new 2015 engine lineup info including Ecoboost Coyote - Page 2 - Mustang Evolution

Go Back   Mustang Evolution > 4 Cylinder | V6 | Classic Mustangs || Tech and Talk > 2015+ Mustang Ecoboost (and V6)



Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about them here!
Old 04-08-2013, 08:10 AM   #36
The Blue Dragon
Regular
Supporter
 
GrabberBlue5.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Louisville
Region: Kentucky
Posts: 5,661
Yea my bad
__________________
New quick exhaust video

AUGUST 2012 MOTM!!!!
GrabberBlue5.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 04-08-2013, 12:15 PM   #37
Registered Member
Regular
 
UltArc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Region: Ohio
Posts: 1,782
But they never made a 64. First model year is 65.
__________________
2012 Mustang EPA: 19/29
2012 AeroStang: 40/46

My sponsor, Tokkyo Nutrition, offers 50% off your entire order with the code "PowerHouse"
UltArc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 01:14 PM   #38
The Blue Dragon
Regular
Supporter
 
GrabberBlue5.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Louisville
Region: Kentucky
Posts: 5,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltArc View Post
But they never made a 64. First model year is 65.
This is what I remember hearing and reading too, I just don't remember where, and this was the argument I was making, any links to anything?
__________________
New quick exhaust video

AUGUST 2012 MOTM!!!!
GrabberBlue5.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 04-08-2013, 01:53 PM   #39
Registered Member
Regular
 
Aggiesrok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bryan
Region: Texas
Posts: 1,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltArc View Post
But they never made a 64. First model year is 65.
Why does this argument start every 2 months? It was a 65 body style, but it had a generator and not an alt. until the fall of 64, the typical first model offering time. There were a few other subtle differences. The first release, April 17, 1964 was usually the second production run of a model year. After that they produced the 65 in the Fall and in the following spring of 66, so they had 3 production runs of that model. There were no marketing campaigns that said the new 1964 1/2 mustang, it was simply a new model - Mustang. Since it was based on the Falcon platform, it was easy to begin producing it sooner. But to distinguish it from the normal 65 first and second production runs it is referred to as the 1964 1/2 model. It is more when it was manufactured as opposed when it went on sale. There is an article online from Mustang Monthly which describes the differences between the models.
This is the reason that Ford is introducing the new Mustang on April 17, 2014.
__________________
chevy runs deep, Don't step in chevy!

289 - Holley 4150 570cfm; Performer intake; mild cam; MSD HEI; 302 heads; Roller Tips; Hedman Tri-Y headers; H-pipe w/Flowmaster 40's; 9 in posi 3.50; 205/50-17F; 225/50-17R.
Aggiesrok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 05:00 PM   #40
Registered Member
Regular
 
UltArc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Region: Ohio
Posts: 1,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrabberBlue5.0

This is what I remember hearing and reading too, I just don't remember where, and this was the argument I was making, any links to anything?
Basically, everyone wants there to be a 64. But the first titled car is a 65. None are titled 64.

But, because of time of production, or a change in build design, people are claiming of the 64, 64.5, et cetera.

So if my 2012 was built in December of 2011, what is it? A 2011.5? A 2011? No. Its a 2012.
__________________
2012 Mustang EPA: 19/29
2012 AeroStang: 40/46

My sponsor, Tokkyo Nutrition, offers 50% off your entire order with the code "PowerHouse"
UltArc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 06:47 PM   #41
Registered Member
Regular
 
tgmeyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Region: Wisconsin
Posts: 285
Alrigt guys. Time to be done with the 64 or 65 argument. This is a 2015+ thread. There are other threads for your conversation. Please and thank you.
tgmeyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 07:24 PM   #42
Registered Member
Regular
 
UltArc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Region: Ohio
Posts: 1,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgmeyer
Alrigt guys. Time to be done with the 64 or 65 argument. This is a 2015+ thread. There are other threads for your conversation. Please and thank you.
I don't think anyone is arguing. Mod was asking about a 64 or not, and others helped clarify there is not a 64- just different builds of the 65.
__________________
2012 Mustang EPA: 19/29
2012 AeroStang: 40/46

My sponsor, Tokkyo Nutrition, offers 50% off your entire order with the code "PowerHouse"
UltArc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 10:38 AM   #43
Registered Member
Regular
 
351CJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Region: Virginia
Posts: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltArc View Post
Basically, everyone wants there to be a 64. But the first titled car is a 65. None are titled 64.

But, because of time of production, or a change in build design, people are claiming of the 64, 64.5, et cetera.

So if my 2012 was built in December of 2011, what is it? A 2011.5? A 2011? No. Its a 2012.
Half model years, which are several, are only recognized due to significant changes in the model. 63 1/2 Galaxie and 63 1/2 Falcon for new fastback rooflines just to name a couple. That being said I'm sure Ford will market the new Mustang as a 15 even with the April introduction. These recent "early" introductions play right into that.
351CJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 11:44 AM   #44
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Lakeland
Region: Florida
Posts: 1,699
Send a message via AIM to Borii
Probably 3 trim levels and radically spaced pricing. If the ECO replaces the V6, the GT would have to crest 500 HP most likely. The SHO with the 3.5 TT makes tons of power after breather mods and a tune.
__________________
SOLD - 06 GT 371WHP/332WTQ


Sold - 1998 Camaro SS
Sold - 2001 Audi S4
Borii is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 02:13 PM   #45
Registered Member
Regular
 
Aggiesrok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bryan
Region: Texas
Posts: 1,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borii View Post
Probably 3 trim levels and radically spaced pricing. If the ECO replaces the V6, the GT would have to crest 500 HP most likely. The SHO with the 3.5 TT makes tons of power after breather mods and a tune.
I don't see them replacing the V6 as base. They are going to keep a NA base engine for reliability and cost. I see the 5.0 as GT and any turbos as options or as a SVO, SVT (whatever they call it) type car. This gives them a better mpg alternative to a V8.
__________________
chevy runs deep, Don't step in chevy!

289 - Holley 4150 570cfm; Performer intake; mild cam; MSD HEI; 302 heads; Roller Tips; Hedman Tri-Y headers; H-pipe w/Flowmaster 40's; 9 in posi 3.50; 205/50-17F; 225/50-17R.
Aggiesrok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 02:19 PM   #46
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Lakeland
Region: Florida
Posts: 1,699
Send a message via AIM to Borii
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aggiesrok View Post
I don't see them replacing the V6 as base. They are going to keep a NA base engine for reliability and cost. I see the 5.0 as GT and any turbos as options or as a SVO, SVT (whatever they call it) type car. This gives them a better mpg alternative to a V8.
I agree completely except that I think the TT versions may end up being ABOVE the GT with suspension and exterior mods to boot. 26-32k is a small window to fit a 3rd car and the GT being anything but V8 would hurt my feewings bewwy bewwy much.
__________________
SOLD - 06 GT 371WHP/332WTQ


Sold - 1998 Camaro SS
Sold - 2001 Audi S4
Borii is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 02:37 PM   #47
Registered Member
Regular
 
Aggiesrok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bryan
Region: Texas
Posts: 1,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borii View Post
I agree completely except that I think the TT versions may end up being ABOVE the GT with suspension and exterior mods to boot. 26-32k is a small window to fit a 3rd car and the GT being anything but V8 would hurt my feewings bewwy bewwy much.
I could see the 4turbo being an option on a GT, I believe it's rumored to be the GT for Europe and no 5.0. I could see the V6TT as an SV type car above the 5.0 and a track car set up, since it will be little lighter in the front.
__________________
chevy runs deep, Don't step in chevy!

289 - Holley 4150 570cfm; Performer intake; mild cam; MSD HEI; 302 heads; Roller Tips; Hedman Tri-Y headers; H-pipe w/Flowmaster 40's; 9 in posi 3.50; 205/50-17F; 225/50-17R.
Aggiesrok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 12:46 PM   #48
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: San Diego
Region: California
Posts: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aggiesrok View Post
I could see the 4turbo being an option on a GT, I believe it's rumored to be the GT for Europe and no 5.0. I could see the V6TT as an SV type car above the 5.0 and a track car set up, since it will be little lighter in the front.
That would be pretty weird to have different engines for the American GT and the European GT.
Ricky35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 02:36 PM   #49
Registered Member
Regular
 
Aggiesrok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bryan
Region: Texas
Posts: 1,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricky35 View Post
That would be pretty weird to have different engines for the American GT and the European GT.

The original rumor was that the 4T would only be offered in Europe and then it was supposedly confirmed to be offered in the US as well. With gas $10/gal in some places in Europe, I don't think they could sell a lot of 5.0's. This is a whole new marketing concept for the Mustang, it will be interesting to see what happens.
__________________
chevy runs deep, Don't step in chevy!

289 - Holley 4150 570cfm; Performer intake; mild cam; MSD HEI; 302 heads; Roller Tips; Hedman Tri-Y headers; H-pipe w/Flowmaster 40's; 9 in posi 3.50; 205/50-17F; 225/50-17R.
Aggiesrok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 04:44 PM   #50
Registered Member
Regular
Supporter
 
93slowstang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Walker
Region: Louisiana
Posts: 3,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricky35 View Post

That would be pretty weird to have different engines for the American GT and the European GT.
We've had it like that before here in the us. Had the turbo gt and the v8 gt.
__________________


93 GT with more junkyard mods than you can imagine.
90 GT bone stock down to the air filter, awaiting restoration.
Join Mustang Evolution today. Click here
93slowstang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 05:25 PM   #51
Registered Member
Regular
 
UltArc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Region: Ohio
Posts: 1,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aggiesrok

The original rumor was that the 4T would only be offered in Europe and then it was supposedly confirmed to be offered in the US as well. With gas $10/gal in some places in Europe, I don't think they could sell a lot of 5.0's. This is a whole new marketing concept for the Mustang, it will be interesting to see what happens.
+1

And some places base taxes on engine size. An inefficient 500 hp 1.8 is based lower than a larger 3.7, for example.
__________________
2012 Mustang EPA: 19/29
2012 AeroStang: 40/46

My sponsor, Tokkyo Nutrition, offers 50% off your entire order with the code "PowerHouse"
UltArc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2013, 12:07 AM   #52
Registered Member
Regular
 
dj_james123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Region: Illinois
Posts: 730
If that's what car is gonna look like, I'm gonna buy the 14'
dj_james123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 11:33 AM   #53
Registered Member
Regular
 
Fintile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Boston
Region: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,830
They won't be getting the 5.0 in Europe. Either both the Eco 2.0 and 3.5 or just the EB 2.0 and N/A 3.7. However here in the states they may keep the current 3.7 model as the base with 305 but just above it the EB 3.5 at around 340-360, tuned just between the two N/A motors and then drop in the 5.0 for its GT,hopefully with the hp+ the Boss 302 had.

Also that rendering looks too much like a Scion TC tweeked to look like a Mustang
__________________
“anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac”
-George Carlin
Fintile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 05:23 PM   #54
Registered Member
Regular
 
UltArc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Region: Ohio
Posts: 1,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fintile
They won't be getting the 5.0 in Europe. Either both the Eco 2.0 and 3.5 or just the EB 2.0 and N/A 3.7. However here in the states they may keep the current 3.7 model as the base with 305 but just above it the EB 3.5 at around 340-360, tuned just between the two N/A motors and then drop in the 5.0 for its GT,hopefully with the hp+ the Boss 302 had.

Also that rendering looks too much like a Scion TC tweeked to look like a Mustang
Do you have an actual confirmation on the no EU 5.0?
__________________
2012 Mustang EPA: 19/29
2012 AeroStang: 40/46

My sponsor, Tokkyo Nutrition, offers 50% off your entire order with the code "PowerHouse"
UltArc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 05:28 PM   #55
Registered Member
Regular
 
Fintile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Boston
Region: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltArc View Post

Do you have an actual confirmation on the no EU 5.0?
Oh it's a 99.99% chance they WILL NOT have the 5.0. It just does not suit the market. However the M3 in Eur is the same as it is here (V8) but its an M3 and they have been in Europe from their beginning so the have a reputation the Mustang does not.
__________________
“anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac”
-George Carlin
Fintile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 05:32 PM   #56
Registered Member
Regular
 
UltArc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Region: Ohio
Posts: 1,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fintile

Oh it's a 99.99% chance they WILL NOT have the 5.0
But what do you base this statement off of?
__________________
2012 Mustang EPA: 19/29
2012 AeroStang: 40/46

My sponsor, Tokkyo Nutrition, offers 50% off your entire order with the code "PowerHouse"
UltArc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 05:34 PM   #57
Registered Member
Regular
 
Fintile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Boston
Region: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltArc View Post

But what do you base this statement off of?
It was an article I read a couple months back. Ill have to dig it up. Weird. I type "(V8)" and a weird smiley pops up.
__________________
“anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac”
-George Carlin
Fintile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 05:37 PM   #58
Registered Member
Regular
 
UltArc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Region: Ohio
Posts: 1,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fintile

It was an article I read a couple months back. Ill have to dig it up. Weird. I type "(V8)" and a weird smiley pops up.
I am not trying to call you out, or want you to photocopy or something lol, I just like to know if people are getting info from some source, or someones friend who knows someone who met a guy next to a guy..........who heard it in a chat room.
__________________
2012 Mustang EPA: 19/29
2012 AeroStang: 40/46

My sponsor, Tokkyo Nutrition, offers 50% off your entire order with the code "PowerHouse"
UltArc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 05:43 PM   #59
Registered Member
Regular
 
Fintile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Boston
Region: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltArc View Post

I am not trying to call you out, or want you to photocopy or something lol, I just like to know if people are getting info from some source, or someones friend who knows someone who met a guy next to a guy..........who heard it in a chat room.
Oh that's just me. I like to make sure I have my acts from a reputable source. Since I can't recall off the top of my head I feel like I failed a bit to back up my info. No worries. I got this direct from a printed source online so it could be "here say".
__________________
“anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac”
-George Carlin
Fintile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 05:51 PM   #60
Registered Member
Regular
 
UltArc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Region: Ohio
Posts: 1,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fintile

Oh that's just me. I like to make sure I have my acts from a reputable source. Since I can't recall off the top of my head I feel like I failed a bit to back up my info. No worries. I got this direct from a printed source online so it could be "here say".
Cool, cool. Some people get really prideful and aggressive/frustrated when people question them...I think a lot of people forget the credibility and honor they build in life is lost in the anonymity of the internet- where we are all just screen names and letters.
__________________
2012 Mustang EPA: 19/29
2012 AeroStang: 40/46

My sponsor, Tokkyo Nutrition, offers 50% off your entire order with the code "PowerHouse"
UltArc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 09:06 PM   #61
Registered Member
Regular
 
Fintile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Boston
Region: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltArc View Post

Cool, cool. Some people get really prideful and aggressive/frustrated when people question them...I think a lot of people forget the credibility and honor they build in life is lost in the anonymity of the internet- where we are all just screen names and letters.
I hear ya. I've always worked in customer service/ hospitality so communication and how you phrase and word things is a big skill set. I sell cars now so it helps lol
__________________
“anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac”
-George Carlin
Fintile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 12:07 PM   #62
Registered Member
Regular
 
mtnbiker92271's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Austin
Region: Texas
Posts: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgmeyer View Post
So do you think the ecoboost V6 would be an option above the 5.0? Or what?! AAh! Do I pull the trigger on a 13 V6 or wait for the '15?

Do you guys think the difference between the 3.5TT and the 3.7L is going huge performance wise? How about price wise?
I got my 2013 with the tech package for 19.7k brand new. I swear when you select a F150 and select trim line there is like 20 listed. Hope they don't do that with the mustang.
mtnbiker92271 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 12:21 PM   #63
Registered Member
Regular
 
dj_james123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Region: Illinois
Posts: 730
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtnbiker92271 View Post

I got my 2013 with the tech package for 19.7k brand new. I swear when you select a F150 and select trim line there is like 20 listed. Hope they don't do that with the mustang.
Right. There's literally too many of them,

19.7k that's a good deal!
dj_james123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2013, 07:35 PM   #64
Registered Member
Regular
 
Midnight2012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: So Cal
Region: California
Posts: 790
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrabberBlue5.0 View Post
Ok so after doing a little more reading the reason it's called the 64 1/2 is because it was released between year model releases, in April instead of October. And all mustangs since at least the 2011 (maybe before that) were all beginning delivery in late march to early April, much like the "64 1/2" mustang. So technically we are all driving 11 1/2, 12 1/2, 13 1/2, or 14 1/2 mustangs... At least according to this fictitious half year model moniker.

How 'bout them apples!

Either way I know how to admit when in wrong, which I am. But that would make the first year model of the mustang a 64 not necessarily 64 1/2
All Mustangs released in 1964 say 1965 Model year on the pink slip regardless.

---------- Post added at 04:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:30 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltArc View Post

I don't think anyone is arguing. Mod was asking about a 64 or not, and others helped clarify there is not a 64- just different builds of the 65.
And how can one possibly discuss the 2015 Mustang without discussing the 1965 Models? I understand moderating bullying but deciding what can and can't be discussed in a thread is a matter of opinion.

Now is the 2015 going to look like a Mustang or not?
Midnight2012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2013, 01:30 PM   #65
Registered Member
Regular
 
Fintile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Boston
Region: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midnight2012 View Post

Now is the 2015 going to look like a Mustang or not?
That's what I'm wondering. Then again when the Fox body came out it didn't look like a Mustang and it went on till 93.
If it looks anything like the concept pics that have been floating around I may just trade my 12 for one. If not I'm going 2012GT or 2013 GT 500
__________________
“anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac”
-George Carlin
Fintile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2013, 02:14 PM   #66
Registered Member
Regular
 
andregayola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: newark
Region: New Jersey
Posts: 1,201
i personally dont like the new concept floating around i really wish for a true muscle car look like the challenger that looks alot like its ancestor but also i want power expect ally in the v6 the gt500 is already the monster almost no one can touch the gt needs some more ponies and he v6 needs alot more power in my opinion i thing gt 450 hp v6 360-80hp and he gt500 the sky's the Limit what are your thoughts?
__________________
1999 V6
Sonic Blue
Mods - Eibach Super sports
Cold Air Intake
K&N Air Filter
Front sway bar Bushings
andregayola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2013, 02:24 PM   #67
Registered Member
Regular
 
kdbdallas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Region: Arizona
Posts: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by andregayola View Post
i personally dont like the new concept floating around i really wish for a true muscle car look like the challenger that looks alot like its ancestor
AMEN!!!

+100000000000!!!!!

__________________
2013 V6 Black

"These cars are meant to be driven", so enjoy the hell out of all of it - not just the look of it when it is all clean" - Carroll Shelby
kdbdallas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2013, 05:30 PM   #68
Registered Member
Regular
 
UltArc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Region: Ohio
Posts: 1,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midnight2012 View Post

All Mustangs released in 1964 say 1965 Model year on the pink slip regardless.

---------- Post added at 04:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:30 PM ----------



And how can one possibly discuss the 2015 Mustang without discussing the 1965 Models? I understand moderating bullying but deciding what can and can't be discussed in a thread is a matter of opinion.

Now is the 2015 going to look like a Mustang or not?
I wasn't trying to tell people what to talk about, if that's what you mean, I am just trying to clarify the tone. No anger or fighting, just clarifying the facts. Different builds for 65, but all of them are titled and technically 1965 models, to my knowledge.
__________________
2012 Mustang EPA: 19/29
2012 AeroStang: 40/46

My sponsor, Tokkyo Nutrition, offers 50% off your entire order with the code "PowerHouse"
UltArc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2013, 05:55 PM   #69
Registered Member
Regular
 
Midnight2012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: So Cal
Region: California
Posts: 790
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltArc View Post

I wasn't trying to tell people what to talk about, if that's what you mean, I am just trying to clarify the tone. No anger or fighting, just clarifying the facts. Different builds for 65, but all of them are titled and technically 1965 models, to my knowledge.
Oh Ok. Yes Everything released from April 64 to 66 models are all 65's. There are no 64 1/2's. The 65's were released 6 mos earlier than normal for the 1960's.
Midnight2012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2013, 06:06 PM   #70
Registered Member
Regular
 
UltArc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Region: Ohio
Posts: 1,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midnight2012 View Post

Oh Ok. Yes Everything released from April 64 to 66 models are all 65's. There are no 64 1/2's. The 65's were released 6 mos earlier than normal for the 1960's.
Yea, I am not trying to play moderator or boss of the internet lol
__________________
2012 Mustang EPA: 19/29
2012 AeroStang: 40/46

My sponsor, Tokkyo Nutrition, offers 50% off your entire order with the code "PowerHouse"
UltArc is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Mustang Evolution > 4 Cylinder | V6 | Classic Mustangs || Tech and Talk > 2015+ Mustang Ecoboost (and V6)

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


» Like Us On Facebook



12:34 PM


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0

MustangEvolution.com is in no way associated with or endorsed by Ford Motor Company.