Ford Mustang to replace Contour

Don't buy one with a V6.

Originally posted by SVT24:
Don't buy one with a V6.

yes a 5speed v8 is what you want if buying a stang...

i just sold my svt(to a fellow ceg'r)and just picked up my 95 gt yesterday....man it feels good to have torque again..

SVT is probably faster than the V6

and yeah once you have tourqe, the little high reving moors dont cut it anymore

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know how the '99+ Cougar compares to the 'tour for reliability or is it pretty much the same?

All V6 and 4cyl between the tours and cougars are pushing the same output and performance times i believe.

I know for a fact they ahve the same performance numbers.

Lupe

Same engine management, same powertrain, so the reliability will be similar.

Originally posted by ubercows:
How are mustangs with reliability, drivability, fun, ect...?
I was just looking for a replacement car cause my Contour is gettin a lil rusty and not worth to put mods into.
Any thoughts?

Very reliable if you drive them right. Handling isn't too great on the 6-cylinders, and if you want fun go for the 8-cylinder. But neither version(s) of the 'stang will give you good gas mileage, so beware...

Well, I'm assuming you can do without the 2 extra doors and the winter driving ability a Contour (or other front-wheel-drive car) provides. Plus you'll be paying more insurance on a Stang.

If all that's ok, as others have said, definitely get a V8 and 5spd. Reliability should be fine, gas mileage shouldn't be too bad (my old 90 GT got 25mpg highway no problem.)

I think Mustangs are plenty of fun to drive and there are tons of mods out there for them.

yea well I cannot even think v8 mtx stang here in NYC where when I checked in 94 the insurance on a new stang was 8k for 6 months. who knows what the cost of insuring a mustang would be today in 2004

just be careful because it's going to SUCK driving a rear wheel drive car in the winter

My father in law had a 99 v6, after replacing the engine and two trannies, he gave it to my brother in law, who hasn't had a problem since!!! Not horribly durable, the 3.8 cylinder is a major piece of junk and has been discontinued in most of Ford's line up.

Is 0-60 for an MTX really 5.5sec for a GT (non-Cobra) (#s off Edmunds.com)
That is fast!

So what are the ATX times? Anyone know?

2000 or newer Mustang is what to look for.

Either that or build the all too freakin' typical Fox body. (through 93)

The years to skip are 94-99. Not worth your time.

Originally posted by DemonSVT:
2000 or newer Mustang is what to look for.

Either that or build the all too freakin' typical Fox body. (through 93)

The years to skip are 94-99. Not worth your time.

99 is effectively the same as 00+

94-98 can be great if you don't mind doing your own upgrades. Heck, the 99+ cars are far better too with the right upgrades.

I'm going to agree with EVERYONE here, stay away from a V6. I drove a friend's 2001 Mustang coupe V6, and her 2002 Mustang Convertible V6 many times. The first time I drove the coupe, I was sorely dissappointed. I expected the car to have better off the line acceleration than it actually did. But my real dissappointment was the automatic trans in both cars. The auto tranny on her's got really "confused" on which gear to pick in certain situations, which hampered what was already a underpowered engine for that particular car.

Another compelling reason shy away from most any Ford with a 3.8L V6 is the little "head gasket" problem Ford has had with this engine for years. Basically, the head gasket fails, which leaks coolant into your oil. The oil then is not able to lubricate your engine parts properly. Eventually, you notice severly reduced performance, take it to the dealer, and they tell you you need a new engine. That's if your lucky. If you're not lucky one day while driving your engine goes bye-bye.

Originally posted by Rara:
99 is effectively the same as 00+

94-98 can be great if you don't mind doing your own upgrades. Heck, the 99+ cars are far better too with the right upgrades.

Okay I didn't remember exactly when they changed the heads, intakes, cams, body style, etc. So all 99+ Mustangs then.

You'll never sell me on the 94-95's & hardly ever on the 96-98's.

My ex girlfriend has a 01 V6 Coupe with an A/T. It was no GT but it sure as heck had some power. 193HP and some where @ 250 ft.lbs of torque. The thing also handled like it was on rails. It was a fun car to drive. DO NOT GET IT IF YOU WANT BETTER MPG THAN A GT! It only got 1 more MPG in the city and 2 less MPG on the highway than the GTs do. They even make plenty performance parts for the V6 too. The ATI Procharger gave a 14.3 1/4 on an otherwise stock V6 a/t convertible. Add Heads, cam, headers and so forth and you can definately scare the crap out of some GT owners. Especially when you show them your engine. If you can afford it get a GT though, you can do the same stuff and go even faster but it will cost you more for the car and almost twice as much on the insurance.

I replaced my 99 tour 4cyl tour w/ a 03 mustang

Speed its quick decently fast to 40 overall its what i expected and i have drove an svt and my mustang is absolutly quicker and i have an ATX

Handling it defintly corners nice in a somewhat sharp curve by my house if i was goin 25 in the tour i would be in danger of crashing i can go 40 in the stang and stick like glue.

Bucket seats are comfortable and nice looking if you get the 2 tone ones

Car does not get tossed around from wind on the highway like the tour u can cruise at 85 w/ no issues at all

Gas mileage if u drive like an ass 16/25 if u drive normal 19/28

Its RWD making it fun as far as mods there is laot you can do the gt exhaust bolts rite on u can get them for $100 if you wnated they have a 11psi procharger intercooled supercharger and vortech maks a kit..

Best mod get 3.73 gears costs arond 650-1050 w/ instilation depending on were u get parts and instalation.. Best mod ever your car will be liek a rocket off the line u will loose osme top end power

Overall its a fun car it gets looks most people dont know [censored] about cars and tihnk it costs alot more tahn it did

is that a V6 or a V8?

Originally posted by Li 99Tour:
I replaced my 99 tour 4cyl tour w/ a 03 mustang

Speed its quick decently fast to 40 overall its what i expected and i have drove an svt and my mustang is absolutly quicker and i have an ATX

Handling it defintly corners nice in a somewhat sharp curve by my house if i was goin 25 in the tour i would be in danger of crashing i can go 40 in the stang and stick like glue.

Bucket seats are comfortable and nice looking if you get the 2 tone ones

Car does not get tossed around from wind on the highway like the tour u can cruise at 85 w/ no issues at all

Gas mileage if u drive like an ass 16/25 if u drive normal 19/28

Its RWD making it fun as far as mods there is laot you can do the gt exhaust bolts rite on u can get them for $100 if you wnated they have a 11psi procharger intercooled supercharger and vortech maks a kit..

Best mod get 3.73 gears costs arond 650-1050 w/ instilation depending on were u get parts and instalation.. Best mod ever your car will be liek a rocket off the line u will loose osme top end power

Overall its a fun car it gets looks most people dont know [censored] about cars and tihnk it costs alot more tahn it did

holy hell...P-U-N-C-U-A-T-I-O-N! I counted 5...just 5 periods in that entire thing. and in two of those cases, it was a double period (i assume you were trying for an ellipsis, but that would require three of them). oh, almost forgot the one period used for your gearing numbers, so 6 of them. and why the v6 atx? at least go for the manual tranny.

~Andrew

Originally posted by DemonSVT:

Originally posted by Rara:
99 is effectively the same as 00+

94-98 can be great if you don't mind doing your own upgrades. Heck, the 99+ cars are far better too with the right upgrades.

Okay I didn't remember exactly when they changed the heads, intakes, cams, body style, etc. So all 99+ Mustangs then.

You'll never sell me on the 94-95's & hardly ever on the 96-98's.

i have to disagree...i just bought a '95 gt sunday,and it is a great car...it is soooooo much more solid,refined,and more comfortable than any fox body(and i have owned 5 of them over the years)and the best part of it is that it still has the same 5 liter engine as the fox....cheap mods!!!!

my car has MINOR bolt ons and is putting down 225 Rwhp and 285 Rwtq....and has run a best of 14.2....this car pulls waaaaay harder than my svt ever did in any gear...it seems to handle pretty good as well...

my car is a 6 and atx cuz i travel towards NYC everyday and traffic is horendious. Once in a while i drive my brothers 5 speed infinti and its just a disaster in stop and go traffic for an hour non stop..

I test drove a new 2000 Mustang V6 ATX convert once. Ugh. Can you say cowl shake?

The thing rides like it's on rails...because it feels as heavy as a freight train!

No handling, no power, no sex appeal, no nothing. Awful interior, blatty exhaust note, ugh.

But I also drove a 2001 Cobra convert. Same rotten interior, but what an engine! And decent handling, although heavy friction-filled steering (so unlike the Focus).

Kerry

i agree with most of you guys, but phasing out the v6,never happen,, look at the stats, v6 is their #1 seller,,cause not everyone wants the power but the want the look. The look is its slight downfall cause they all pretty much look the same. Only major diff in them now is the exhaust set up. V6 alright,,riding on rails cause its so heavy i would definitely have to agree. My ex-girl had a 98 mtx and an 01 atx. major difference but they both sucked to me and they were both v6's. That to me is who the v6 is made for,,the ladies.

And i hope you're not to tall,, leg room is non-existant. They might as well be 2 seaters. I've driven the cobra, gt and v6 from al years from 89 thru 03. All i can say is damn them for not keeping the 5.0. My bddy had a 90' convertible stang 5.0 atx. After 2 tranny's and a serious make over, it was real nice. Ran a 13.8 in the 1/4 and then died at the track,,funny shyt that night.

I say skip the mustang idea and buy yourself an SVT... I was in your shoes about 2 weeks ago, except my previous car 97 SE v6 5spd is in great shape! I wanted something faster, more mods availble for and a slight upgrade. So i found a high mileage SVT that will be recieving a 01+ 3L, quaife, spec clutch and flywheel setup

But then again if your looking for a car to race... i still would'nt go with a stang if you want fast,cheap,realiable and easy to work on? get a generation 1 probe GT turbo

my buddy bought one for 700 put a 1000 into it and it runs mid 13's on street tires... biggest plus it only has 56k miles on it

U all hate on the Mustang and as fas as looks go the only difference form my 6 to the gt is the GT badging the dual exhaust and the hood scoop witch i ordered for 130 painted...

Most importantly its still a Mustang and there cheap I got my 03 that was 10 months old for 13000 and that included the 6yr 100,000mile warrenty. I couldnt find a better car for that price this new.. its ok its not a GT or a Cobra but im 23 and personally I dont feel im ready to have a GT or Cobra yet, i would be driving like an a-hole in it all day, so in a few yrs when i can handle myself i plan on getting a cobra

Originally posted by Li 99Tour:
...the only difference form my 6 to the gt is the GT badging the dual exhaust and the hood scoop witch i ordered for 130 painted...

yeah, and those extra 2 cylinders...but i guess those don't matter

~Andrew

mustangs are cockroaches...they are everywhere

they have a decent fun factor and can definitely become fast cars, but the tour sets us apart...lose that and blend in with the rest, might as well get the wifey a honda while yer at it

A friend of mine had a 00 v6 auto. Its handling wasn't good, the engine had some problems, and it wasn't very fun or real comfortable to drive, which a car needs to be atleast one of those. He did do a great donut one day leaving one tire mark in a circle and a bunch of smoke, the v6 has some power for sure, but a v8 would be much better.

Wow, the ignorance from all sides in this thread amazes me.

There is just too much to even respond to.

Originally posted by Rara:
Wow, the ignorance from all sides in this thread amazes me.

There is just too much to even respond to.

lol....the Rara has spoken

~Andrew

Originally posted by svt4b:
mustangs are cockroaches...they are everywhere

they have a decent fun factor and can definitely become fast cars, but the tour sets us apart...lose that and blend in with the rest, might as well get the wifey a honda while yer at it

just because they are everywhere that makes them bad??????spend the day behind the wheel of one,and you might just change your mind...torque is your friend....and while i may see tons of stangs everyday,i have yet to see one that is identical to mine in every way....and don't hate because my car is faster than yours..lol...

nice svt btw...

All the lies, and egos being thrown around.

I'm glad Ford did away with the 302. Anybody who dares tell me their stock 302 can keep up with a stock 281 is either smoking the good stuff, or jealous. Yes, the 302 is a tough engine, and yes it can be built up well, but a stock 302 Mustang is a DOG.

All you auto haters will be happy to know that the 4R70W will be replaced by the 5R55N, which has seen action under the Explorer since 1997, and as a C3 for over 20 years. It also under-pins the Lincoln LS. Maybe the better spaced gear ratios, and faster shifting of this 5-speed auto will help the auto Mustang out a bit. I know it works well in the Explorer. My dad owns a 2000 XLT with the 5R and 4.0 combo, and it will run close to an 8 second 0-60. The shifting is next to flawless.

The Fox chassis Mustang definitely has its fair shrae of problems, mostly in the rear suspension. Anybody that tells me a Mustang handles extremely well has never driven a true sports car. That rear end bounces around like you're driving an old pickup truck, and the under-steer is horrendous. Ford needed 4 shocks to keep it all under control in the rear. Seriously guys, the Mustang's big weakness in fact is in its suspension. The geometry just sucks. The Camaro/Firebird had a better system, but GM FUBARed the safety of the car, and the interior was about as beautiful as Martha Stewart. Japan smoked us on sports cars, and every few years I keep seeing displacement rising.

I like the Essex V-6 motor actually for what it is. 1999+ models recieved a huge change to bring it up towards what the Windstar puts out. Yes, the headgaskets are a problem due to the coolant return line being too close to cylinder #1, but owners need to remember that coolant needs to be CHANGED once in a while, not just re-filled. Again, it's a good torque motor that can't breate for a dang up top. That's what the Mustang is about. It will be replaced by the wonderful 4.0 SOHC motor, which can do a bit of both.

I don't think a Contour has much legroom either, and a 99+ V-6 Mustang will gladly rip any Non-SVT 'Tour a new one, but the Contour will definitely be much more fun to drive due to the fact that it weighs maybe 3-400 lbs. less I believe? In the end, why in the world are we arguing about this? These two cars aren't anywhere near the same league.

Originally posted by Majisto:
All the lies, and egos being thrown around.

I'm glad Ford did away with the 302. Anybody who dares tell me their stock 302 can keep up with a stock 281 is either smoking the good stuff, or jealous. Yes, the 302 is a tough engine, and yes it can be built up well, but a stock 302 Mustang is a DOG.

All you auto haters will be happy to know that the 4R70W will be replaced by the 5R55N, which has seen action under the Explorer since 1997, and as a C3 for over 20 years. It also under-pins the Lincoln LS. Maybe the better spaced gear ratios, and faster shifting of this 5-speed auto will help the auto Mustang out a bit. I know it works well in the Explorer. My dad owns a 2000 XLT with the 5R and 4.0 combo, and it will run close to an 8 second 0-60. The shifting is next to flawless.

The Fox chassis Mustang definitely has its fair shrae of problems, mostly in the rear suspension. Anybody that tells me a Mustang handles extremely well has never driven a true sports car. That rear end bounces around like you're driving an old pickup truck, and the under-steer is horrendous. Ford needed 4 shocks to keep it all under control in the rear. Seriously guys, the Mustang's big weakness in fact is in its suspension. The geometry just sucks. The Camaro/Firebird had a better system, but GM FUBARed the safety of the car, and the interior was about as beautiful as Martha Stewart. Japan smoked us on sports cars, and every few years I keep seeing displacement rising.

I like the Essex V-6 motor actually for what it is. 1999+ models recieved a huge change to bring it up towards what the Windstar puts out. Yes, the headgaskets are a problem due to the coolant return line being too close to cylinder #1, but owners need to remember that coolant needs to be CHANGED once in a while, not just re-filled. Again, it's a good torque motor that can't breate for a dang up top. That's what the Mustang is about. It will be replaced by the wonderful 4.0 SOHC motor, which can do a bit of both.

I don't think a Contour has much legroom either, and a 99+ V-6 Mustang will gladly rip any Non-SVT 'Tour a new one, but the Contour will definitely be much more fun to drive due to the fact that it weighs maybe 3-400 lbs. less I believe? In the end, why in the world are we arguing about this? These two cars aren't anywhere near the same league.

I know thw contour is a quick car. But I also now my old 4cyl focus w/auto trans beat the [censored] out of a v6 auto mustang.

Are you fn kididng me you think a focus is faster than a stang my mom has a 02 focus and i have an 03 stang i have drove both extensivly and there is no comparison.

Hold on there you guys...remember, before 1999, the V-6 Mustang only made 140 horsepower, making it even worse up top. I could see a Duratec or possibly a Zetec Focus beating a stock V-6 Mustang. It has no power past around 80 MPH. The 1999+ Essex is an entirely different animal.

Originally posted by Majisto:
All the lies, and egos being thrown around.

I'm glad Ford did away with the 302. Anybody who dares tell me their stock 302 can keep up with a stock 281 is either smoking the good stuff, or jealous. Yes, the 302 is a tough engine, and yes it can be built up well, but a stock 302 Mustang is a DOG.

All you auto haters will be happy to know that the 4R70W will be replaced by the 5R55N, which has seen action under the Explorer since 1997, and as a C3 for over 20 years. It also under-pins the Lincoln LS. Maybe the better spaced gear ratios, and faster shifting of this 5-speed auto will help the auto Mustang out a bit. I know it works well in the Explorer. My dad owns a 2000 XLT with the 5R and 4.0 combo, and it will run close to an 8 second 0-60. The shifting is next to flawless.

The Fox chassis Mustang definitely has its fair shrae of problems, mostly in the rear suspension. Anybody that tells me a Mustang handles extremely well has never driven a true sports car. That rear end bounces around like you're driving an old pickup truck, and the under-steer is horrendous. Ford needed 4 shocks to keep it all under control in the rear. Seriously guys, the Mustang's big weakness in fact is in its suspension. The geometry just sucks. The Camaro/Firebird had a better system, but GM FUBARed the safety of the car, and the interior was about as beautiful as Martha Stewart. Japan smoked us on sports cars, and every few years I keep seeing displacement rising.

I like the Essex V-6 motor actually for what it is. 1999+ models recieved a huge change to bring it up towards what the Windstar puts out. Yes, the headgaskets are a problem due to the coolant return line being too close to cylinder #1, but owners need to remember that coolant needs to be CHANGED once in a while, not just re-filled. Again, it's a good torque motor that can't breate for a dang up top. That's what the Mustang is about. It will be replaced by the wonderful 4.0 SOHC motor, which can do a bit of both.

I don't think a Contour has much legroom either, and a 99+ V-6 Mustang will gladly rip any Non-SVT 'Tour a new one, but the Contour will definitely be much more fun to drive due to the fact that it weighs maybe 3-400 lbs. less I believe? In the end, why in the world are we arguing about this? These two cars aren't anywhere near the same league.

this has got to be the most idiotic post i've read yet...obviously you know absolutely nothing about mustangs...your post is so ridiculous i won't even waste my time responding to most of it....

and for your information the 96-98 2v 4.6's were some of the most pathetic mustangs to be built...it took a 4v 4.6 to even hang with the old 302 cars...now the '99 up 2v 4.6's are pretty powerful....

and fwiw my 95 gt(with a 302)with nothing more than gears and exhaust has run a best of 14.2@ 98 mph...

Quote:

this has got to be the most idiotic post i've read yet...obviously you know absolutely nothing about mustangs...your post is so ridiculous i won't even waste my time responding to most of it....

and for your information the 96-98 2v 4.6's were some of the most pathetic mustangs to be built...it took a 4v 4.6 to even hang with the old 302 cars...now the '99 up 2v 4.6's are pretty powerful....

and fwiw my 95 gt(with a 302)with nothing more than gears and exhaust has run a best of 14.2@ 98 mph...

You really think I know nothing about the old Fairmont chassis, eh? Heh, prove me wrong about the lousy suspension, and the lazy automatic shifting structure. You obviously haven't pushed your Mustang to its limits, and seen how horrible the under-steer can be. Don't get your panties tied up in a wad, calm down.

I apologize for not stating the 99+ Modulars instead of those breathless wonders from 96-98, but I still stand by my opinion that the modular is a good successor to the 302. The stock exhaust is also better on the modular. *shrug* That's just opinion though.

It's not like I hate the Mustang. It's a great pony car, but it's not the end all, be all car that some people say it is. I drove a 2000 GT Vert, and it was a very nice car. Sure the chassis flex was fairly bad, but it was a convertible, and I expected that. The great thing about the Mustang is that the seat feels high, and it makes it a much easier car to deal with day to day driving. Old Camaro I drove put me so dang low, that I could barely see over the huge dash, and the hump in the floorpan was weird.

Still, the Fox platform can't be band-aided forever. It's time for it to go, and I'll be glad to hail in the new Mustang with better ergonomics, and a much more powerful V-8. You dan't deny that the modular has come a long way from being stuck in a Lincoln 2-door.

wasn't getting anything in a wad...just disagreed with what you said is all...and that's coming from experience...owning 8 of them over the past few years,i think i may know a thing or two myself about them..

i also never said they were the be all end all..there are many better cars out there...and yes i've pushed all of them i've owned to the limit...

i also never said the slushbox in them was any good..who buys a mustang with a slishbox????i certainly wouldn't...the auto tranny's in the pre 99's were terrible....

the modular engine is great now....but you said it was far superior in every way basically...i also welcome the new mustang chasis its about time...

Originally posted by Li 99Tour:

I know thw contour is a quick car. But I also now my old 4cyl focus w/auto trans beat the [censored] out of a v6 auto mustang.

Are you fn kididng me you think a focus is faster than a stang my mom has a 02 focus and i have an 03 stang i have drove both extensivly and there is no comparison.

nope i'm not kidding you. I whooped on a 2002 V6 mustang at the "track".