10 Worst Mustangs, EVER.
 

Do you agree?

http://mustangsdaily.com/blog/2012/0...s-of-all-time/

Patrick

10 Worst Mustangs, EVER.
 

" > wrote in message
...
> Do you agree?
>
> http://mustangsdaily.com/blog/2012/0...s-of-all-time/
>
> Patrick

I began my Mustang life in a 1974 Mustang II with a six cylinder engine, and
loved it enough to go on to own five more Mustangs over the years. Still,
I'm okay with half the list being the 1974-1978 years. The OPEC-induced
degradation of the Mustang carved about 14 years of performance out of the
brand, if you think about it, and, while the Mustang II made sense at the
time, it was a BAD move and nothing more than a place-holder. It was really
the 1988 5.0's that brought us back to acceptable levels of Mustang
performance, and look where we are now.

So, a soft spot in my heart for the II's, but I am a realist, after all.

dwight

10 Worst Mustangs, EVER.
 

On Apr 18, 6:00*pm, "dwight" > wrote:
> " > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Do you agree?
>
> >http://mustangsdaily.com/blog/2012/0...-the-10-worst-...
>
> > Patrick
>
> I began my Mustang life in a 1974 Mustang II with a six cylinder engine, and
> loved it enough to go on to own five more Mustangs over the years. Still,
> I'm okay with half the list being the 1974-1978 years. The OPEC-induced
> degradation of the Mustang carved about 14 years of performance out of the
> brand, if you think about it, and, while the Mustang II made sense at the
> time, it was a BAD move and nothing more than a place-holder.

The idea -- smaller, lighter, "sportier" -- was right. And the
styling wasn't bad, for its day. It was just that the hardware/
execution was terrible -- the over reliance on plastic fairings/
scoops, louvers, stickers, and not trying to at least make the
engine(s), suspension, and transmission(s) sporting.

> It was really
> the 1988 5.0's that brought us back to acceptable levels of Mustang
> performance,

I'd argue it started with the '82 GTs.

and look where we are now.

To levels way beyond our childhood dreams.

> So, a soft spot in my heart for the II's, but I am a realist, after all.

My wife, when we first meet, owned one too -- a dark blue '78. I used
to manually shift the floor mounted automatic. Didn't do anything to
help performance, but helped make it a little funner to drive.

Patrick

10 Worst Mustangs, EVER.
 

On Apr 18, 8:04*pm, "
> wrote:
> On Apr 18, 6:00*pm, "dwight" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > " > wrote in message
>
> ....
>
> > > Do you agree?
>
> > >http://mustangsdaily.com/blog/2012/0...-the-10-worst-....
>
> > > Patrick
>
> > I began my Mustang life in a 1974 Mustang II with a six cylinder engine, and
> > loved it enough to go on to own five more Mustangs over the years. Still,
> > I'm okay with half the list being the 1974-1978 years. The OPEC-induced
> > degradation of the Mustang carved about 14 years of performance out of the
> > brand, if you think about it, and, while the Mustang II made sense at the
> > time, it was a BAD move and nothing more than a place-holder.
>
> The idea -- smaller, lighter, "sportier" -- was right. *And the
> styling wasn't bad, for its day. *It was just that the hardware/
> execution was terrible -- the over reliance on plastic fairings/
> scoops, louvers, stickers, and not trying to at least make the
> engine(s), suspension, and transmission(s) sporting.
>
> > It was really
> > the 1988 5.0's that brought us back to acceptable levels of Mustang
> > performance,
>
> I'd argue it started with the '82 GTs.

To go further, I'd say it was the 1982 campaign of "The Boss is Back"
that signaled the "car guys" inside Ford finally had gotten ballsy
enough to take over the asylum. An asylum that had forgotten 'it's
all about the product.'

Patrick

10 Worst Mustangs, EVER.
 

On 2012-04-18, > wrote:
> Do you agree?
>
> http://mustangsdaily.com/blog/2012/0...s-of-all-time/

Should not be on the list:

The '79 pace car, looks no worse than other "pace car" editions from
various makes. The '79 however has become sort of an icon.

CS and high country specials: Too hyped, but that doesn't make them bad.

Mustang E: It's still a '69. It's not uglified, it's just slow. Lots of
slow mustangs have been made in the name of economy with looks.

10 Worst Mustangs, EVER.
 

" > wrote in message
...
> Do you agree?
>
> http://mustangsdaily.com/blog/2012/0...s-of-all-time/
>
> Patrick

mustang sprint sportsroof and convertible were nice ......

10 Worst Mustangs, EVER.
 

On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 15:14:29 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:

>Do you agree?
>
>http://mustangsdaily.com/blog/2012/0...s-of-all-time/
>
>Patrick


As with almost everything from jalopnik, they are mostly full of crap.
Take a look at the number 1 "worst" and tell me whether you'd love to
have someone give you a fully restored one like in the photo. I'd
take it in a heartbeat.

10 Worst Mustangs, EVER.
 

In article >,
Ashton Crusher > wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 15:14:29 -0700 (PDT), "
> > wrote:
>
> >Do you agree?
> >
> >http://mustangsdaily.com/blog/2012/0...worst-special-
> >edition-ford-mustangs-of-all-time/
> >
> >Patrick
>
>
> As with almost everything from jalopnik, they are mostly full of crap.
> Take a look at the number 1 "worst" and tell me whether you'd love to
> have someone give you a fully restored one like in the photo. I'd
> take it in a heartbeat.

I'd take one with a v6 in it. I had a buddy in the military with a v6 in
the Cobra model (not the King Cobra). It seemed like a nice enough car
at the time. Cobra decals were a bit to flashy for me, but the rest of
the car wasn't bad.
I'm not getting what's wrong with the California Edition. I love the
grille. There is an 05 - 09 white one near where I live and another one
at work, but these have the small fog lights. I'd like that grille on my
v6. I like those small fogs.
Many special edition cars are decal packages, spoilers, and lights. I
didn't know that was a bad thing.

--
For all you know this message was...
Sent via an exclusive network, on a snobby portable computing device.

10 Worst Mustangs, EVER.
 

On 4/23/2012 9:04 AM, twk wrote:
> I'd take one with a v6 in it. I had a buddy in the military with a v6
> in the Cobra model (not the King Cobra). It seemed like a nice enough
> car at the time. Cobra decals were a bit to flashy for me, but the
> rest of the car wasn't bad. I'm not getting what's wrong with the
> California Edition. I love the grille. There is an 05 - 09 white one
> near where I live and another one at work, but these have the small
> fog lights. I'd like that grille on my v6. I like those small fogs.
> Many special edition cars are decal packages, spoilers, and lights. I
> didn't know that was a bad thing.
I had a 76 Cobra with the v6 engine. White with blue stripes (weren't
they all) and I thought it was a fun car. It had the stick on louvers
on the rear side windows. Looked pretty cool, but bandits in the night
stole them. My son drove that car until the rust attacked it and
the outside door panels were flapping in the breeze. I've been a Ford
guy ever since, but I have fond memories of my 63 Chev 409
and my 68 Camaro.

Dick in MN

10 Worst Mustangs, EVER.
 

On Apr 18, 3:14*pm, "
> wrote:
> Do you agree?
>
> http://mustangsdaily.com/blog/2012/0...-the-10-worst-...
>
> Patrick

I save my disdain for the '68 Shelby GT350. All show, no go. With its
grocery getter A Code 302 popping out 150 net horsepower (est.), this
pig won't match up with a modern Honda Civic, whatever the venue.
Truly a blot on the Shelby name.