By on February 21, 2018

Ford Mustang ad - 1965Yesterday, the B&B collectively lit up the Buy/Drive/Burn article regarding $45,000 coupes in praise of the V8-powered 2018 Mustang GT. While munching on all the delicious clicks, I thought about the QOTD published back in December 2017. In that post, I asked you, our dear readers, to rank all seven generations of the Chevrolet Corvette. See where this is going?

Today we want to know where you rank all six generations of the Ford Mustang. Line up your ponies!

Rule: Your ranking must include the entire generation as a whole, without distinction of design refreshes as separate items.

I. 1965-1973

Image: 1966 Ford MustangFirst shown to the public at the New York World’s Fair in 1964, the Mustang project was the result of just 18 months of work at Ford. Donald Frey engineered the new Mustang after it was conceived by a Ford brand manager, one Lee Iacocca. Inline-six and V8 engines were available from the get-go, and the model started at under $2,500.

II.  1974-1978

The first generation suffered some serious size and brougham bloat over its tenure, growing from 181.6″ to 189.5″ in length, and increasing in width from 68.2″ to a chubby 74.1″. Ford sought to fix this with the Mustang II. Running on a shorter wheelbase and with a body shorter than the original model by six inches, the second Mustang shared a platform with the subcompact Pinto. Four cylinder engines were introduced in this generation, along with the Cologne 2.8-liter V6 and a Windsor V8.

III. 1979-1993

Image: 1986 Ford Mustang 5.0After the Mustang II, consumers were ready for some serious change. So Ford blessed them with the long-lived Fox body. Larger than the Mustang II, the third generation returned to very similar dimensions as the original. Success returned to Mustang in this generation, and a variety of engines fit under the hood — including, of course, the 5.0.

IV. 1994-2004

Image: 1994 Ford MustangBy the time the early ’90s rolled around, the square styling of the Fox body was looking a bit tired. Not wanting to jump ship entirely, the new Mustang for 1994 was based on a revised Fox platform called SN-95. “Aero is in!” said the new, rounded shape of the Mustang. Eight different engines were available in V6 or V8 guise. The SN-95 was the only model since the first generation to receive considerable styling changes during the run. A major refresh in 1999 turned on the New Edge charm, or what I’d call “Taco Bell parking lot styling.”

V. 2005-2014

Image: 2005 Ford MustangThe return to retro. Ford had been developing the fifth-generation Mustang since the New Edge version hit the scene in 1999, and finalized its design in 2002. Sweeping edges were replaced by blocky styling harking back to the ’60s. The size, however, was closer to a late first-gen Mustang. Very popular and refreshed for the 2010 model year, later S-197s have no trouble looking modern today.

VI. 2015-Present

Mustang GT Performance Pack Level 2In a travesty to some, the inline-four engine returned in 2015. Sticking with the retro theme established in 2005, the 2015 Mustang brought with it the fastback profile lost at the end of the Fox body in 1993. The V6 option went away after the 2017 model year; now it’s four or eight cylinders, and nothing between.

Where do you rank these six raging ponies?

[Images: Ford, Wikipedia, Carsindepth]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

83 Comments on “QOTD: How Do You Rank the Six Generations of Mustang?...”

  • avatar

    Having had a ’94, a ’12, and now a ’15, my vote goes to the ’15.

  • avatar

    My vote goes for the 2016 S550, the only Mustang I’ve ever owned. I drove a few friends’ SN-95s. But man, the killer looks of the S550, the handling… just takes the cake for me.

  • avatar

    This makes very little sense to me. The bodywork of the ’65, the ’70, and the ’73 are all so vastly different that it can’t be the same car. Likewise, the ’90s Mustang and the early ’00s New Edge are separate in my mind. The modern retro and the ’10-’14 have completely different drivetrains and bodywork as well. Foxbodies are interchangable though.

    • 0 avatar

      Exactly. You may own a lowly Abarth, but you’re dead right on this one.

      Only someone painfully young could ever lump the 64.5-73 all in together.

      • 0 avatar


        But he’s been told that 65 to 73 are “classic” mustangs. Maybe he needs to do some more research.

        I think it was yesterday on Jalopnik where a commenter said something along the lines of ‘once they learned how to spell “malaise” they tried to apply the term to everything from the time before they were born.’

        It surprises me (but shouldn’t by now I suppose) to hear a 30 year old on TV tell me about Nixon or Carter or Reagan like they knew the political situations first hand.

        ok, I’ll go take my meds now.

    • 0 avatar

      65-73 were pretty much derivative in terms of chassis depsite the styling and size changes. Its essentially the same with the 79-2004 cars although the change from fox car to SN95/New Edge was a bit more involved than the earlier 65-73 cars.

      Taken in that context its easy to delineate the various generations.

    • 0 avatar

      The 65/66 Mustang was all Falcon under the skin. The early 65s….what some numskulls refer to as the 64-1/2 model…had dashboards that were straight out of the Falcon, and the six cylinder cars used the same 13 inch wheels, etc. From 67 on the cars got bigger, incorporating elements of the Fairlane chassis. This was done so the cars could be fitted with big block V8s. By the time they got to the 71/73 model years, the Mustang was being built on the Fairlane/Torino chassis, which was considerably larger than the Falcon chassis of 1965.

  • avatar

    1: first gen.
    2: current gen
    3: Fox body
    4: 5th gen
    5: SN-95
    6: Pinto

  • avatar

    *Disclaimer* previously owned a ’13 GT and now have a ’15 GT.

    1. 2015+ All the personality of the previous cars but now with handling to match.

    2. 1964-1973 Not very good drivers from today’s perspective but good enough in their time. They still turn my head every time.

    3. 1979-1993 As a child of the malaise era these cars stand out for helping to break it with the original 5.0.

    4. 2005-2014 Retro done right.

    5. 1994-2004 Strayed furthest from the styling heritage, and there are many things to recommend them (and some special limited run models), but this is a tough crowd.

    6. 1974-1978 Even this car has its defenders (well, I’ve only ever met one, and it was on the internet).

    • 0 avatar

      Same for me. I hated Mustang 2’s back in the day, but they’re so rare now I appreciate well-preserved specimen. Still wouldn’t want to have to drive it very often. Although the 4-wheel drums in my ’65 nearly killed me a couple times, so there’s that.

  • avatar

    4.The rest

  • avatar

    Gen1 is #1 If it wasn’t there wouldn’t have been a Gen 2

    Gen6 is #2

    Gen5 is #3

    Gen4 is #4

    Gen3 is #5

    Gen2 is #6

  • avatar

    Personally, I would count the ’71-’73 Mustangs as a separate generation. Having said that, here’s how I rank according to the article:

    1. Gen6 – best performance and handling. Finally, the Mustang fulfills its promise.

    2. Gen5 – as someone else mentioned, retro done right.

    3. Gen1 – the early cars still look great.

    4. Gen3 – the first ones are not so hot, but ongoing improvements made them very good.

    5. Gen4 – I’ve never warmed up to the styling.

    6. Gen2 – an aberration best forgotten.

  • avatar

    Over the years I’ve owned 10 different Mustangs covering all but Gen 6 (which I have driven several times). This is kinda like choosing which of your kids you like the most.
    1. Gen 1 – Still look great today and we wouldn’t have the other Gens without it. (Own/owned 4)
    2. Gen 5 – Lots of the original Mustang DNA and great power and handling (own 1 GT)
    3. Gen 4 – Brought back the original Mustang styling cues (Owned GT and Cobra)
    4. Gen II – First Mustang I owned and I think they look great in spite of all the detractors. (owned 1 Mach 1)
    5. Gen 6 – Lots of Mustang DNA and incredible performance. Still can’t help thinking the front end looks like a Fusion though.
    6. Gen 3 – Is that a Mustang or a 2 door Fairmont? Lost any and all ‘Mustang’ styling and could have been called anything. The GTs were awesome though. (Owned 2 GTs)

    • 0 avatar
      Dave M.

      I’m one of those Gen II defenders. Late Gen I was a pig. Through OPEC happenstance Gen II was perfectly timed. Ford looked brilliant and sold a boatload, allowing the name to carry on and the awesome Fox generation. Lamest Mustangs? Late Gen I as well as the bathtub Gen IV.

      • 0 avatar

        The II was a product of the times and as you say, perfectly timed and big sellers. Many people associate them with the Pinto, but there is only one small piece of the subframe shared between the two, the rest is unique to the Mustang. Sure it doesn’t compare to today’s Mustang, but that applies to anything from that time period. Plus, when we bought them we weren’t wondering if we should wait for the 450+ horse 6th gen, this was all there was.

    • 0 avatar

      I was hoping I wouldn’t be the only person here commenting favourably on the Mustang II. It reached back to the philosophical roots. My sister almost bought a used ’78 with the 2.8 and a 4-speed. Later, I discovered that a friend bought it and it was great to drive. I like the look too.

      I owned an ’83 GT but I’m not overly partial to that generation. If a lottery win came my way so would a new GT. (A close childhood friend has a 2016 or 17 GT350. I gotta go visit him soon…)

  • avatar

    There are at least 3 generations from 65-73 that we’re more than refreshes. 65-66, 67-68, 69-73. Pretty sure each was larger than the one that preceded it.

    • 0 avatar


      • 0 avatar

        In 1967 there was an approximate 1.5 in gain in wheelbase and the engine bay was made wider between the shock towers to accept the big block engine (I still prefer a HO 289 over that fat-a$$ big block)

        The 69 to 73 gained more length and width.

        You want to argue about whether they constitute “generations” or not – go ahead. I still refuse to acknowledge that the original was a 1964.5 MY – that’s just games with words. It was a very early introduction for 65 IMHO.

        • 0 avatar

          I still think the various iterations of the first-gen Mustang are unique enough from either an engineering or styling standpoint to make each one a generation (of a sort, of course).

        • 0 avatar

          The widening of the shock towers was necessary when Ford went to the 429 since that was a true big block. The 428 was Fe based like the 390 and 427. The Fe line is often referred to as “mid-block” engines in current literature.

          • 0 avatar

            @Lou_BC, either way I prefer my pony cars with at least the pretense of handling and upsetting the weight balance further with the 390+ up front is not my idea of fun unless drag racing is your sole intent.

          • 0 avatar

            @PrincipalDan – I do agree that the Mustang for the most part was better served with the 260/289. As the Mustang grew larger the “Fe” would be my 1st choice over a 302 since they are more powerful and weren’t as nose heavy as the big block 429’s.
            I grew up with Fe block powered Fords and so did most of my friends so obviously I have a soft spot for the Fe series.

        • 0 avatar

          @ Principl Dan Yes Ford sold 1965 Mustangs, not 1964 or 1964.5 Mustangs. However there are distinct differences in the cars produced during what would be normally considered the 1964 Model Year and those that were produced after the traditional end of summer shut down when the other vehicles sold as 1965’s started rolling off the assembly lines.

          So the use of it to designate the two versions of the 1965 has a practical reason.

          The other thing is that a model year introduction that early in the preceding year was with out precedent at the time. That meant that many clerks in many jurisdictions did not know how to handle it or the state had regulations that prevented putting the next calendar year as the model year that early in the current year.

          So there were Mustangs originally titled as 1964s which is another reason that people some times make the distinction of the 64.5 when in reality 64 would be more period appropriate.

          Of course in modern times the .5 is a thing, for example Toyota actively advertised a 14.5 Camry to distinguish the improvements they made to the crash worthiness that would not be detectable by the average consumer.

      • 0 avatar

        Ok, you are right (I guess). But the Mercury cougar was based on the Mustang from 67-73, but is considered to have two generations in that time 67-70, 71-73. How does that match up? They are twins, but one is considered to have gone one continuous generation, the other two separate generations?

      • 0 avatar

        Sorry Corey if you want to lump 65-73 together as a single generation then you need to lump the 79-04 together as a single generation with one major update and several minor updates. A 1994 has more in common with a 79 than a 1971 has in common with a 1965.

  • avatar

    I’ll break it down a bit further – clearly Gen 1 was the best, but these were VERY different cars:

    1) Gen 1
    a) 69-70 – Boss, Cobra Jet, Mach 1 (and Mary Tyler Moore). Peak Mustang.
    b) 65-66
    c) 71-73
    d) 67-68

    2) Gen 6

    3) Gen 5

    4) Gen 2 – people diss it, but if not for this generation, the nameplate might have died. The medicine may have been bitter, but it was essential. Blaze it and praise it.

    5) Gen 3 – Immortalized only by Vanilla Ice.

    6) Gen 4 – Aside from the dashboard, I was always meh on these

    • 0 avatar

      I am biased toward the 69 and 70 models. I have a 69 Mach I that I drive frequently and always get “thumbs up”. People always come up and ask about it when I am stopped at a gas station or shopping center parking lot.

      I had friends in high school who had 69’s and 70’s that were new at the time. I couldn’t afford one then, but have enjoyed mine for 30 years now.

    • 0 avatar

      @FreedMike and @jeoff

      I too was surprised by the “generation” breakdown since there are differences between the gen 1 years as you have pointed out.

  • avatar

    Disclaimer: 3 time mustang owner. 1995, 1996, 2010 GT’s with my 2010 being My favorite out of the 20 or so cars I’ve owned over my lifetime

    1 Gen 6
    2 Gen 5
    3 Gen 1
    4 Gen 3
    5 Gen 4
    6 Gen 2

    Any other order is just… wrong

  • avatar

    In defense of Corey, in the Mustang community ’65-’73 is always referred to as the 1st generation. The styling changes were much more dramatic year to year but the underpinnings and powertrains were all similar.

    • 0 avatar


      Pondering on the first generation, the styling changes would’ve been forced by what everyone else was doing. That Mustang is a very early sixties type design. For ’65 it looked fine, but starting in ’66 GM had their big wave of longer, lower, wider things. That would’ve made the Mustang look small and a bit old.

      • 0 avatar

        Very true. Ironically, when the Mustang started getting bigger, the design team included a lot of ex-GM guys who came over to Ford. Larry Shinoda, the guy who designed the Boss 302 is a good example.

  • avatar

    Gen 1 – 1967 as the penultimate IMHO (biased by owning one)
    Gen 3 – after the fuel injection kicked in (cheap speed)
    Gen 6 – performance performance along with IRS (finally)
    Gen 5 – only in V8 form (the 6 was just SAD by this point 200 hp. Seriously?)
    Gen 4 – Fox gonna Fox but it was too long in the tooth by that point
    Gen 3 – 140 hp V8 – (deflating balloon sound)

  • avatar

    1. Gen 5 owned an 08 drop top, and loved it.

    2. Gen 6 My present D.D. Styling is excellent, if you don’t look at the front end

    3. Gen 3 We couldn’t afford a honey moon in 73. We waited until 78 and we rented a brand new 79, and toured Florida . My wife just adored the Mustang, and wanted us to buy one… Something else we didn’t have the cash for : (

    4. Gen. 1…Just because !

    5. Gen. 4.. Hawaii for our 25 th anniversary. We drove the road to Hana in a 98 convertible . Once again wifey says “were buying one of these ” The styling didn’t really appeal to me. That and the GM logo on my pay cheque stopped me.

    6. Gen. 2 …Nuff said !

    Yesterday I spotted a 05 GT convert on Auto Trader. Stored at a Ford dealer.. 18000 miles on the clock. A GT with zero dumb graphics . Unfortunately its an automatic, and the dealer wants too much money.

    I may take a little drive today. Just to take a closer look eh ???

  • avatar

    1: Gen 1.3 (the bloated one) — if you’re going to be an American car, you might as well look like one. Best of the bunch: the ’69. Not so good: ’70 and later — the headlights need to be seperated from the grille.
    2: Gen 5 — sure it’s retro, but at least it looks good, as long as it isn’t covered in stupid stripes and spoilers.
    3: Gen 2 — wheelbase too short, Pinto underpinnings: that’s a clown Mustang, but I almost want to cuddle it, it’s so cute!
    4: Gen 3 — except for the C pillar, this is a good-looking car in a clean, angular ’70s way.
    5: Gen 4 — you can take the generic ’90s Japanese look too far.
    6: Gen 6 — modern car, “sporty” look, no thanks. This is not about you, Mustang, it’s about me.
    7: Gen 1 — *yawn*. This is not ugly, but it’s become the most boring choice in American classic cars in Germany. They are everywhere, and although statistics don’t back this, it almost seems that only VW Bugs are more common at classic car shows. Besides, they seem to attract the same sort of owners as do Corvettes. No way, ever.

  • avatar

    Gen 1 – for its ground breaking historical greatness. Also, it was one of my favorite Aurora HO slot car models, in green no less.

    Gen 6 – I rented the Eco-boost convertible. It was as easy to drive and place as a Honda Accord, but you needed to be in Sport mode to begin to enjoy it.

    The rest. I don’t know enough about those models to rank them. I do know the FWD Ford Probe was almost a Mustang, and I’m glad it didn’t make the cut.

  • avatar

    1) Gen 1
    2) Gen 6
    3) Gen 5
    4) Gen 4
    5) Gen 3
    6) Gen 2

  • avatar

    1. #1
    2. #6
    3. #5
    4. #4
    5. #3
    6. #2
    As a kid, I would have ranked gen 2 higher. My dad had one. “Total garbage!”—his words. He ended up getting a used Corolla, and hasn’t deviated from that path in almost 40 years. I owned a 67 cougar (the Mercury twin). It was ok, a little too floaty for me—but a beautiful car.

  • avatar

    I’d rank them like this:
    #1 – 1st Gen. You really have no choice since this is the model that resonated with the public and started the whole pony car trend.

    #2 – VI. Most recent Gen. I pick this generation for second since it is the best all around performance machine of the group. I also love the looks.

    #3 – This generation tried to go retro and does have some of the appeal of the tail end of the 1st gen cars.

    I’m not going to even try to rate the remaining three.

    Gen 2 was deep into the malaise era. A Mustang pinto-ized was laughable at the time.

    Gen 4 was from the “jelly bean” era like the F150.

    Gen 3 Fox bodied Mustangs have a cult following in drag racing circles but for anyone else i.e. police/fire/EMT’s, they were poorly handling killers of young men.

    • 0 avatar

      “Laughable at the time” ? With muscle car insurance rates and emission controls killing the market and gas prices doubling there wasn’t anything “laughable” about the II. It hit the market at just the right time.

      Laughable for a muscle car if taken out of context, yes. But market conditions killed just about everything else in that category: Barracuda, Challenger, Javelin, mid size supercars.

      As said above: the II shared only a few pieces with the Pinto.Nothing wrong with reevaluating bloat.

      It wasn’t laughable at the time.

  • avatar

    I’ll wait for Rustang: The Next Generation.

  • avatar

    Amazing how some folks just can’t quite grasp the whole QOTD concept.

    • 0 avatar

      It is hard.

    • 0 avatar

      Throwing all these wildly different-sized and diffently-designed Mustangs from ’64 to ’72 together as “Generation I”, presumably just to be able to call the Mustang II a “Generation II”, made it impossible to stick to the rules for me. Especially so as that threw together the most boring, the most desirable, and the least recognizable flavours of Mustang for me. So, aware that no-one cares, I’ll rank those anyway.

      1: ’69. Big car, but still with the attractive headlights separated from the grille. My favourite Mustang ever. Should also excel at my preferred driving style, i.e. cruising but with a little (or more) of punch on tap. (Still wouldn’t want to own one though.)
      2: ’67/68. Nice, but a little too close to the original for me (see below).
      3: ’71..’73. When I looked them up just now, I was like, wait, that’s a Mustang? I’d seen those in movies, I suppose, but I’d never recognized them as such. Go figure.
      4: ’70. Same basic car as my favourite, but that front end … ugh. No. H*ll no.
      5: ’64..’66. I am very alone with this, I know that. They’re just too bl**dy common in Germany, and driven by too many f*cking idi*ts, to ever be within consideration for me. I wouldn’t even borrow one if I could.

  • avatar

    Based on how much I personally like them (a Mustang II is the only Mustang I ever aspire to own)
    1. 2
    2. 3
    3. 4
    4. 6
    5. 1
    6. 5

    Based on how good/important they actually were (looks like most of the other lists)
    1. 1
    2. 6
    3. 3
    4. 5
    5. 4
    6. 2

    I’ve only driven 5 & 6.

  • avatar

    Trans Am.

  • avatar

    First gen. (owned several)
    Current Mustang. (Really nice vehicle)
    My old Fox body Mustang just because I had good times with that car.

    The rest not so much.

  • avatar

    I’m not going to opine despite having owned a ’69 Mach I and a new ’85 GT (exactly like the one pictured) except to say that the newest-gen cars are, by any standard, the best of the bunch. If I were on the market for a coupe, this is what I would buy.

    “The SN-95 was the only model since the first generation to receive considerable styling changes during the run.”

    I have to disagree. The ’87 GT was a major styling departure from the ’79-86 in that it acquired a bunch of ugly “aero” gingerbread (especially in GT guise) and single-pair headlights. I’m rather fond of the ’85 and ’86 gen III styling, the ’87 and on GT models are the ugliest Mustangs ever produced.

  • avatar
    Dirk Wiggler

    Gen 1 – size and looks were perfect, timeless
    Gen 6 – hits on all key things
    Gen 5 – underrated, but will be respected even more with time
    Gen 3 – Fox was baked over time, it’s a darling
    Gen 4 – actually better than Fox dynamically but style-wise nah
    Gen 2 – no fan of what was mis-characterized as a super Pinto

  • avatar

    Did Iacocca really conceive the Mustang? I believe I’ve read that the concept was floating around for a while and he recognized a good thing and basically took over the project. I give him credit for pushing the concept through the bureaucracy into production, no small feat, but I don’t think the car was his brainchild.

  • avatar
    Eric the Red

    The 71 to 73 is a completely different generation. Didn’t seem too good at the time but has aged okay.
    I had a 78 and while really loved it at the time the 74-78 has to be the low spot. Hit the mark for style but power was atrocious! It could not get out of it’s own way.
    Original is always the best.
    Current model is good but really too expensive and big. If Ford could get back to a smaller cheaper model would fit with original concept better than current model

  • avatar

    Mustang is not a nostalgic vehicle for me, probably because I’ve never owned one and I come from a GM family. Therefore, I’m biased towards the latest gen and all of the performance it offers.

    1. Generation 6 – stunning performance, interesting powertrain options
    2. Generation 1 – iconic, plus I’ve driven one and it was more compelling than I expected
    3. Generation 3 – Fox body. I think everyone under 40 knows someone who modded a 5.0L
    4. Generation 5 – I’m not sure this generation will garner enthusiasm though there isn’t much wrong with it
    5. Generation 2 – Not my favorite, but it’s not Gen 4.
    6. Generation 4 – Taco Bell parking lot is probably charitable. One of the ugliest, worst cars ever made, imo.

    This list is deceptive because it makes it look as though Gen 4 is only one place behind Gen 2, but the SN95 basically resides in the automotive underworld. What a horrific piece of junk. Friend of mine had the 3.8L V6 with 4-speed auto. It was only 3-4 years old when he inherited from his mother. Stupendously awful scrap metal. Terrible build quality and panel gap. It was constantly in the shop. My friend’s father made a unilateral decision to ditch the Mustang mid-way through my friend’s senior year. It was swapped for a 2 year old Honda Accord Coupe with the 2.3 VTEC. Huge upgrade!!

  • avatar

    I would rank them as follows:

    1. Gen Six
    2. Gen Five
    3. Gen One
    4. Gen Four
    5. Gen Three
    6. Gen Two

    Generation One was truly the right car for its time and is justly celebrated as such. Generation Six and Five are much better cars, but hurt by the changes in the world economy and demographics.

  • avatar

    My dad had a ’68 289 but he totaled it before I was old enough for it to be a hand-me-down. My mom had a ’80 Fox-body with The Worst Engine Ever Made, a 200 straight six that liked to *stall* more than it like to go forward. And it could barely go forward even in the best of times. This car was so good that it made my dad, a lifelong Ford guy, switch to the Japanese.

    Thus, Ford could make 60 generations of Mustangs and that ’80 POS will always be last on any list of mine.

  • avatar

    I had my list. Aside from the top two (6th gen and 1st gen), none of you agree with me, so I’ll assume I’m wrong on the bottom four.

  • avatar

    OK, the 65-73 might be considered the same generation. But Bunkie Knudsen looked at the Mustang and thought “Hey- that car would look great as a Torino! And with that, the ’71-’73’s became just that. Torinos… with less room and trunk space. I swear GM must’ve paid Ford to hire that guy away and get him the hell out of the GM Tech Center.


    1. 1st Gen, ending with the ’70.
    2. Current car. Runs faster, jumps higher, looks like a million bucks.
    Prettiest coupe you can buy for under six figures, IMO.
    3. 4th Gen. Quick car, fun to drive, blown Cobras are still giving Corvette
    owners fits. (Disclaimer, I owned a ’01)
    4. 5th Gen, for no special reason other than liking the body style.
    5. 3rd Gen. Fox body brought performance back to the fold.
    6. 2nd Gen. In it’s defense, the Mustang may not be here today if that car didn’t arrive when it did, in the form that it did.

  • avatar


    1. Gen VI
    2. Gen V
    3. Gen III
    4. Gen IV
    5. Gen I
    6. Gen II

    The Gen VI cars are as big an improvement over the Gen V cars as they were over the Gen IV and III cars and with the GT350 one of the best driver’s cars Ford has ever produced. The only two things I can really complain about are the panel fitment issues (it seems like Ford took a step back in that regard) and the weight.

    Anybody remember when Pericak had to back track on the supposed weight reduction over the outgoing 05-14 cars. It’s a shame he couldn’t deliver for whatever reason. If the Mustang had come in at similar weight numbers to the current Camaro it would have been absolutely brillant with the Gen III Coyote introduced with the 2018 Mustang GT and easily an mid 11 second car – of course that begs the question – would Ford have pushed the 5.0 as far as they have if the Gen VI car hadn’t been so portly?

    The Gen V cars were a helluva improvement over the previous Mustangs and probably make for some of the best modern project cars. Cheap to mod and maintain with the strut front end and live rear axle.

    Hell Watson Engineering has a program where you can drop an 05-14 car off and have it converted over into a spec race car for NASA IIRC.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Art Vandelay: Yes, this intro is 5th gen Camaro long.
  • Lou_BC: USA’s debt-to-GDP ratio is 108.8 %. Canada is 87.16 %. Lowest: Hong Kong at 0.27% Worst: Japan at...
  • Art Vandelay: Wait, I can get a Ducati that doesn’t require a valve adjustent every other time I crank it up?
  • Art Vandelay: How will I listen to Van Halen? I’m not carrying around cassettes again and the radio is full of...
  • Lou_BC: @kjhkjlhkjhkljh kljhjkhjklhkjh – Do you live in an area with cold winters? Some of the V6...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber