Generation of Mustangs

[MechE]

Guys this is stupid. We all know how to count. 2015 is the 51st model and the end of the 50th year. The point is it seems like Ford has been inconsistent for apparently marketing reasons. Which means there are differences between the x model, the x anniversary, and whatever badging ford decides to use or not use.

Still blows my mind that a '65 and '73 are apparently the same chassis.

 

[rjyote]

1965 + 50 - 2015

2009+5=2014

 

[Norm Peterson]

Centuries are not identified as anniversaries of anything, so that analogy only serves to confuse matters. But if insisted, this would be the 21st anniversary century of the years between 100BC and 0 (and rather pointless).

Marketing/advertising and sales will say or do most anything to improve the bottom line, even when it is technically or mathematically wrong. If it hoodwinks a few buyers - or a lot of them - so much the better.

You need to view advertising claims (what this anniversary stuff really comes down to) with a great deal of skepticism.


Norm

 

[Norm Peterson]

Guys this is stupid. We all know how to count. 2015 is the 51st model and the end of the 50th year. The point is it seems like Ford has been inconsistent for apparently marketing reasons. Which means there are differences between the x model, the x anniversary, and whatever badging ford decides to use or not use.

Still blows my mind that a '65 and '73 are apparently the same chassis.

It's basically the same, with relatively small dimensional changes. Perhaps look only at the front and rear suspension arrangements (not necessarily including the power steering).

What's stupid is taking a sales pitch as absolute gospel.


Norm

 

[JimC]

2009+5=2014

2009 - 1965 = 44

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

 

[MechE]

What's stupid is taking a sales pitch as absolute gospel.
Norm

 

[46addict]

2009+5=2014

2009 - 1965 = 44

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

He's pointing out the inconsistency of labeling the 09 model years as a 45th anniversary. We can all agree 2015 - 50 = 1965 but there has been a mislabeling of the anniversary year for 2014/15 due to marketing.

 

[06 T-RED S/C GT]

Guys check your history. Ford put the 25th anniversary badges on some 89 MY cars and I believe all 90 MY cars. Not all 89s had them and it wasn't from a certain date on in 89. Only certain 89 cars came with this badging. I had a late 89 vert. LX 5.0 that did not have the badging.

And while you're at it, check post #31.. As all 90 cars did indeed have 25th anniversary badges, in which my first fox body Mustang was in fact a 90 GT..

Therefore if only some 89MY cars came with 25th anniversary badges, but all 90MY cars had them, what did this tell you ?

Do the math:

1965+25=1990
1965+50=2015

 

[Mach2burnout]

And while you're at it, check post #31.. As all 90 cars did indeed have 25th anniversary badges, in which my first fox body Mustang was in fact a 90 GT..



Therefore if only some 89MY cars came with 25th anniversary badges, but all 90MY cars had them, what did this tell you ?



Do the math:



1965+25=1990

1965+50=2015

What it tells me is car manufacturers must use common core math!


Sent from iPhone

 

[06 T-RED S/C GT]

Guys this is stupid. We all know how to count. 2015 is the 51st model and the end of the 50th year. The point is it seems like Ford has been inconsistent for apparently marketing reasons. Which means there are differences between the x model, the x anniversary, and whatever badging ford decides to use or not use.

We all know the first Mustang was officially designated by Ford as a 1965 model and was introduced on April 17th of 1964..

Therefore we also know that 1965+50= 2015 which marks the 50th year anniversary.. That's all that really matters !

 

[06 T-RED S/C GT]

What it tells me is car manufacturers must use common core math!

Sent from iPhone

I suppose that would make the most sense, if that's indeed what the car manufacturers use

 

[rjyote]

1999 (only) V6 and GT fender emblem

 

[rjyote]

2004 (only) V6 and GT fender emblem

 

[WARstang]

lol @ this thread

 

[KatoS197]

What about the Cobras? I don't see anyone trying to figure out their anniversaries....

 

[06 T-RED S/C GT]

What about the Cobras? I don't see anyone trying to figure out their anniversaries....

That'll be next

 

[BruceH]

Generations? Sounds like Camaro talk. BTW the Mustang 2 wasn't a Mustang, it was a Pinto and doesn't count for anything. I lived through the atrocity of 74-78 Mustangs, they were Pintos and everyone knew it.

 

[06 T-RED S/C GT]

Mid 89-all 1990 LX and GT

 

[06 T-RED S/C GT]

2015 GT (only)

 

[Norm Peterson]

Generations? Sounds like Camaro talk. BTW the Mustang 2 wasn't a Mustang, it was a Pinto and doesn't count for anything. I lived through the atrocity of 74-78 Mustangs, they were Pintos and everyone knew it.

Only Pinto-based, like the original that was introduced midway through the 1964 model year (sidestep intentional) was Falcon-based. Arguably, the Mustang II is less similar to the Pinto than the 1st gen Mustang was to the Falcon (the Mustang II used a subframe for the front suspension where the Pinto did not - and that represents a significant change).


FWIW, the Pinto had far better potential as a sports coupe than most people ever gave it credit for, certainly better than any Falcon short of the (rare) 260 CID V8-powered Sprint. Trust me on this, back in the day I built a Pinto up.


Norm