Another in a series of my reviews that appeared in the online version of African Americans On Wheels, a now defunct automotive magazine that was included as an insert in the Sunday newspapers of major cities.
This was another opportunity to keep the miles off of our 1994 Nissan Sentra and drive someone else’s car from Virginia to Connecticut to visit my wife’s family. I had actually requested a GT with a five-speed manual and was a little apprehensive about driving a muscle car with a heavy clutch up and down the Northeast’s legendarily over-crowded corridor. “Don’t worry. They’re going to give you a V6 with an automatic,” said my wife confidently. At this point, the agency that handled press cars was notorious for giving me the opposite of what I requested. Sure enough, that’s what showed up in my parking lot that Monday.
My fondest memory of this Mustang was during that drive. We were on the New Jersey Turnpike and my wife was driving. A state trooper and his partner pulled up along side of us and paced us for a bit. We were doing maybe 63 in a 55 and both of us refused to turn our heads.
“What do they want?”
“I don’t know.”
“Should I slow down?”
“You’re not speeding. Just keeping pace with traffic.”
“Should we look over?”
“We might as well.”
We then looked over, and both troopers gave us a smile and a big thumbs up. I guess that’s the beauty of driving the newest Mustang, even in its most basic form.
The below review was written on February 7, 1999.
Other than the Beetle, there are few cars which bring as many smiles and fond memories of youth as the Mustang. For 1999, Ford has refreshed its legendary pony car. Fortunately or unfortunately, Ford’s New Edge styling has found its way to the Mustang. There are now more hard edges, with a heavily squared rear and jutting wheel arches (which, according to Ford, now give the Mustang “shoulders”). While controversial, the new styling should keep the Mustang fresh for several more years. On the road, our Electric Green model received lots of smiles, thumbs-up and turned heads.
The other big change is, in classic Mustang tradition, MORE POWER. The base 3.8-liter V6 receives a 40 horsepower boost to 190, the 4.6-liter V8 is up 35 to 260, and the hot Cobra is up 15 to 320 (Buy! Buy!). The V6 traces its roots back to 1982 and has trouble hiding it. With the four-speed automatic, acceleration feels lethargic and the transmission sometimes shifts harshly. Furthermore, past 3500 RPMs the overhead-valve engine seems to be saying, “Please, please, no more,” and you’re better off listening to it. The GT, with its more modern overhead-cam engine, would be a much better choice. A welcome addition to all Mustangs is an optional traction control system that can be disabled for drivers in the mood for a little fun. The upcoming Cobra model will even have an independent rear suspension. Antilock brakes are still optional.
The interior is essentially unchanged, with its classic dual pod setup and too-far-forward shifter. The new optional Mach 460 stereo system sounds terrific and is worth the extra money. The console houses nice, deep cup holders and a storage bin large enough to hold several CDs. Skip the leather seats, however, which look and feel like vinyl.
Thanks to its squarish rear, the Mustang makes good use of the tiny trunk, and the (cramped) rear seats fold for those who miss the old hatchback.
Admittedly, it’s not the most practical vehicle on the market. But it’s still inexpensive, looks damn good, and can go like hell if properly equipped.
For more information contact 1-800-446-8888
SPECIFICATIONS
Type: 2-Door Coupe
Engine: 190-horsepower, 3.8 liter V6
Transmission: Four-speed Automatic
EPA Mileage: 20 city/27 highway
Tested Price: $20,080
I bought a used 2001 Mustang in 2005, at of all places, a Honda dealer. It was the same Electric Green and drew a lot of positive comments.
It sure stood out at the dealership, surrounded by a “sea of silver” Hondas. The buyer for the dealership had purchased it at an auction, and it had been sitting on the lot for a while. Probably the last time he was allowed to buy anything. Since at the time it was “You can get any color you want, as long as it’s silver!”
Until the rust monster ate it, it was a trouble free car and I ended up selling it with about 170,000 miles on it.
My sister traded a slightly banged up but very reliable mid 80s Escort for one of these. Her husband had bought a new car the year before and it was now her turn for a new car. They bought one of the first ones in the area, cross-shopping it with the outgoing model. My sister had owned a 67 V8 Mustang and a 74 V6 Capri and this Mustang was the best of both those cars combined. She told me not soon after that she would continue to buy a car with a stick shift as long as they sold them. Then gas prices started to skyrocket. Her husband talked her into a Prius, and after now owning THREE Priuses, she thinks they are THE best cars on the road.
Yet, a neighbor has a new GT, and she talks about it with a touch of envy.
I have heard a lot of complaints about that engine, so not surprised. It is a nice review in the sense that it is not simply parroting the standard equipment and options list from the manufacturer – this review contains actual useful info.
The “New Edge” kept the SN95 Mustang fresh all the way into the New Millennium. I’ve currently got an earlier ’96 GT convertible with automatic and well over 200,000 miles on the clock. I’d agree that the 4.6, one of Ford’s best engines, would be the best pick in any car if it was available. It’s plenty fast, cruises at low rpm, and I get an honest 25 mpg (on regular) at 70 mph. I’ve also got a 2007 Mustang coupe, bought new, with the V6. It’s about as quick, top speed is limited to 110 mph, which it reaches easily. It’s got the Pony package w/17 in. W rated tires. Handles great. Fuel economy is 28 mpg. at 70 mph. This one’s got 160,000 miles.
The newer Mustang is much bigger inside, especially the rear seat and trunk. It also feels much bigger than the earlier car. The width is quite noticeable, but it is more stable on the highway.
The newer 300 hp. V6 /6 speed auto would be the combination in my eyes. Prices are really good on used 2010 and up models. My advice on classic Mustangs is to forget about them. They are terrible compared to anything from the 90’s up. Very poor ergonomics, handling, braking, and especially safety. And you have to pay a fortune for the things. I’ve had them and unless you’re a real hard core enthusiast you’re much better off with the newer cars. The new Mustangs are the best ever!
Oh, I loved that green paint!
Despite the reluctance to embrace the “new edge” styling these turned out to age very well, they don’t look like 21 year old cars. Only thing is they seem more like “junior Mustangs” next to the latest generations, even the 4.6 engines seem like junior V8s. But if you want the sound relative efficiency and sort of modern sort of retro looks with some personal car practicality they’re hard to beat. Won’t win any races against a late model 3.7 or 2.3T but with the visceral sound and mechanical feel of the 5-speed shifter you’ll have won in fun.
That green was great, and way too short lived. Seems like within this generation the world got boring and greyscale, and the only real colors became bright red and yellow.
I agree on the styling, Matt. It has definitely held up well through the years.
I’ve got a ’99 V6 3.8 and am one of those rare (and getting rarer through the years) 3.8 engine lovers. I love them because they’re super easy to work on, straightforward, and durable (in split port form).The 94-98’s had headgasket problems and were also much underpowered, but the 99-04 split port engines had fixed the headgasket issues and the long runner/ short runner split ports can make some very decent power. I’ve done just about everything imaginable to improve power–ported and polished my own intakes/ heads and installed them, put in a cam with 224/226 duration and .555 lift on both intake and exhaust valves, tune, 4.10 gears and all the bolt ons, and it’s a quick, fun car with a sense of dangerousness. It’s an auto and factory redline is 5250, but I’d got my tuners to lift the rev limiter and shift it at 6400 and it still pulls hard….no valve float, no noises that would indicate problems either. I had to run 315 Nittos on the back, because I was getting absolutely no traction through first gear.
I’ve got a somewhat modded 2005 Mustang GT with a brand new engine that is a much quicker car (it’s got a tune by the legendary Lito–the 3V whisperer), but the screaming 3.8 feels more dangerous. Sounds funny, but it’s a certain feel, I guess, of an engine running at it’s limits…..the whole “drive a slow car fast” thing.
One thing that you really notice on these split port engines is that the PCV is super aggressive, and that the amount of sludge and carbon build up in the intake runners does become a problem. I’d definitely recommend getting that cleaned out and running a catch can.
Here’s one of the pictures of my ported heads–milled, and the exhaust valve seat was radiused. It was a blast to work on.
Here’s a picture of the intake port, right at the bowl/ seat area. I’d ground down the valve guide boss area, and knife edged the divider between the ports. The port on the left is the longer runner (torque) port, and the one on the right is the shorter (high rpm horsepower) port. It’s low tech by today’s standards, but there’s something cool about maximizing airflow on whatever engine that it may be.
Here’s a shot of the ported exhaust port. It’s difficult to see, but on the long side of the port (the bottom of the port in this picture), Ford put a ridge there that some porting guys remove. I left it there because when I was flowing the heads, I found that ridge sped up airflow on that side of the port where the velocity was slow and lazy. It re-directed it out to the short side of the port, where it flows the most. So, Ford did some cool and knowledgeable things with these heads in the first place……but it was old tech (dating back to the Buick Fireball 3.8 V6 in the early 60’s), so it was at the end of the road.
I like the split ports too, and I know exactly what you mean about their feel, the 2005-10 V6 with the 4.0 has about the same power but none of the drama, which a Mustang *should* have. The SOHC colognes mechanically scare the hell out of me, granted certain years of Explorers with them seemed to suffer the most, but I don’t trust them in anything. The late 3.8(and 3.9) are rock solid and simple, even in the scenario a head gasket does pop it’s not a huge repair.
I don’t have much knowledge of the 4.0, other than that it seems to be a solidly built engine and a bit of an orphan, even among V6 enthusiasts. It definitely seemed like a stopgap until the 3.7 arrived. The 3.8 always seemed to have more aftermarket support and followers.
I had a 1991 Thunderbird Super Coupe with the supercharged 3.8 and while there wasn’t much upper end horsepower, the off the line torque (315 ft/ lbs at 2800) that you could feel in everyday traffic in that was incredible.
I never really liked the ’94-’98 Mustang’s looks. When they redid it in 1999 I thought that it looked more like a Mustang. Before I retired my job required a lot of driving, usually 200 or so miles per day. I had to furnish my own vehicle. For several years I had driven compact pickups, but when it came time to buy a new vehicle in 2003 I decided that it was time I buy something fun to drive. I figured that if I had to spend that much time behind the wheel I might as well drive something entertaining. So, I ordered a new V6 coupe with a manual transmission. From day one I loved that car. It was fun to drive and cheap to operate. It also helped me hone my driving skills. Since some of my driving occurred over curvy roads I decided to work on that facet of my skill set. That helped me build up my confidence and helped me get out of some bad situations.
After 5 years and 228,000 miles I replaced it with a new 2009 Mustang coupe, also with the V6 and 5 speed. This one has the Pony package with the handling suspension parts. It took me a long time to get used to it and appreciate what an improvement it’s handling was over the ’03. This may sound odd but I think it was that the ’03 and I were so tuned in to each other. Some cars just like you. Now I am having fun with the ’09. Like with the ’03, every time I slide behind the wheel it lifts my spirits. Driving to me is just plain fun.
What happened to the ’03? I sold it to a local family that I didn’t know at he time for their teenage son. He drove it through 2 years of high school and 4 years of college before his brother took it over. The engine finally died last year. That guy has told me and others what a great car it was and how he loved it too.
Maybe I should do a COAL on it sometime.
Some great points, Rick, I agree with what you’re saying. What I like about the 2005 redesign is that the car feels more structurally sound and the handing has improved, and also the weight distribution was improved (I believe that it’s 52 percent or so front, 48 or so rear), and the interior is much more spacious and less cramped. Plus, with the 4.6 3V, Ford really upped their game to a modern age–VCT, CMCV’s and ways to improve both power and fuel economy.
But what I like about the 99-04’s is that it’s a smaller, more intimate interior, and the overall feel and handling isn’t super crude, but just crude enough that it feels more like a classic muscle car. The rear end is more tail heavy, and although it’s definitely a more modern feeling car, there’s still just a bit more lack of refinement that hits that sweet spot for me. Also, it’s a fair bit lighter than the 2005’s, and to me, dimensionally more in spirit with the original Mustang.
As much as modern cars are brilliantly engineered and what most of us have been looking for, sometimes there’s something to be said for driving something that is a little rougher around the edges.
One thing I liked about the smaller interior of the ’03 is that I could reach back from the driver seat and pick up anything that my then small grandsons dropped from their car seat. I didn’t have them in there all that often but it sure was handy. Also, I could reach around and flip down the passenger side of the back seat to get to anything in the trunk that was in that corner like my lunch or my wife’s purse.
It did have much of the feel of my ’66 but with a lot better handling. It also took up less garage space than my ’09.
When my grandsons got bigger, if I had more than one with me I always drove them in the ’66 because it is much easier to get in and out of than either of the newer ones. Besides, they were fascinated by the crank up windows.