Ditch '93 Cobra For New 5.0?

NoOp wrote:
> I'm kicking around the idea to let my 1993 Cobra go and replace it
> with a new 5.0 Mustang. My dilemma: I only have a two-car garage.
> And my wife's vehicle gets one of the slots, so that leaves me with
> only one parking space. (I refuse to park the Cobra, or a new 5.0
> Mustang, in the driveway or street and expose it to the elements
> 24/7. Not gonna happen!) I could keep the '93 Cobra, but at this
> point in time the lil' snake's performance/235 HP is increasingly
> becoming, what with nearly seemly everything these days sporting
> 300+HP, um, lets just say ho-hum. I realize "upgrading" the '93 is
> very doable, but do I really want to go through the hassle, not to
> mention turning it into just ANOTHER modified late-model Mustang?
> (I've already done all the easily reversible mods.) Of course the
> "fuel" for my current thinking/planning is that upcoming, honey of a
> Mustang, the new 5.0 GT. 412HP, 6-speed trans, optional Bremo brakes,
> and killer looks, what more could a rabid Mustang enthusiast ask for?
> Okay, yeah, I know, a no-option/stripper version. But how can I
> quibble about that now when I've been driving an "all-option" Cobra
> for the past 12+ years. Straighten me out or talk me it in to it...
> I'd like some feedback.
>
> Patrick

Personally, I'd keep the Cobra. You have something unique there. Sure, a
new GT will be faster, but you'll soon start seeing them everywhere.
Every year there's less and less Foxes on the road, '93 Cobras
especially. A well cared for Fox catches my eye, whereas I hardly glance
at the newer Mustangs. They're just too common to notice.

It's your call in the end, though.

On Apr 7, 8:59*pm, " >
wrote:
> Patrick, in as much as you may love your old Mustangs, the 80s through
> pre-2004 Mustangs are... are quite simply old and dated cars.

I see the older Mustangs quite differently. As much as I love and
respect the '64s-'73s, I wouldn't own one. In my view, they're now
[the classics] nothing much more than museum pieces, and I'm not a
curator type. I want something I can jump in and drive, everyday,
rain or shine. Yea, I know about stuff like the Pure Stock Drags
where owners often hammer them to an inch of their life. And I love
that! (Must be nice to have the extra cash to replace something like
a blown Boss 302/429 engine.) But at the end, they're still "fair
weather" cars -- you don't see them slogging through rush-hour
traffic, making the DAILY commute or being parked in the front rows at
Walmart/banging it out with shopping carts. The '74-'78 Mustangs, IMO,
are pretty much, with few exceptions, non-Mustangs. The '79-pre-2004s
are still great cars, but with the march of technology, they're the
automotive equivalent of an old[er] iPOD or hard drive -- still very
"useable", but their performance is increasingly becoming (with each
new model year) less and less "capable". Though I do see them (the
pure/near-stockers) soon enjoying their "day in the sun" at the auto
shows.

> With few exceptions, they are long in the tooth and nowhere near as
> desirable as new Mustangs, unless you want to talk pre-1974 Mustangs -
> that's a different genre and one of the main reasons we're all still
> talking Mustang these many decades later.

If I was going "old" Mustang shopping, here is my order of picks
(excluding R-models, Shelbys and specialties):

1) '09 Bullitt Mustang
2) '05-'10 GT
3) '87-'93, 5-speed 5.0 LX
4) '03-'04 Mach 1
5) '01 Bullitt
6) '85, 5-speed 5.0 LX

That's about it. Nothing newer than an '85. (As for any "fair-
weather" vehicle it would be either a motorcycle or a "real hot rod"
like a T-bucket.)

> Remember the late 80's Probe
> scare? Whew, seems like yesterday.

Yes, I do. In fact, I was part of the letter-writing campaign to save
the RWD V8 Mustang.

> Go get the birth certificate prepared buddy, you won't regret it.

> Tell 'em Andrew sent ya...

Thanks, Andrew!

Patrick

> '65 6cyl auto Caspian Blue coupe with white vinyl roof - owned since '85
> '80 4cyl auto white hatch - 1991-1992
> '89 8cyl 5spd std blue hatlch - 1992-1996
> '96 8cyl 5spd std forest green GT - 1996 new - 2000 [god I miss the
> beast]
> Since 2001 they've all been brand new Escapes, '01, '03, 06 and now '09
>
> In article
> >,
>
> NoOp > wrote:
> > On Apr 7, 6:23*am, "dwight" > wrote:
> > > "NoOp" > wrote in message
>
> > ....
>
> > > > Straighten me out or talk me it in to it...
> > > > I'd like some feedback.
>
> > > > Patrick
>
> > > Welcome to my world, Patrick.
>
> > > I understand. TFrog has been my best friend and constant companion for 16
> > > years, and is still a flat-out joy every day. Now long in the tooth and with
> > > a laundry list of things that need to be done, it is still the "perfect
> > > car." The convertible is a relative pig, slow and heavy, so we have not
> > > bonded the way I have with TFrog. And TFrog is the car that "I will keep
> > > forever."
>
> > > Now Ford has messed things up by bringing out a new model that is ultra hard
> > > to resist. My quandary - both '93s would have to go to make room for a new
> > > 2011, both in parking and in budget.
>
> > Parking? *If you can house two Mustangs now, why not just replace one
> > and keep the TFrog?
>
> > > All I can say is what has already been said - take a 2011 for a test drive.
> > > If it makes you forget all about the Cobra, then the decision has been made.
>
> > As with your CFrog, I feel the same way about my Cobra. *I like the
> > car, but there's no bond. *It's just not the same as my old '87 no-
> > option, 5-speed, 3.08 geared, LX. *THAT car was me. *I was there when
> > it was conceived (I special ordered it) and I raised it (from zero
> > miles up to over 100K) -- lots and lots of memorable street racing
> > matches, numerous trips to the drags (I made over hundred 1/4 mile
> > passes in that car) and used it for many family outings/cross-country
> > vacations. *The Cobra in contrast was an adoption; it wasn't mine on
> > day 1, and hasn't really been able to become part of the family.
>
> > I'm hoping a brand-new 5.0 might be able to fill the void that's been
> > partially empty inside me for the last 12 years. *I don't know... I do
> > know a test drive of the new 5.0 is in order. *And if it gives me that
> > "warm feeling" a test drive of a '85 5-speed GT Mustang gave me back
> > in '86, it may be time to type up a new "birth certificate" with my
> > local Ford dealer...
>
> > Patrick

Ditch it, go for it.
My '07 GT man w/3.73 gear with the traction control off hole shots like a 70
Boss.
Nothing like the classic squirrlly assend action IMO, and it's switchible
too.
TC on, hole shots galore on previous gen stangs.
I will test drive a new 5.0 when I can to measure it's fun factor which
should be the same plus.

> If I was going "old" Mustang shopping, here is my order of picks
> (excluding R-models, Shelbys and specialties):
>
> 1) '09 Bullitt Mustang

Oh crap! Forgot about the '03 & '04 Terminators. Make these my second
pick. .

> 2) '05-'10 GT
> 3) '87-'93, 5-speed 5.0 LX
> 4) '03-'04 Mach 1
> 5) '01 Bullitt
> 6) '85, 5-speed 5.0 LX
>
> That's about it. *Nothing newer than an '85. *(As for any "fair-
> weather" vehicle it would be either a motorcycle or a "real hot rod"
> like a T-bucket.)

Patrick

I drive my '65 coupe to work every day from mid-April [she's in having
some tweaks as we speak] until end of October, and she's just a
6-banger.

Nothing like breezing by a bunch of cars in a pack and moving out ahead
in the clear. I don't drive it like an old lady that's for sure.

Funny recollections in my '65...

I saw a teenage kid standing at a light up ahead and he locked in on
the car, hunching his shoulders to stare into the grille and as I drove
by with the windows down he shouted "Mussssssssstang...." oh so cool.

Pulled up beside a car with an east Indian family in it and a young boy
sticks his head out and asks "What are you driving?" I tell him it's a
'65 Mustang and he turns to his dad who is driving and says "That's my
new favourite car!" I'm hoping, years later, he has in fact got the
Mustang bug.

OK... all-time funniest thing, ever...

I was driving home one day in heavy traffic, amazingly hot sunny day...
and I become aware of a car slightly behind and to my left with the
stereo blaring, and they're trying to roll up to get a look. Finally, a
few lights later they're beside me and a young black dude leans out and
says "Hey, are those spinners illegal?!" and without flinching I slowly
turn my head to the side and mutter "Yeah, probably." and the whole car
erupts in cheers and laughter.

Unless you're driving a new Shelby, you just don't get the same
reaction. I loved my '96 GT but no one ever stopped at the end of my
drive to talk about it... I get at least 1 or 2 a week during the
summer always wanting to talk about the '65.

Sorry

AC

In article
>,
NoOp > wrote:

> On Apr 7, 8:59*pm, " >
> wrote:
> > Patrick, in as much as you may love your old Mustangs, the 80s through
> > pre-2004 Mustangs are... are quite simply old and dated cars.
>
> I see the older Mustangs quite differently. As much as I love and
> respect the '64s-'73s, I wouldn't own one. In my view, they're now
> [the classics] nothing much more than museum pieces, and I'm not a
> curator type. I want something I can jump in and drive, everyday,
> rain or shine. Yea, I know about stuff like the Pure Stock Drags
> where owners often hammer them to an inch of their life. And I love
> that! (Must be nice to have the extra cash to replace something like
> a blown Boss 302/429 engine.) But at the end, they're still "fair
> weather" cars -- you don't see them slogging through rush-hour
> traffic, making the DAILY commute or being parked in the front rows at
> Walmart/banging it out with shopping carts. The '74-'78 Mustangs, IMO,
> are pretty much, with few exceptions, non-Mustangs. The '79-pre-2004s
> are still great cars, but with the march of technology, they're the
> automotive equivalent of an old[er] iPOD or hard drive -- still very
> "useable", but their performance is increasingly becoming (with each
> new model year) less and less "capable". Though I do see them (the
> pure/near-stockers) soon enjoying their "day in the sun" at the auto
> shows.
>
> > With few exceptions, they are long in the tooth and nowhere near as
> > desirable as new Mustangs, unless you want to talk pre-1974 Mustangs -
> > that's a different genre and one of the main reasons we're all still
> > talking Mustang these many decades later.
>
> If I was going "old" Mustang shopping, here is my order of picks
> (excluding R-models, Shelbys and specialties):
>
> 1) '09 Bullitt Mustang
> 2) '05-'10 GT
> 3) '87-'93, 5-speed 5.0 LX
> 4) '03-'04 Mach 1
> 5) '01 Bullitt
> 6) '85, 5-speed 5.0 LX
>
> That's about it. Nothing newer than an '85. (As for any "fair-
> weather" vehicle it would be either a motorcycle or a "real hot rod"
> like a T-bucket.)
>
> > Remember the late 80's Probe
> > scare? Whew, seems like yesterday.
>
> Yes, I do. In fact, I was part of the letter-writing campaign to save
> the RWD V8 Mustang.
>
> > Go get the birth certificate prepared buddy, you won't regret it.
>
> > Tell 'em Andrew sent ya...
>
> Thanks, Andrew!
>
> Patrick
>
> > '65 6cyl auto Caspian Blue coupe with white vinyl roof - owned since '85
> > '80 4cyl auto white hatch - 1991-1992
> > '89 8cyl 5spd std blue hatlch - 1992-1996
> > '96 8cyl 5spd std forest green GT - 1996 new - 2000 [god I miss the
> > beast]
> > Since 2001 they've all been brand new Escapes, '01, '03, 06 and now '09
> >
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> > NoOp > wrote:
> > > On Apr 7, 6:23*am, "dwight" > wrote:
> > > > "NoOp" > wrote in message
> >
> > > ...
> >
> > > > > Straighten me out or talk me it in to it...
> > > > > I'd like some feedback.
> >
> > > > > Patrick
> >
> > > > Welcome to my world, Patrick.
> >
> > > > I understand. TFrog has been my best friend and constant companion for
> > > > 16
> > > > years, and is still a flat-out joy every day. Now long in the tooth and
> > > > with
> > > > a laundry list of things that need to be done, it is still the "perfect
> > > > car." The convertible is a relative pig, slow and heavy, so we have not
> > > > bonded the way I have with TFrog. And TFrog is the car that "I will keep
> > > > forever."
> >
> > > > Now Ford has messed things up by bringing out a new model that is ultra
> > > > hard
> > > > to resist. My quandary - both '93s would have to go to make room for a
> > > > new
> > > > 2011, both in parking and in budget.
> >
> > > Parking? *If you can house two Mustangs now, why not just replace one
> > > and keep the TFrog?
> >
> > > > All I can say is what has already been said - take a 2011 for a test
> > > > drive.
> > > > If it makes you forget all about the Cobra, then the decision has been
> > > > made.
> >
> > > As with your CFrog, I feel the same way about my Cobra. *I like the
> > > car, but there's no bond. *It's just not the same as my old '87 no-
> > > option, 5-speed, 3.08 geared, LX. *THAT car was me. *I was there when
> > > it was conceived (I special ordered it) and I raised it (from zero
> > > miles up to over 100K) -- lots and lots of memorable street racing
> > > matches, numerous trips to the drags (I made over hundred 1/4 mile
> > > passes in that car) and used it for many family outings/cross-country
> > > vacations. *The Cobra in contrast was an adoption; it wasn't mine on
> > > day 1, and hasn't really been able to become part of the family.
> >
> > > I'm hoping a brand-new 5.0 might be able to fill the void that's been
> > > partially empty inside me for the last 12 years. *I don't know... I do
> > > know a test drive of the new 5.0 is in order. *And if it gives me that
> > > "warm feeling" a test drive of a '85 5-speed GT Mustang gave me back
> > > in '86, it may be time to type up a new "birth certificate" with my
> > > local Ford dealer...
> >
> > > Patrick
>

On Apr 9, 6:56*pm, MacAndy > wrote:

> I drive my '65 coupe to work every day from mid-April [she's in having
> some tweaks as we speak] until end of October, and she's just a
> 6-banger.

I commend you! However, you're driving a 6-cylinder coupe. Would you
still do the same -- a daily commute -- with a Boss 302, 428 Mach 1 or
even a '65 289 hi-po car?

<snip>

> Unless you're driving a new Shelby, you just don't get the same
> reaction. I loved my '96 GT but no one ever stopped at the end of my
> drive to talk about it...

A '96 GT, at this point in time, is far from a standout Mustang. (And
arguably is one of the weakest late-model GT Mustangs.) A comparison:
Imagine driving your '65 6-cylinder (or a plain-Jane 289 model) coupe
in the very early 1970s and getting oohs and ahs.

> I get at least 1 or 2 a week during the
> summer always wanting to talk about the '65.

Understandable. But take a '96 GT, that's in prime shape, for a drive
30 years from now and I'm quite sure it'll turn heads too.

Patrick

> >,
>
> NoOp > wrote:
> > On Apr 7, 8:59*pm, " >
> > wrote:
> > > Patrick, in as much as you may love your old Mustangs, the 80s through
> > > pre-2004 Mustangs are... are quite simply old and dated cars.
>
> > I see the older Mustangs quite differently. *As much as I love and
> > respect the '64s-'73s, I wouldn't own one. *In my view, they're now
> > [the classics] nothing much more than museum pieces, and I'm not a
> > curator type. *I want something I can jump in and drive, everyday,
> > rain or shine. *Yea, I know about stuff like the Pure Stock Drags
> > where owners often hammer them to an inch of their life. *And I love
> > that! *(Must be nice to have the extra cash to replace something like
> > a blown Boss 302/429 engine.) *But at the end, they're still "fair
> > weather" cars -- you don't see them slogging through rush-hour
> > traffic, making the DAILY commute or being parked in the front rows at
> > Walmart/banging it out with shopping carts. The '74-'78 Mustangs, IMO,
> > are pretty much, with few exceptions, non-Mustangs. The '79-pre-2004s
> > are still great cars, but with the march of technology, they're the
> > automotive equivalent of an old[er] iPOD or hard drive -- still very
> > "useable", but their performance is increasingly becoming (with each
> > new model year) less and less "capable". * Though I do see them (the
> > pure/near-stockers) soon enjoying their "day in the sun" at the auto
> > shows.
>
> > > With few exceptions, they are long in the tooth and nowhere near as
> > > desirable as new Mustangs, unless you want to talk pre-1974 Mustangs -
> > > that's a different genre and one of the main reasons we're all still
> > > talking Mustang these many decades later.
>
> > If I was going "old" Mustang shopping, here is my order of picks
> > (excluding R-models, Shelbys and specialties):
>
> > 1) '09 Bullitt Mustang
> > 2) '05-'10 GT
> > 3) '87-'93, 5-speed 5.0 LX
> > 4) '03-'04 Mach 1
> > 5) '01 Bullitt
> > 6) '85, 5-speed 5.0 LX
>
> > That's about it. *Nothing newer than an '85. *(As for any "fair-
> > weather" vehicle it would be either a motorcycle or a "real hot rod"
> > like a T-bucket.)
>
> > > Remember the late 80's Probe
> > > scare? Whew, seems like yesterday.
>
> > Yes, I do. *In fact, I was part of the letter-writing campaign to save
> > the RWD V8 Mustang.
>
> > > Go get the birth certificate prepared buddy, you won't regret it.
>
> > > Tell 'em Andrew sent ya...
>
> > Thanks, Andrew!
>
> > Patrick
>
> > > '65 6cyl auto Caspian Blue coupe with white vinyl roof - owned since '85
> > > '80 4cyl auto white hatch - 1991-1992
> > > '89 8cyl 5spd std blue hatlch - 1992-1996
> > > '96 8cyl 5spd std forest green GT - 1996 new - 2000 [god I miss the
> > > beast]
> > > Since 2001 they've all been brand new Escapes, '01, '03, 06 and now '09
>
> > > In article
> > > >,
>
> > > NoOp > wrote:
> > > > On Apr 7, 6:23*am, "dwight" > wrote:
> > > > > "NoOp" > wrote in message
>
> > > > ...
>
> > > > > > Straighten me out or talk me it in to it...
> > > > > > I'd like some feedback.
>
> > > > > > Patrick
>
> > > > > Welcome to my world, Patrick.
>
> > > > > I understand. TFrog has been my best friend and constant companion for
> > > > > 16
> > > > > years, and is still a flat-out joy every day. Now long in the tooth and
> > > > > with
> > > > > a laundry list of things that need to be done, it is still the "perfect
> > > > > car." The convertible is a relative pig, slow and heavy, so we have not
> > > > > bonded the way I have with TFrog. And TFrog is the car that "I will keep
> > > > > forever."
>
> > > > > Now Ford has messed things up by bringing out a new model that is ultra
> > > > > hard
> > > > > to resist. My quandary - both '93s would have to go to make room for a
> > > > > new
> > > > > 2011, both in parking and in budget.
>
> > > > Parking? *If you can house two Mustangs now, why not just replace one
> > > > and keep the TFrog?
>
> > > > > All I can say is what has already been said - take a 2011 for a test
> > > > > drive.
> > > > > If it makes you forget all about the Cobra, then the decision has been
> > > > > made.
>
> > > > As with your CFrog, I feel the same way about my Cobra. *I like the
> > > > car, but there's no bond. *It's just not the same as my old '87 no-
> > > > option, 5-speed, 3.08 geared, LX. *THAT car was me. *I was there when
> > > > it was conceived (I special ordered it) and I raised it (from zero
> > > > miles up to over 100K) -- lots and lots of memorable street racing
> > > > matches, numerous trips to the drags (I made over hundred 1/4 mile
> > > > passes in that car) and used it for many family outings/cross-country
> > > > vacations. *The Cobra in contrast was an adoption; it wasn't mine on
> > > > day 1, and hasn't really been able to become part of the family.
>
> > > > I'm hoping a brand-new 5.0 might be able to fill the void that's been
> > > > partially empty inside me for the last 12 years. *I don't know... I do
> > > > know a test drive of the new 5.0 is in order. *And if it gives me that
> > > > "warm feeling" a test drive of a '85 5-speed GT Mustang gave me back
> > > > in '86, it may be time to type up a new "birth certificate" with my
> > > > local Ford dealer...
>
> > > > Patrick

On 2010-04-11, NoOp > wrote:
> On Apr 9, 6:56*pm, MacAndy > wrote:
>
>> I drive my '65 coupe to work every day from mid-April [she's in having
>> some tweaks as we speak] until end of October, and she's just a
>> 6-banger.
>
> I commend you! However, you're driving a 6-cylinder coupe. Would you
> still do the same -- a daily commute -- with a Boss 302, 428 Mach 1 or
> even a '65 289 hi-po car?
>
><snip>
>
>> Unless you're driving a new Shelby, you just don't get the same
>> reaction. I loved my '96 GT but no one ever stopped at the end of my
>> drive to talk about it...
>
> A '96 GT, at this point in time, is far from a standout Mustang. (And
> arguably is one of the weakest late-model GT Mustangs.) A comparison:
> Imagine driving your '65 6-cylinder (or a plain-Jane 289 model) coupe
> in the very early 1970s and getting oohs and ahs.
>
>> I get at least 1 or 2 a week during the
>> summer always wanting to talk about the '65.
>
> Understandable. But take a '96 GT, that's in prime shape, for a drive
> 30 years from now and I'm quite sure it'll turn heads too.

My 6 clyinder maverick gets a good amount of attention and it's not
even pretty. The last time was when I was finishing up replacing
the front brakes on my little mazda and someone saw it in the garage
while walking by.

In article
>,
NoOp > wrote:

> I commend you! However, you're driving a 6-cylinder coupe. Would you
> still do the same -- a daily commute -- with a Boss 302, 428 Mach 1 or
> even a '65 289 hi-po car?

I would drive a hi-po coupe, convertible or fastback to work, yes,
likely not a Boss 302 or anything rarer and certainly not a concourse
condition any style or year. My ideal Mustang would be a '65 Caspian
blue GT fastback with modern drivetrain. Would like an EFi engine and
do away with the older mechanics and the headaches they can bring.

> A '96 GT, at this point in time, is far from a standout Mustang. (And
> arguably is one of the weakest late-model GT Mustangs.) A comparison:
> Imagine driving your '65 6-cylinder (or a plain-Jane 289 model) coupe
> in the very early 1970s and getting oohs and ahs.

I would dare say a nice '96 GT, design-wise, is far more interesting to
most than any 1979-1993 Mustang but any design up to 2003 is now very
old and dated especially in contrast to the current body design.

> Understandable. But take a '96 GT, that's in prime shape, for a drive
> 30 years from now and I'm quite sure it'll turn heads too.

I doubt it will. But a '65 coupe will continue to turn heads for
centuries. The 1964-1973 Mustangs are very unique and stand out
everywhere they go and are still very desirable cars.

Got get yourself a new one already! :-)

Andrew

On Apr 12, 11:27*am, MacAndy > wrote:
> In article

> NoOp > wrote:
> > I commend you! *However, you're driving a 6-cylinder coupe. *Would you
> > still do the same -- a daily commute -- with a Boss 302, 428 Mach 1 or
> > even a '65 289 hi-po car?

> I would drive a hi-po coupe, convertible or fastback to work, yes,

Everyday, really... rain or shine?

> likely not a Boss 302 or anything rarer and certainly not a concourse
> condition any style or year. My ideal Mustang would be a '65 Caspian
> blue GT fastback with modern drivetrain. Would like an EFi engine and
> do away with the older mechanics and the headaches they can bring.

The early -- '65-'66 -- fastbacks are my favorite too. I also agree a
modern EFI motor -- how about a new 5.0 w/6-speed and a 9'' out back?
-- under the hood of one of these would be a wonderful
combination.

> > A '96 GT, at this point in time, is far from a standout Mustang. *(And
> > arguably is one of the weakest late-model GT Mustangs.) *A comparison:
> > Imagine driving your '65 6-cylinder (or a plain-Jane 289 model) coupe
> > in the very early 1970s and getting oohs and ahs.

> I would dare say a nice '96 GT, design-wise, is far more interesting to
> most than any 1979-1993 Mustang but any design up to 2003 is now very
> old and dated especially in contrast to the current body design.

I never cared for the '96 -- '98 cars. Too bloated looking to my
eyes. The flatter sided '99-'04 were an improvement, except they
boogered-them-up with too many, and too large of, scoops. Too me the
'79-'93 cars were clean and purposeful -- a modern version of the
original cars. The only downfall to their design was the hatchback
instead of a true fastback, but at least it [the hatchback] made the
car more functional. (Note: The hatchback design helped me "sell" a
'87 5-liter, 5-speed to my wife as a "family car". :-)

> > Understandable. *But take a '96 GT, that's in prime shape, for a drive
> > 30 years from now and I'm quite sure it'll turn heads too.

> I doubt it will.

Don't doubt it. A few years ago my daughter's 4-door '83 LTD "turned
heads". The car was SUPER clean and I had installed Mustang 10-hole
wheels on it. I often had people follow me to look at it and was
given thumbs up. I think if it's old and really clean people will get
nostalgic about it.

> But a '65 coupe will continue to turn heads for
> centuries. The 1964-1973 Mustangs are very unique and stand out
> everywhere they go and are still very desirable cars.

Truth be told I thought the early Camaros looked better than the early
Mustangs.

> Got get yourself a new one already! :-)

The "boss" (wife) has already signed off on the idea. Next comes a
test drive. If it gives me the warm fuzzys, they it'll be heavy
research time on available options, or for me, lack of.

My preliminary reseach has a: 5-liter w/6-speed, rear spoiler DELETE
(I hate spoilers!), Brembo brake package (comes w/special 19" wheels),
black interior, manually-operated cloth seats, and a black exterior
(though Grabber Blue really grabs me).

My heavy research will consist of: trying to find a way to get crank-
windows, the power locks/mirrors & A/C deleted and the rear seat and
carpeting left at the factory.

Patrick

"NoOp" > wrote in message
...
> I'm kicking around the idea to let my 1993 Cobra go and replace it
> with a new 5.0 Mustang. My dilemma: I only have a two-car garage.
> And my wife's vehicle gets one of the slots, so that leaves me with
> only one parking space. (I refuse to park the Cobra, or a new 5.0
> Mustang, in the driveway or street and expose it to the elements
> 24/7. Not gonna happen!) I could keep the '93 Cobra, but at this
> point in time the lil' snake's performance/235 HP is increasingly
> becoming, what with nearly seemly everything these days sporting
> 300+HP, um, lets just say ho-hum. I realize "upgrading" the '93 is
> very doable, but do I really want to go through the hassle, not to
> mention turning it into just ANOTHER modified late-model Mustang?
> (I've already done all the easily reversible mods.) Of course the
> "fuel" for my current thinking/planning is that upcoming, honey of a
> Mustang, the new 5.0 GT. 412HP, 6-speed trans, optional Bremo brakes,
> and killer looks, what more could a rabid Mustang enthusiast ask for?
> Okay, yeah, I know, a no-option/stripper version. But how can I
> quibble about that now when I've been driving an "all-option" Cobra
> for the past 12+ years. Straighten me out or talk me it in to it...
> I'd like some feedback.
>
> Patrick

Hell, go for it! I'd like to trade in my '04 Mach1, 25,000miler on a new GT
convt., but who needs the damn payments? Ah, nuts!!