Ugliest mustang

>v6
kek

Is your entire complaint that you dont like it? i didn't liked it at first but it does kinda look like an european sports cars from the 80's.

>2-valve
>meh
It's a good engine, just not a good performance engine. Great if you want your drivetrain to go half a million miles of cop and taxi driver abuse, not great if you want it to do it faster than you can walk.

no...

DUDE...

Dodge made more powerful cars in wrong wheel drive and nobody even knows what they are anymore.

>3 valve
Hope you like every one of your 8 spark plugs breaking when you take them out

That's awesome.

Looks like a 4th gen Camaro lost its top while sliding under a semi trailer.

>literally a fox with as wider track, disk brakes all around, 5 lug, more power
What's the problem?
>ugliest
>not the ii
SN95 is just plain and there's nothing wrong with that.

fox bodies are hot garbage. But so is sn95.

tis priddy sick
supercars.net/blog/1993-ford-mustang-mach-iii-concept/
from that angle it looks sort of NB miata

>ugliest Mustang
>Shit horsepower

so the Foxbody?

SN95 at least saved the Mustang

>buys an american muscle car
>gets a v6

bwaaaaap
v4 masterace

>buys american

>implying I have an '05-'07 GT

My car's a late 2008 model, Ford pulled its head out of its ass and switched to single piece spark plugs in '08.

There's literally nothing wrong with twin spark plugs done right. You can get insane more torque out of them.

...

so ugly they only built one of them
>tfw no ecoboost

Nothing worse looking than a foxbody. I've thought this my whole life, a neighbor had one.

Kill yourself.

Not twin spark plugs, it'd be damn cool if the 3-valve had dual ignition, but that's not what I'm talking about. The early 3-valve 4.6 engines used a two piece spark plug that's notorious for snapping in two.

Oh. Like the shit that alpha romeo used to have?

Yeah doing bullshit like twin electric coils or twin segmented spark plugs means trouble.

>Hyundai Sonata V6

but that thing has 0.8L less displacement and makes nearly the same power

lol always thought these were ugly as fuck. ford made some really ugly cars in the 90s

The Ka and the Ford i thought at first were fucking disgusting but they grow on you.

The pushrod 5.0 SN95 was objectively good fuck off you niggers. Also the foxbody is a hideous piece of shit.

>The pushrod 5.0 SN95 was objectively good fuck off you niggers.
Not compared to a LT1 Camaro
The 302 block snaps in half if you try to make decent power
And 4.6 vs LS1 is just as laughable
>Fordfags need a built engine and a blower just to stay even with a stock LS1
topkek
Also Termis are the only good looking SN95's

2005-2009 =

ausfag here, what are the cheapest mustangs in the usa? engine and shit doesn't matter, just want to import the body.

99-04s are abundant and cheap around here.

Isn't it a huge pain in the ass in Australian customs law to import cars from the USA?

New Edge a best. Back when they could actually design something fresh and didn't just cash in on boomer nostalgia with obese looking retro plastic shitbuckets.

Top kek

I dont like sn95s but that looks okay. Any more?

Late 90s Explorer. Ffs at least try you cum guzzling kiddy diddler

sry guys
i love my moo stank no matter how many mean words you say at me...

You have a good looking moosestank. A sn95 is fine too if done right

What a handsome Müstang!

If that's the 4.6 I'll be very disappointed.

no dade

I guarantee my 2v or 4v is faster than anything that any of these haters have, or have ever driven, or ever will drive. Straight line or corners.

topkekins

That intake looks really inefficient

its really good and swell you gotta trust me

>fresh
They just made it look like everything else on the road just like the newest gen. Fucking boring.
At least the retro stangs look unique.

I still think the Rambo design should have won.

Schwarzenegger was a mistake.

rooks rike an alero

>goat foxbody
please for the love of christ end your life you hipster

rustangs should have died and never had such a queerbait fanbase

The retrostangs look like complete garbage. Cheap fucking garbage to cash in on nostalgia. Gaudy, unshapely, and they already look more outdated than the PREVIOUS ones.

I like it... I like it a lot better than the current fusion inspired angry design

show us on the doll where your neighbor touched you

A lot of those are running impressive numbers with some basic mods

I'm not a fan of the 2 or 3v but its still around and people buy them...

Thats really nice actually, look I'm a fan...

Also, the jenner looks like an escort. my cousin had one in a manual.. those were fun times

lol

Really.

>>ugliest mustang
pintang (mustnag 2) would like a word

>GOAT foxbody
woah there boy, i love me some fox body but GOAT is a stretch

The retrostang is an infinitely better car than the Fox derived SN95. Better engine, and most importantly, a MUCH stiffer platform. The S197 almost makes the live axle behave like IRS.

I wanna go apeshit one of these days on maximum motorsports parts for mine, you buy a box or individual parts? Also, I fucking wish my Cobra's engine was that clean.

I actually kinda like how it looks...

It's like a Hot Wheels.

Who the fuck cares about the v6?

Shame about their GARBAGE interior
well the seats were fine in the GT at least but everything else was really shitty plastic

Someone explain the interior meme to me. Do you buy cars to caress the dash and center console? Or to drive them?

the 4.6L 3v ones were pretty good, and unlike the mid retrostang of the mid to late 2000's you can swap in IRS for better handling.

Its just low quality. It falls apart or at least loosens fairly easily and just feels cheap
Grating if you just bought say a 2001 GT back in 2001

My fucking 89 is all still in one piece inside, don't whap on it?

Blame your mom's fat titties whapping my interior user
Also Im only talking about the 99-04 interior

Granted, the only similarity between the fox and s197 rear suspension is the 8.8 itself. It's better constrained and has a panhard bar.

94 or 95?

95

Fucking CLEAN

If I could afford a fox I'd get one, but >poorfag. I enjoy the 2v tho, it's a solid platform and when it does finally go it'll give me an excuse to go coyote. The interior is really sucky after it ages though. Every time I breath the plastic creaks

>>ugliest

delete

I think op was just talking about the bubble sn95

individual for each

I can't ever tell those damn 90s-00s stangs apart. I thought that was just a different trim.

I like them tho.

>1999 mr2 - 140hp, weighs as much as stangs volume knob and the 1.8l 9999mpg engine is in the correct place
get rekt murrican't

>the cool mom car

the "rambo" looks like a pontiac sunfire wannabe

how is this ok

When will this meme end? 4.6s suffer from timing chain problems and spark plug blowout.

>le IRS is bad meme
>muh quarter mile fagracing

I have a New Edge. It's a horrible quality car. Other than the body details and 40 more HP it's the same thing as an SN95. Including the East Germany tier interior which is probably the worst of any car I've driven.

There's a reason a 2004 GT is a $4000 car and a 2005 GT is closer to $8K.

That looks like the Thunderbird.

I actually really like the look of the SN95, I just don't like the 4.6 version.

Part of the driving experience is not having the door panel fall off in your hand when you close the door. Or the brake lever pull out of the floorboards when you park. Or seats with headrests that don't reach your head.

1944-2004 Mustangs have some of the worst interiors for their time. I had a 1996 Miata before my New Edge and despite it being a cheaper, lighter car the interior bits felt much more solid.

I've been wanting to pick up a manual escort for my first car, it looks reliable, the hatchback is useful, and I bet it's fun to floor it, they did use it for rallies after all. and when i get bored of it, I can modify the fuck out of it

I'm a buyer for a wholesaler in the US and I could probably get anything 2012 and older with a fucked motor for less than $2000, late 90s ones for $500

I hear you can get a bit of power out of the 5.0 without forced induction, how true is that?