Me neither.

 

Were poor...
We work for the guys with the vetts, camaro's and charger's
Just another example of "the man" keepin us down.

 

I think DJ was complaining that, as a group, early Mustang owners tend to be moreconservative than owners of other cars from the same era. And I think he's got a point, at least with regard to the cars that turn out to shows.

But there are a few places where you can get an extensive,high-$ re-work done on these cars. Check out SN65.com (just the name ought to hint at something). They've even performedchassis stiffness testing to determine the effectiveness of certain structural mods.

I'm not at all sure that you'd have to keep updating a restomod, assuming that you made thoughtful choices the first time through. The benefits and "feel" of a stiffer chassis with a few safety updates, better tires and brakes,and some fine tuning in the suspension aren't going to go away with age. Nor will the advantages of having another gear in the tranny or an engine that has better part-throttle fuel efficiency if you really drive it much.

Actually, I'd much prefer a restomod to its new-car "target". I've managed very well without any of the electronic nannies that are getting increasingly hard to avoid. Eventhe ABS in our newest car hasn't impressed me much, and I've had almost 70,000 miles in which to find out.Basically, I think I can do a better job of matching the car to me and the way I drive and want a car to "feel" than any manufacturer could (or would) do at any reasonable price.

Perhaps it actually comes down to how much you actually drive the car in question- it's more difficult to justify mods for a limited-use car as extensive as what you might consider for a car that gets used on a daily basis.

Norm

 

If you want a modern car, buy a modern car. It's really that simple. Quit screwing up perfectly good classic Mustangs.

 

I'm saving up...my plans are mild though...Eventually a 5.0 EFI system and AOD, Shelby mod and updated suspension, not doing the rack and stuff. Comfy inside, air and etc. I want the classic look (stock ish from the outside with Magnum 500 or shelby rims) killer stance, and SOME of the creature comforts, but I don't like how some cars lose their identity with some mods. I see it more in the truck camp.....things like F100's with 350's, etc. I prefer to see modern science applied to classic design without going overboard.

 

What do you think of Mustang Steve's '65 fastback featured in the latest issue of Mustangs Monthly? He achieved a stock looking car, "no scoops or anything like that, and I wanted a fulley optioned car." It has a 9" rear end, 351W, T-5 with cable clutch that he builds, Cobra brakes with narrowed Bullitt wheels, Mach 1 seats, deluxe interior, AC, power windows & door locks and rack and pinion steering.

Personally, I think modded Mustangs like his and JamesW's are the perfect combination of maintaining the look of the original car while updating and improving them to make them better, safer, more fun drivers. There is a huge space to be filled between concours and "lowrider" with the neon underglow and Lamborghini doors.

 

You may have a point there. I'm very close to the point where the continued addition of features that have the potential to intrude on the driving experience itself (traction control, stability control, brake assist, tire pressure monitoring, . . .) or are nothing more than "comfort and convenience" items for people who don't particularly like to drive have spoiled even the thought of new car shopping.

So maybe I really don't want a modern car. I sure as h***don't want everything they come with. Feel free to take that tomean astronger dislike than merely grumbling and putting up with it if it's present.

No, I wouldn't tear into an original or mostly-original car.

Butfor something that does needa fair bit ofwork, "just cruising" isn't a good enough "stopping point" for me either. Too "static". It's got to be able to do just about everythingI need a daily-driver to do, just at a higher performance level.

40 years ago, I would have built up a fastback very much alongTrans-Am lines, minus the acid-dipped body (and perhaps optioned beyond Trans-Am legal with the dealer-availableWeber carb option if money was not an issue).

I really don't think the direction I'd take the same car todayis all that much different (think active participation in C-Prepared/E-Modified auto-X and possibly open-tracking instead of merely emulating the wheel-to-wheel racers of the 60's).For either era, it's bigger slices of power, braking, and handling. Performance first, everything else secondary. Using the car to "be seen in" doesn't evenshow up on the radarscreen.


Norm

 

What do you think the YearOne Mustang is? Talk about technically advanced. I saw this car in person when it was in CT for an event. What an incredible car:

http://www.popularhotrodding.com/fea...tang_fastback/

Again, to go along with the guys here, it really depends on personal taste and how technical/modern you want to go. I mean I did'nt think twice about putting front disc brakes on my car as soon as I bought it. I also put a brand new 5.0 Ford Racing crate motor in it, but kept it carburated because I wanted to keep vintage to the car.

http://www.putfile.com/jspagna1/

 

I was going to let this play out on it's own, but nah,,,

There are a lot of nice Mustangs on this site, some of them original, some of them not so original, some of the done, (is a Mustang really ever "done"?), some of them not done, I like them all. Different people have different tastes, some like the rock stock, others like them tricked out. In any case, you can be relativly sure that no matter what the car is like, or what the plans for the car are, that the owner has thought through the process and has done, or will do what he or she wants with their car. If what these people do with their cars is not "high tech" enough for your tastes, then dont worry about it, just do what you want with your own car, be a trend setter.

My son and I are building a 66, not stock, but for sure not "high tech". Why not "high tech"? because we don't want a high tech 66 Mustang. We want a reliable car with some cool new features, but more in line with thetraditional "musclecar" style than like a new car. (Yea, I know a 66 is not a muscle car).

I know I sound kind of like a smart *** here, for good reason, your post here really has no value except to cause harm to the forum by un-necessarily opening up wounds that have not had enough time to heal. If you don't know that there was a recent blow-up over this subject a while back, then I offer you my apoligies forpushing so hard.

Anyone who has been around auto enthusiests for any period of time knows that there is, and there always has been a rift between "restorers" and hot rodders, etc.), this will never change, but, with a little care, it has been plainly demonstrated that the all can co-exist on this forum, and the forum is better off for it. So, I am saying, "please stop rocking the boat" unless you have a specific question or comment about a real issue. (Sorry, I see your post as a "general pissing statement", better suited for OT).

How ever "low tech" and uninspiring you findmost cars in the classic section, keep in mind that the owners and builders of these cars probably like them as they are, or as they will be, to me it serves no purpose to slap the faces of people with "lesser cars"(lesser in your view).

 

in a few more years, the new mustangs will look like the 60's models[8D]. I like the compromise - old look with all the modern safety and performance bits underneath. Ride stance should belevel with maybe a slight aggressive stance for the shelby drop. And definitely wheels that fill the fenderwell but not outside the car rubbing on the feners. The Eleanor or huge bonnets etc. is too much restomod for me but I want modern technology to get the most out of my pony!