The 2006 Mustang GT/Cobra/Mach 1

[2001GTPEWTER]

I love my new 2001 GT its the second Mustang Ive had, but because of the excellent condition of the car and the car's mileage..I only plan to have it for three years from now. I'll be 25 in 2006, and I've been wondering for a while what the model of the 41st year will be..whether they'll stay with the stupid Shellby design or go back to the design of 99-04. My point is I'll be higher up at work and I'll be able to afford a lease for a brand new one instead of one coming off lease from 2004..anybody work for Ford?

[Hethj7]

Well, considering the 05 Stang is a complete platform re-design, you are not going to see the 2006 go back to the style of the 99-04. Has that ever been done before? I can't imagine a car maker would release a new body style and then in a year or two go back to the previous design.

[302 LX Eric]

Just as an FYI...I think the latest rumor out of Dearborn is that the SVT Cobra is on hold until the 2007 model year, meaning it probably wont show up on dealer lots until late 2006.

E

[Stang_Girl617]

NOOOOO! I need that car!!! They have to hurry up! dang them!

[MidNiteBlu 5.0]

I want a 2005 Mustang so bad I saw one tonight take off from a stoplight, sounded MEAN!

and yes the Mustang is going to be the same for quite sometime especially with the all new chassis and body. Im sure there will be subtle changes and special models offered like always though.

[2001GTPEWTER]

That really sucks.. I spent $10,000 on my 2001 GT (ALL payed for) and in two years I'll be able to LEASE my next Mustang..But Im 23 years old..what the hell would I want with a brand new Ford Mustang thats built to look like a remake of a 1965 muscle car..that sucks. Thats why the market for the 2005 is predominantly men in age 45+, Im also suprised that the MSRP is the same, I thought for that reason the price would be at least $5,000 more tp buy new.

[MidNiteBlu 5.0]

Ill take the retro styling over a new styling anyday

the older mustangs were the best looking of all time, no questions asked.

[Unit 5302]

Originally Posted by 2001GTPEWTER

That really sucks.. I spent $10,000 on my 2001 GT (ALL payed for) and in two years I'll be able to LEASE my next Mustang..But Im 23 years old..what the hell would I want with a brand new Ford Mustang thats built to look like a remake of a 1965 muscle car..that sucks. Thats why the market for the 2005 is predominantly men in age 45+, Im also suprised that the MSRP is the same, I thought for that reason the price would be at least $5,000 more tp buy new.

Who told you the 1965 Mustang was a muscle car? It was a cheap 2+2 fun car. The Mustang didn't even have a big block option until after it's first major redesign in 1967 when the 390 was shoehorned in. I would say the new Mustang borrows a whole lot more from the 1967-1968 cars than the 1965.

Incidentally, if you want an older Mustang, why not keep the '01 and buy an older Mustang? That's the only way you're going to get anything like a "Muscle Car." The new Mustang's have smooth running, refined powerplants and they lack the character you'll find in the real deal. As far as I'm concerned, the last generation of Mustang to really feel like a refined Muscle Car was the 1987-1993 Fox series.

[mustangman65_79]

Originally Posted by MidNiteBlu 5.0

Ill take the retro styling over a new styling anyday

the older mustangs were the best looking of all time, no questions asked.

Yea me too, but u can't beat the gas mileage of the new...

[Unit 5302]

87GT got 19-21/27-29

02GT got 17-19/24-26

69 Mach 1 428 8/10

I see your point, but if you're using it for a fun car, fuel economy won't kill you.

[bigwhitecobra]

Let's face it....if you have the money to buy a 69 428 Mach 1, you're not too worried about gas milage.

2005 a "Muscle Car"? Ha ha! That's funny. There hasn't been a muscle car ever built that didn't have the cam in the block.

I love the new look and performance of the 05, but it can never be confused with Detroit Muscle. EVER! Same with the 'Vette, Viper, GT, etc. Great cars, fast cars, but no where near a Muscle car.

Someone take this soap box away from me......

[Unit 5302]

Originally Posted by bigwhitecobra

Let's face it....if you have the money to buy a 69 428 Mach 1, you're not too worried about gas milage.

2005 a "Muscle Car"? Ha ha! That's funny. There hasn't been a muscle car ever built that didn't have the cam in the block.

I love the new look and performance of the 05, but it can never be confused with Detroit Muscle. EVER! Same with the 'Vette, Viper, GT, etc. Great cars, fast cars, but no where near a Muscle car.

Someone take this soap box away from me......

I disagree. Back in the late 60's several SOHC 427's found their way into a Ford, and as far as I'm concerned those lucky donors were definitely "Muscle Cars"

[Rev]

Originally Posted by Unit 5302

I disagree. Back in the late 60's several SOHC 427's found their way into a Ford, and as far as I'm concerned those lucky donors were definitely "Muscle Cars"

The 427 "Cammer" was only offered as a crate engine. No new cars from the dealer had one.

Rev

[1965GTO]

You think the '05 Mustang is built for 45+ yo old men just because it looks like a '69? The '05 is the best Mustang ever built, that is why you would want to buy it. People have always preferred the looks of the 65-70 stangs, that includes women.

[Unit 5302]

Originally Posted by Rev

The 427 "Cammer" was only offered as a crate engine. No new cars from the dealer had one.

Rev

Arrrrrrr... twas an over the counter dealer option ye salty dog. Though you are correct that no 427 SOHC was ever installed by the factory in a production car.