break it in, driving very carefully to Bondurant in Phoenix and spend a couple of weeks learning how to drive it on closed courses without killing myself.

I guess I've prattled along quite sufficiently to buttress my qualification to contribute to a scholarly discourse on the Mustang, particularly to the "Premier Edition."--W8IMP 08:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added these to the top to-do list, and removed the out-of-date mustang II thing. -<font style="background:#000033;color:#33ffcc;"> super <font style="background:#000033;color:#ccff33;">&beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; <font style="background:#000033;color:#ff9966;">cat 04:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Forking articles
I've been suggesting this for a while, I totally agree. There is enough to be said about each of these cars to easily warrant an article. I think it makes sense for the main article to focus on the history, how it came to be (which is a very interesting story), and then do the summary / click here for full article deal for each generation of mustang. -<font style="background:#000033;color:#33ffcc;"> super <font style="background:#000033;color:#ccff33;">&beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; <font style="background:#000033;color:#ff9966;">cat 20:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. his page is too damn long anyway. CJ DUB 03:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool. What's the best way to do this? fix the article and then fork it, or make several articles and then fix them up? -<font style="background:#000033;color:#33ffcc;"> super <font style="background:#000033;color:#ccff33;">&beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; <font style="background:#000033;color:#ff9966;">cat 05:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't recall how we did it with the Camaro articles, though I think it was started by copying/pasting the info from each section of the main article into a new article, and the main article was updated with brief descriptors.

The only problem I can see with this idea is that care needs to be taken when updating the main article, otherwise you end up like the Corvette article where the blurbs on the main page are nearly as long as the generational articles themselves! Ayocee 23:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It will take tough editors to keep the overall article very concise and then let the generational articles bulk up with materials! Once there is a text with a short introduction to each generation, then the current information under each generation can be cut and copied to their new separate articles.—CZmarlin 03:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

sn95 pic, rice, no background makes it ugly
there are two pics that annoy me, the sn95 pic and the s197 pic. sn95 one is riced out, pretty sure clear corner ricer headlights were never an option. next the s197 pic is so dark you cant see any details. LightSpeed2 03:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

ALL pics of MODIFIED mustangs on this page need to be removed
people come to see information about the mustang, and the pictures should reflect how looks from the factory. I see all these pictures of mustangs mofidied with clear corner headlights, cervinis body kits, etc. I hope im not the only one who sees this as a problem, because these pics do not reflect the mustang at all, they reflect the "high schooler car modifier" image LightSpeed2 07:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have stated this should be done many times! Please read my entry under Images of modified cars above. You are not the only one that thinks this is a problem! However, when editors insist on keeping images that do not belong (see the lengthy discussion under LED light, then you have to wonder if there is any point in contributing any accuracy to this article. There a few people who do not appreciate the idea of an encyclopedia and think this is just another opportunity to show off their customized vehicle. This in spite of the fact that there are many websites where they can post pictures of modified cars. I hope you can achieve the goal of showing the car as the factory produced it. Good luck!—CZmarlin 16:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I just went ahead and pulled down two obviously modified Fox-bodies. There's two remaining cars that I'm not sure about - the red Fox (are those wheels stock?) and the white SN95 (is that stripe package stock?). Ayocee 20:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Even if the stripes are stock, the headlights look aftermarket. IFCAR 00:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The stripes are stock. They were part of the GT package in 1998. The end of 1994-1998 paragraph talks about it. As for the headlights they were touched up with photoshop as the light lens for those years were well known to fade at an alarming rate. I fought with Ford about this for months and they ended up sending me the cobra lens which were clear and looked much better. FrankWilliams 12:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The car in Image:1967-mustang.jpg also seems to have aftermarket wheels and has the rear end is jacked up (or else it has broken springs on the right side since the whole car is leaning). I would think that there has to be a better picture of that generation of Mustangs. The car is too far away and small in this image. Thanks!—CZmarlin 02:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Now he have an editor who once more changes the caption to keep the image of what he previously described as a car with ''the hood on the 1987 GT pictured is an "aftermarket performance" part, namely a functioning 'Ram-Air' hood which feeds fresh cool air into the engine, enhancing the performance of the vehicle. The bumper cover (not a 'front clip') is strictly for looks, thoughDuke53''. There seems no point to help clean up this article and provide proper images of stock cars. Thank you very much—CZmarlin 16:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Is the image in question an image of a 1987 Mustang GT? <I>That is exactly what <U>MY ORIGINAL</U> caption stated. </I>You're welcome. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 17:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Seeing as that one is clearly modified and the original caption stated as such, why was it put back on? Ayocee 23:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * <I>" ... the original caption stated as such"</I> It did? Hmm ... maybe you should do a bit of research before making a statement like that. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 05:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)*


 * That is a very good question. It can only be explained by the original uploader (Duke53) of the image of this modified car since they keep putting it back each time it is removed. They do not seem to be able to understand the request for no images of modified cars! Moreover, they keep asking do you know which ones are modified ... well, the last time I checked it is up to every contributor to help improve the article and not belittle those who try to help. The same contributor has stated on this talk page that there are four other images of customized cars. However, they refuse to identify and remove them. The solution to this problem may be to remove all the images in the article and then require each picture go through a process of review before it will be included.—CZmarlin 03:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * When I pulled the image the first time, it was tagged as having a custom bumper (Cervini or something like that?). It is a bumper and hood combo clearly not belonging to a stock GT. Why are you taking so much offense to an image of a visually modified car being removed from the article? Ayocee 05:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * When you pulled anything does not matter one little bit ... you made the comment that that was the "original caption" for the image. Dishonesty (or guesswork) has no place here at WP ... state <B>facts</b> or stay home. There is no <B>rule</b> that that image cannot be part of the article as it is. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 05:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "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." WikiProject Autos IFCAR 12:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "<I>... unless the text in context to the picture is dealing with the customization of the vehicle.</I>" A <U>functioning </U><B>RAM AIR</B> hood is a performance part; the text near this image speaks of aftermarket performance parts. Bingo! <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 14:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Any image of a car with a "Cervinis" (see https://www.cervinis.com/) tack-on is a modified car and does not belong in this article. Another solution to the problem of a few editors inserting pictures of customized cars would be to have a separate article dedicated strictly to Ford Mustang modification—CZmarlin 02:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This makes the most sense to me. One mention of a popular aftermarket doesn't justify a picture of a car with questionable visible modifications. If there's really a consensus for further discussion on Mustang aftermarket, an article of its own should be considered since this one is too bloated as-is. Ayocee 19:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "<I>questionable visible modifications</i>" Do you even know what RAM AIR is? It is becoming apparent that your knowledge of Mustangs and Mustang related equipment is rather limited. I am puzzled as to why someone who has only been involved with this article for such a short time feels that he can come here and dictate the content of the article.


 * Yes, and I know that 90%+ of all "ram air" hoods - factory or aftermarket - are completely useless. After all, the ducting to actually get a ram air effect out of those hood scoops on a 302 would be so complex as to negate any ram air benefits. Clearly, though, judging by your talk page, I'm wasting my time dealing with a professional troll. And, of course, the length of edit history devoted to an article CLEARLY is more important than anything else involved here. Ayocee 05:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "<I>Yes, and I know that 90%+ of all "ram air" hoods - factory or aftermarket - are completely useless</i>". Got a source for that statement, or is it just another 'fact' that you have made up? <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 05:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Got a source for that ram-air hood actually being a valid performance enhancer? Or is that just another 'fact' that you have made up? Ayocee 06:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * <I>Your</i> honesty is in question here, not mine. You seem to manipulate 'facts' (<I>and ignore the truth</I>) to fit the argument that suits you at the time. The edit history here proves that I am telling the truth; I have no need to make up anything. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 07:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The merits of modifications are not in question, the fact remains that the image shows a customized car. There are countless ways of adding a short ram air intake and a cold air intake to an automobile. An old breadbox can be bolted over a hole on a hood to act as a scoop. It is interesting to note that there are no lists and no extensive images of cars showing all the various vendors of aftermarket parts suppliers in the specialized articles about these two subjects. The fact remains that the image in question (1987 Mustang GT) shows several aftermarket modifications and thus does NOT belong in this article. —CZmarlin 14:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So, when I pose the same question back at Duke53, he tags me with a personal attack? Hilarity. The point at hand is the image, which doesn't belong. Where else on Wikipedia is there a car article with an image of a clearly modified car with no actual discussion on the aftermarket? Ayocee 15:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ayocee, there is no point in getting Duke53 to agree to anything. It is clear that Duke53 attacks the contributions of other editors if he does not get his way. The most you can count on is an escalation of personal attacks, as well as against your other contributions. An example of this is Duke53's second entry on my page -- User talk:CZmarlin.
 * Just imagine how much more productive it would have been to spend the resources required to remove this one image of a clearly customized car, into helping improve the article about Ford's Mustang!—CZmarlin 17:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Back from a wikibreak. Agree that article on modification is in order. Mustangs are among the more frequently modified cars, and have been so from the start. This would solve multiple problems. Duke - feel like stubbing out a modified mustang article? The consensus here is clearly that the modified pic doesn't belong, and I concur. -<font style="background:#000033;color:#33ffcc;"> super <font style="background:#000033;color:#ccff33;">&beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; <font style="background:#000033;color:#ff9966;">cat 19:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Forking this forking article-LOL
Be warned. There is common assent of this action, and this is going to happen soon. CJ DUB 04:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you mind pointing out where exactly this "<I><B>common assent of [sic] this action </B></I>" you speak of is located? <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 00:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[] Enjoy CJ DUB 13:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, that <I>is</i> an overwhelming 'common assent'. :) <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 14:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Care to elaborate? -<font style="background:#000033;color:#33ffcc;"> super <font style="background:#000033;color:#ccff33;">&beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; <font style="background:#000033;color:#ff9966;">cat 19:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The public has been lied to for many years
Sad but true, Ford Motor Company has kept secret the true story behind the Mustang. From giving credit to the wrong people to keeping the key designer out of the story to denying things that are documented. Do you want to know more? http://www.ponysite.de/phil_clark.htm or e-mail me at mjones19761994@yahoo.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.244.93 (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Error or just vague?
"This was the last year of the "Round Body Mustang" and the only year that the "Sports" packaged was offered. The latter featured unique black stripe (regardless of car color) on the hood, which extended over to the wheel wells, and its famous styling cue, the three vertical strip taillights." What does it mean by saying its famous styling cue "three vertical strip taillights"? Is it saying only the 98 had these tail light, or just being vague? Because they were standard on all Sn-95's after 95 and before 99 i.e. 96-98 MustangAficionado 22:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

2008 Ford Mustang Bullitt
Couple of nice CC-BY images available for the model directly from the Ford Motor Company at their Flickr page, if anyone wants to use em. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 04:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)