Talk:Ford Mustang/Archive 20061105

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Article merger

There is an article at Ford Mustang SSP that, quite simply, doesn't merit its own page. The info from that article could easily be incorporated into the main Mustang article, where it belongs. Thoughts? BRossow T/C 19:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


  • Merge per my own nom. BRossow T/C 19:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Merge Feedloadr 13:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Merge The article is too long already, and that article is about a notable topic. robertvan1 20:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


Don't Merge arguement- The Mustang article itself is long and very incomplete in some instances. More general info is needed, not more specific info like this article mentioned provides. I feel it doesn't hurt to link it off to another subarticle, otherwise what is the point of a Shelby, Mach 1, or Cobra article? Mustang can be general, focusing on the general history of it, and if people get interested in Mach 1 when they see a small entry on it, they can click it and get alot more detail on it. Same with the special service mustangs, Cobra, ect. Feedloadr 13:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't merge. 1. The SVO is a distinct, very limited edition 'version' of the Mustang. And my title and insurance company (unfortunately) recognize it as a distinctive model apart from the other Mustangs. Recommend breaking off the late model Mustang Cobra's and other distinctive limited edition models as well.

The next generation

The 1971-1973 Mustangs are bigger and heavier than the previous ones but they are still the first generation and should not be mixed with the small fuel efficient Mustangs from the second generation. Should this be corrected? Chadon 9:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, what were they smoking when they put it there. Although it is a first gen, is it really first gen? In 1971, every dimension was expanded except height. Interestingly the 71-73 were the shortest mustangs produced (at 50.1 inches), acording to The Mustang Red Book. Note- my book only goes to 2000, so the latest gen might take it. Although a fairly short in time segment, I feel it should be differentiated from the rest of the first gen family. While the Mustang 2 is the black sheep of the mustangs, the Clydesdales are the bastard's of the first gen. Also worth mentioning in the 71-3's is there were roughly 500 Mach 1's made with the 429 SCJ option. I will incorperate that into the Mach 1 Article, which is grossly inaccurate, but I am working on.Also worth mentioning if its not allready, 1973 was the last convertable until 1983. Feedloadr 20:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There should be a definite distinction between the 1964 1/2 thru 1970 and 1971-1973, and I fully believe that it is appropos to call the 71-73s "second gen" mustangs. My reason for believing this is that when there is a fundamental change in a car's platform design, there is a generational distinction between the models. The 71-73 mustangs are built on a seperate platform from the 64-70s (no longer the Falcon platform, but the Torino, I believe). Call them what you will, however, by generational distinctions made in reference to other automobiles' "generational" distinctions, the 71-73 Mustangs are a seperate category of platform from the 64-70s.

Sports car or compact car?

Isn't the Mustang more of a sports car than a compact car? Carruthers 03:09, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not really. There is no exact definition of a sports car, but it is typically a two-seater two-door automobile designed for performance - speed, maneuverability, acceleration. It may be open, or convertible, but not necessarily. Some sports cars may have small emergency back seats that are really only suitable for luggage. A sports car never has four doors or a full back seat. While Mustangs have always had two doors, they have also always had real back seats, (however marginally useable they were) thus excluding them from true sports car status. Examples of sports cars would be Chevrolet Corvettes, Dodge Vipers, Triumph Spitfires and TR7's as well as Mazda Miata's, to name a few.

Every manufacturer built their ponycars off their compact car chassis: Falcon/Mustang, Chevy II/Camaro, Valiant/Barracuda, so the ponycars were all part of the compact class. RivGuySC 01:42, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is it a sports car?

Please vote (with a one-line answer, indented) on the following question:

Is this vehicle a sports car?

  1. Yes
  2. No - it's a GT car
  3. No - it's just a sporty coupe
  • No - its a Pony car

--SFoskett 13:17, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, sports car the Camaro is considered a sports car also and it has back seats and optional v6 or v8 Poncho 17:45, Sep 1, 2006 (UTC)
No, sporty coupe. GT isn't really right. —Morven 17:52, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, in some years and some models--the Shelby ought to qualify if anything under the sun does. RivGuySC 00:00, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No - it's just a sporty coupe. SamH 16:58, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes. Stombs 04:29, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
No, it's a coupe IRT.BMT.IND 16:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
No, it has four seats. It's a sports coupe.
No, sporty coupe. Not even the Shelby Mustang Cobras.--David R. Ingham 17:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Originally it was a sporty family coupe (a pony car) but after they started pumping up horse power ratings, that went out the door. From the beginning of the Fox body era, pretty much all GT's are considered "performance cars". Believe me i've been through it all with insurance companies, they don't like 20 year olds with V8's --cam67stang 9:36, 10 Feb 2006

I Deleted "Pony Car" The Ford Mustang is REffed To As A Muscle Car In Ford Article And Many Others Here On Wikipedia Its Even Said In Fords Main, Drag, Adn Racing Articles. I deleted the "best selling sports car" entry from Automotive superlatives, because naming some other car would not fix the problem of so vaque a title. Sorry Mustang lovers. I suggest also changing the category box on this page. David R. Ingham 04:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Its a known as a GT car or performance car

  • I changed your hostile edit. As we keep hearing, (blah blah 350Z, S2000, etc.), Mustang is not a sports car. Back in the day it would have been classified as a "personal luxury car". These days that categorization I think still holds. We would call it now a Grand Touring car. Sporty car is waaaay off. That designation is used for the hot hatches like the Volkswagen GTI and Acura RSX. The automotive press puts this car into "GT and Sports Cars" I think a good comprmise would be to call it a sporty coupe/performance car, to covere the whole model range from mom's V6 convertible to Uncle Chuck's Shelby Cobra. CJ DUB 13:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


  • Dude I own one. It is for sure a Grand Touring or Performance car. V6/I6 model is a sporty coupe. Even Carroll Shelby never called it a sports car. I love this car but that is stretching it a bit. Anyway, pure sporst cars are lame and not practical. CJ DUB 06:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Going by the Wiki definition of sports car, the SVO is definitely a sports car. Driving performance was priority #1. Until the 2005/6 model, it was easily the best handling Mustang ever built. It came from the factory with adjustable Koni racing shocks, stiffer suspension, and huge 4-wheel disk brakes (off a Lincoln) that stop you on a dime. On a cold and high air density (think winter) day, I have to turn my adjustable boost down to stop spinning my Gatorbacks. If it had a later technology intercooler, I'd have the problem year round. For it's day, the special close ratio T-5 tranny wasn't called "World Class T-5" for nothing. The wing and 'spats' are pure functional vs. for show. I could wax philosophical, and call it the first 'modern muscle car' in that it had bags (for '84-'86) of horsepower generated by high tech means rather than brute cubic inches, but that wouldn't do it justice, since most muscle cars couldn't corner worth a darn. If the 'two-seat' vs. 'four seat' thing bothers you - the comp prep option deleted the back seat, and there's nothing stopping you from taking it out like a lot of autocrossers -- and you STILL see SVOs autocrossing competitively.

  • I think that the older mustangs (ex. 1966-1972 or even 1973 mach 1) should be classified as sports cars but the newer mustangs (ex. 1999-2006) have transformed to sporty sedans because it is considered "practical & sporty". also remember the 2006 shelby or roush supercharged mustangs. pretty sporty cars if you ask me. And i would only consider v6 fwd cars sedans.

--- It's the eponymous "Pony Car", and this distinction is clearly made (and linked to) in the article. Compact body + low cost + power/performance + sporty styling. The question is more difficult because the car is (and has been) made in many different configurations.

Personally, I call my V6 a "sport coupe" and my buddy's Cobra a "sports car" even though they're the same model year, same colour ... but even the 3.8 V6 is a pretty ample engine for such a small car, and it does have very good handling.

This ambiguity is a lot of what makes a Mustang a Mustang, though ... it's not REALLY a sports car (costs 1/2 to 1/3 as much, seats 2+2, not a Corvette, etc.) but it IS a sharp-lookin performance car with a big engine and lots of accessories. I feel that "personal luxury car" is just a hair off the mark, Mustangs are a little juicier than Grand Prix's, T-birds, etc., and a little less "luxurious" too. And it's no way a sedan, spory or otherwise, with 2 doors and RWD ...


  • to press a latch to release the key
    • This is only for ones with a manual transmission. Corky842
  • for the 2005 version 125 colours for the dials
  • why does it say the torque box smells like cheese?


A full length feature article on the Mustang that does not contain a single mention of Bullitt (except to note the SE in a footnote)?


Shouldn't "Mustang Sally" be mentioned in the article? That is what I like best about the Mustang.--David R. Ingham 17:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


The editor of Motor Trend sent an (original) Mustang to one of the Italian designers to have the body re-done in the same theme. An editor of Road and Track said that one less visually oriented might have sent it to England to have its suspension worked on. (The question of whether it is a sports car reminded me.)--David R. Ingham 17:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Judging by the '64-5, it needed both. Trekphiler 09:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

gt350r pic

the aspect ratio on this pic is pretty screwy. Gzuckier 02:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

This article needs more.

I disagree with the Award at the top of this page. Seeing that alot of the Mustang History is incomplete, I fail to see how it got such an award.

It completely missed the Mustang SSP Info (which was added), and I don't see any info regarding Shinoda and a few other notable points.

It still has a long way to go before it's Okay."

SVT and the SVO

The 84-86 SVO's were not engineered by SVT, but instead SVO, hence the name. The Special Vehicle Operations engineering team intended these vehicles to be a response to the German and Japanese sports cars of the day. Oh, yes the car started at 175 horsepower but in 85 1/2 it was bumped up to 205 from research shared from the development of the Turbo thunderbird and Merkur XR4Ti. In 86 the ECM was tweaked and power was reduced to 200.

Current day SVT started life in 91 and was a combination of two different groups, SVE(Special Vehicle Engineering) and SVT(Special Engineering Team). SVE was responsible for building the cars and trucks and SVT educates dealers and the public on the products of SVE.

Launch comparisons Falcon and Mustang

The article states:

Overall length of the Mustang and Falcon was identical, at 181.6 in (4613 mm), although the Mustang's wheelbase, at 108 in (2743 mm), was slightly shorter. With an overall width of 68.2 in (1732 mm), it was 3.4 in (86 mm) narrower, although wheel track was nearly identical.


...the Mustang's body shell was completely different from the Falcon's, sporting a longer wheelbase, wider track, lower seating position and overall height...

So the Mustang managed the impressive feat of having both a longer and shorter wheelbase, and a wider but narrower track. I hope it received an award for excellence in engineering as well as design! --Jumbo 23:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I know that the '65 and '66 Falcons and Mustangs used virtually the same suspention components, but after that the were completely seperate cars. --cam67stang 9:38, Feb 10 2006

The Fairlane also shared its front clip with the Mustang, from what I understand. IMHO, good idea to be doing at the time; engineer seperate cars from existing technology and parts.


This troubles me:

"not as expensive as a Corvette, but still a good car."

It strikes me as opinion, N fact. Good how? Who says so? Might do with comparing to Corvette: both started as lo$ projects on crude chassis with "sporty" aspirations, & grew into cult cars. Trekphiler 08:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


In '60s, BION, Ford offered skirts for the 'stang. And only 700 '70 GT500s were built. Trekphiler 09:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Technically no 70's were built, they were leftover 1969 models that the put fresh VIN plates on.Feedloadr 13:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

four cylinder

Will somebody admit that the Ford Mustang once carried a four cylinder engine? And what year was it?

1974-1993. Pretty short production run *snicker*
Yes, the Mustang had a 2.3 liter four cylinder engine during those years. Of particular note is the SVO Mustang produced in 1984-1986. With it's turbocharged and intercooled four cylinder, it was producing 205 hp and 240 ft/lb torque the year that it was removed from the Mustang line-up. Sales were just too slow compared to the v8 model. The SVO was truly a design ahead of it's time... Severisth 20:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

...And it really is too bad they cut it from the lineup (the SVO). I had one that I was using while my 289 was out of my '67 coupe being rebuilt. I thought it would be a drag, but they were very well set up for the time they came from. It was a beater, but it was fun. I regret getting rid of it.


Henry Ford II made a phone call to Chrysler to ensure that they didnt get the name Mustang.

can anyone confirm this story?

GT500 Specs

I am calling into question the statement made by user That user stated: However, Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords were able to coax low-12 second performances out of it, with trap speeds of over 117mph. What issue of the magazine was this in? What were the circumstances? Was the car in stock form? Where there further mods made on it? I am deleting the statement for now as this is highly questionable. I find low 12's for a car that has done at the very best a 12.9 unbelieveable. Most test from the various magazines usually have a couple of tenths of a second difference between them. This statment would have some believe a drop of nearly a second. FrankWilliams 21:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

"At best"? Hahah. C/D, Road and Track, MT suck at real racing. This is the most recent issue of MM&FF. Car is completely stock, right down to the gas grade and tires. They turned the traction control off. They used a guy who knows how to drive. They remarked in the article that the car is so easy to launch with traction control, that even a neophyte could roll of 12.9 times, just like they got in those 'other' magzines, hahaha. I can find the temp, humidity and everything tonight. I believe humidity was in the 30s and temp was around 68 degrees. CJ DUB 14:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

So a magazine with a title like Muscle Mustang & Fast Fords is obviously not going to be very biased in favor of Ford products, right??? I thought this was suppose to be an encyclopedia where facts are suppose to be presented without bias. A car's performance should be repeatable over many times to get a good mean. Using the scientific method a figure that is outside of the norm is usually discounted, particularly if there is ANY show of bias. Just another perspective. FrankWilliams 19:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's a thought: C/D MT and R&T are ALL biased in favour of advertizing dollar. Fact. You should realize that MM&FF does not run any automobile ads, other than kit cars, unlike those other magazines. In addition, MM&FF are extremely critical of Ford products. They expect the best from the company, and are harsh when they don't deliver. Read it, they remarked that Ford should be ashamed of the weight of the new GT500, and they are not happy. These were the guys who brought the meagre hp numbers of the 1999 Cobra into the media, and did extensive testing to the 2001 Cobra to confirm the updates and hp rating by Ford. Which reminds me, another difference is that the readers of MM&FF will actually go and check the numbers they are given by the mag. How'd that look if they were off? Why not throw out the other sources not based on bias, but based on poor experimentation; an equally good reason to chuck outliers? CJ DUB 20:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
PS, how can a watch be biased? They reported all of their times. 12.257s was the best of the times. The average for all of the runs was under 12.7, since this was their worst run. CJ DUB 20:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

S-197 V6 Mustangs and the aftermarket

The article states that the aftermarket was scarce for V6 mustangs before the S-197 models, and that is partially accurate for models using the Essex 90 degree V6, which didn't recieve anything helpful until the split-port engines were introduced. However, the V6 in the S-197 platform Mustang is the Cologne V6 and enjoyed quite a bit of aftermarket support before the Mustang, from it's use in Explorers and the high-performance models of the Ford Ranger. --Mfree 19:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Mustang II and Pinto ties

I'm not sure if it should be mentioned but the Mustang II being "based" off the pinto is tenuous; The article does say that the basis is far less than the original mustang vs falcon, but in truth the only shared chassis component between the mustang II and the pinto is, if I remember correctly, the passenger floorboard. --Mfree 19:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The statement that the Mustang II is "based" off the Pinto is entirely correct, in the sense that the 1964 1/2 was "based" off the Falcon.
"The compact Ford Falcon formed the basis of the original Mustang,...the compact Pinto did the same for the Mustang II...The rear mounted fuel tank [in the Pinto] was very vulnerable to rear-end collisions...Thankfully, even though it used many Pinto parts, the Mustang II had no such safety problems." from "Mustang" by Peter Henshaw, Regency House Publishing 2006.

1993 horsepower ratings

Someone needs to change the article where it begins to talk about how Ford changed the horsepower rating in 1993 "for no reason."

The real reason why is:

- a small revision to the cam was made in 1988, lowering hp - the switch from SD to MAF lowered hp - the addition of hyperuetectic pistons lowered the overall horsepower output.

These changes were large enough for Ford to reevaluate the hp rating. This information can be found in "The Official Ford Mustang 5.0 Technical Reference and Performance Handbook."

And while we are on the subject, the hyperuetectic pistons were added to lower emissions. I don't think that is mentioned.

Further clarification

any time the manufacturer makes a "significant" change to the motor they are required to retest the motor to confirm their claimed horsepower, as well as fuel mileage and emissions. The change involved can be pretty small. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulmeisel (talkcontribs) .

Inherent POV Problem Regarding "Ford Mustang" Entry

I question whether or not the point-of-view is actually neutral regarding the Mustang, and I can point out numerous instances of "glossover" regarding the article. Several statements in the article are rife with evidence of subjective preference.

Quote: "Borrowing minor design cues from the Lincoln Continental and two-seat Ford Thunderbird with an intentional touch of Ferrari at the grille, the Mustang can be regarded as a true master of engineering."

Regarded by who? Car experts? Engineers? Fans? Owners? Random people on the street? In that case, my bathroom toilet can also be considered a "true master of engineering."

Also rife with grammar problems, as this statement asserts the Mustang is a "master of engineering." Really? Did it go to school? What was its G.P.A.? --WStewart07

80 mustangs

The 1980 mustangs are getting old!

--Poinana9284728 18:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Poinana9284728

Experimental models

Now, I'm not really talking about the rear-engined 2-seat V4 Mustang I or the rear-engined 2-seat Mustang prototype made in 1969, what I'm talking about is the '65 coupe produced with a Curtiss-Wright Wankel engine. Does anyone have further info on that?

There was also quite a lot of talk about independent rear suspension when the GT350 program was in place but didn't go far, the chassis wasn't really suitable for that layout.

There were a good few aftermarket retractable hardtop kits out on the market by '68.

If anyone thinks those are suitable leads for article addition, I'd be happy to do further research.--Mfree 14:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Absotively! Gzuckier 17:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sales overstatement

"The new Mustang was an immediate sales success for Ford—half of all "sports" cars sold in the United States are now Mustangs"

this line seems to be an unfounded overstatement. is there any proof of this claim? --Cirilobeto 17:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"Looking Ahead" misnamed

The Looking Ahead section has no information related to the future. It is just a bunch of random facts about the history of the Mustang that can very well be integrated into other sections. Looking Ahead should be about the next generation mustangs, the 2008 MY, what the new Cyclone engine will be like, etc. If no one else edits it, I will, but I admit I don't know very much about the new stuff. Kcurley 01:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Featured status review

I think it is time to review the featured status of the article. It has been two years since it became a Featured article, and it seems that the article not only expanded, but degraded its quality (just look at that amount of external links). Does anyone agree? -- ReyBrujo 20:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't help that the original article left out significant gaps in the Mustang history. Among them are the 80's models (The SVO and the SSP) and the new "Variant" Mustangs for the S-197 Mustang just bolstered the article even more. I've already went in before and deleted cruft for the S-197, and I still think theirs a significant ammount of cruft for the S-197 alone. I'm almost at the point where the S-197 section alone might border on the possible declaration that it's nothing more than a glorified adversement for the Ford Motor Company. It needs a massive edit and 09:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Self contradiction

This article, in the first paragraph or two, states that it was named after the SMU mascott, and then states that it was named after the P-51 Mustang WW2 fighter aircraft. I've heard the P-51 link many times, but have never heard the SMU link before. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .


As it stands, it is very difficult to get information from this article. Much of the information seems randomly littered throughout the rather large and unwieldy blocks of text. As of yesterday, I have marked this article for cleanup.Aquaseafoam 17:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Saleen S281

Should information about the S281 (or Saleen Mustangs in general) be put under this article, or should there a new article made for it? Mustang6172 22:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Since Saleen Mustangs have been, with the exception of a few examples, limited to body and suspension modifications only, they are essentially stock Mustangs. No mention of the S281 or any Saleen Mustangs should be made on the Mustang page, at least until the page has been cleaned up a little more. Saleen Mustangs should be expanded upon on the Saleenwiki, since they are custom jobs from Steve Saleen.


Lets bring out some specifics on what can be done to make this section better instead of marking and leaving it be.

Sign your comments please. 10:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Mustang II removal

The Mustang II has been removed from this article. Is there any particular reason for this other than someone feels it was not a "real Mustang" or such? The Mustang II article still redirects to this article. If there is a valid reason for this then the Mustang II article should no longer redirect here and perhaps a new article started. The Mustang II is mentioned in this article regarding the 2.8L V6 engine being used in the 1979 Mustangs. The Mustang II seems to be enough of a Mustang to be mentioned in the awards section for receiving "Car of the Year." 04:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It's either vandalism or ignorance. The 1974-1978 Mustang II is the second generation Mustang. That's what the roman numeral II stands for. 1979 was often called "Mustang III" at the outset. 1971-73 is part of the first generation and is never considered the second generation although it is often called the "fourth generation" of the first generation (65-66,67-68,69-70 and 71-73).

Mustang GTS

Is there any proof about this? There is proof of the shelby GT since the shelby president, Amy B(her screen name, not sure what her last name is), has went into detail about it on numerous forums(such as under the shelby GT500 section), and either road & track or automobile has an article about it. I havnt heard anything about any mustang GTS though. Has anyone else, or is this pure speculation?

I think it just was someone misunderstanding information about Ford GTs (the plural of Ford GT). There is no "Ford Mustang GTS". (There was a Ford Probe GTS in 1997.)
There was a special order Mustang GT in 1995 known as a Mustang GTS.
But there is no "Ford Mustang GTS" for 2007.
Saleen HAD a press release on their website announcing a contract with Ford to assemble a "Grand Touring Sport" edition of the V6 Mustang for Ford; this has since gone away so there's no way to know if there are still plans to produce it for 2007.

"Muscle Car"?

That is better than "sports car", but there were six cylinder versions of the original Mustang, and there was almost nothing mechanically unique about it. It is a compact car with fancy stylish body work and a speed image. David R. Ingham 05:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

A perfect definition of the pony car category. Gzuckier 18:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there an actual difference between a "Muscle Car" and a "Pony Car"? I'd always heard that a Muscle Car was a (or was based on) a large car with a large powerful motor -- think late 60s Road Runner. A Pony Car, however was a small car into which was stuffed a powerful engine, making a vehicle which was small, light and fast, like the Mustang or Camaro. I recently saw a TV Documentary on Muscle Cars that offered up pretty much the same definition.
Perhaps a definition of Pony Car should start the article, since the Mustang is what defined and originated the term? --Nne3jxc 04:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Photos & The Mustang Grows Up section

Can someone who is skilled in text and photo formatting fix the issues with the 3 pictures (1st Mustang, Shelby Mustang and 65 Fastback) in the sections previous to "The Mustang Grows Up"? The pictures don't seem to be anchored, and when using the Firefox browser the pictures all appear in the "...grows up" section, and when window is resized, the pictures float around and interfere with text. In Internet Explorer, the pictures appear in the correct section, but there is a huge section of blank white space at the beginning of "The Mustang Grows Up" section. Nne3jxc 20:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Attempted to revert Vandalism

I attempted to revert some vandalism but due to a browser crash did more harm than good. I am afraid to attempt to repair it again due to the fact I might do even more harm. StartX 05:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I managed to fix the damage my browser caused. StartX 02:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Mustang 2

I know the mustang 2 wasn't the greatest car on the planet and that it's not a real or true mustang or whatever, HOWEVER it does warrant inclusion in this article because it was offically fords mustang in the mid-late 70's. Could someone upload a picture please... 18:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)