HOW MUCH!

WHEN?!

Inaccurate. Perhaps a middling argument, but in actuality, the first model was a 1964½.

Sweet ride. I'm not usually a muscle-car guy, but good looking is good looking, and this car is.

According to the Ford website, the 2014 base V-6 Mustang coupe starts at $22k and tops out with the Shelby GT-500 (which is a seriously fast machine) at $54.8k. I'd imagine the 2015 will sell in a similar price range, and the website says it'll be available in "late" 2014. The 5.0 liter V-8 will carry over, as will the 3.7L V-6, but Ford has bitten the CAFE bullet and will also be putting the 2.3L EcoBoost Turbo 4-banger into the 2015 'Stang. Inevitable, I suppose.

The 2.3L is reputed to outpower the V-6 (~310 HP), which is right around what the 2010 5.0 V-8 put out. Hard to get my head around that, but, yeah.

Just the car for driving 300 miles in the left lane, swerving at the last second in front of a semi-truck to make your exit and buy a Big Mac, while texting.

It also took me a bit to come to terms with the 2.3L engine, but 310 hp would certainly get it done for most of what I face in everyday driving. And if it helps contribute to American energy independence (and takes $$ out of the pockets of the Arabs, Iranians, and Maduro), the smaller engine is probably a net positive.

Ford has done a beautiful job resurrecting the Mustang. Even Consumer Reports likes it. On the other hand, the Camaro is a disaster, and really ugly. But that's par for the course for GM.

Ford is slowly learning that the more their new models resemble the 64-68 design, the more of them they sell. (Proud owner of a 67 for decades; restored and gave it to grandson; he totaled it in less than three months.)

Needs some giant aircraft landing lights in the grille...

Guess nhtsa/dot/whatever fed gang is in charge of gas caps won't let Ford put it in the middle of the rear panel where it belongs.

@BillH: That's because the 64-68 Mustangs were true classics, before Ford tried to make the car all things to all people, and it became a bloated underachiever. My dad worked for Ford, so we got the employee discount, and we bought a '66 Mustang, silver, with a red interior. It had the 200 cu. in. V-6 and an automatic box, so it was never a candidate for stoplight races. But it ran well, was fairly economical with gas (not that it mattered much when gas was 25 cents a gallon, and you could find it for 22 if you looked hard enough), and was reasonably comfortable and easy to drive.

Agree that the new Camaro is a butt-ugly mess. On the other hand, the Cruze is a very decent small car (I've had several for rentals, and like them a lot), and Cadillac has really upped its game over the past 5 yeas or so. So GM remains a mixed bag.

Had a 2005 Mustang GT for a while, more powerful and stylish then any 60's musclecar I've owned (several come to mind). But, now I'm into Softail Harleys. Just traded my Fatboy in on 2013 Softail. Styling of 2013 is spot on to the 1952 FL panhead I rode as a teenager in the 70's.

tired dog - Mine had them. It was a GTA. Guess they went first when the grandkid rear-ended that SUV.

I got my license the day they started manufacturing Mustangs.
The base price was $2368, from memory, for a straight-six, 3-on-the-floor notchback. Not too sure if that included radio/heater, but I think not.
A bunch were made, convertibles, I think, and were used without any drivetrain for the 1964 Worlds Fair in NY. They were pulled around the FoMoCo display, carrying fairgoers. After the fair closed, they were equipped with engines & transmissions, and sold to the public.
FWIW, a 1959 T-bird, three-on-the-tree had a base of $3696, a 1970 Maverick was $1995, and the Pinto was $1919. Some things obviously stuck in my head for some reason.
The straight six cylinder base engine was 200 CID displacement, and had plenty of get up for in town driving. It got a little short of breath on the highway. The 260 was quickly replaced with the 289, the high performance version making 271 HP, where the more common 2 & 4 barrel versions made 195 and 225, IIRC.

Tomw, you're right--200 cu. in. straight 6, not V-6, as I wrote. It's been a while.

I saw plenty of 289s, but I don't recall seeing one of the earlier Mustangs with the 260. The 289, later bored out to 302, was a good engine.

waltj - This site indicates there was a 260: http://themustangsource.com/timeline/64-66/64/

No, I believe you, I just don't remember seeing any is all. I guess Ford wised up pretty quickly that the 289 was much more suitable for fostering the "sporty" image they wanted with the Mustang. 46 more horses on a 2,600 lb. car will do that.

waltj - you are correct except for the 289 being bored to 302. Not so. The 289 and the 302 shared a 4.00" bore. The stroke(s) of the two motors made up for the difference in displacement with the 289 at 2.87" and the 302 at an even 3.00".

Ok, that makes sense. Did Ford do the same thing with the 351? That engine also shared the same basic engine block (as did the 260).

waltj - yes, they did. Stroked it to 3.5". Those were the last of the Windsor series motors which ranged from 221 cid to 351 cid. Then there was the 351 Cleveland which used a slightly modified Windsor block with new big port/ canted big valve heads. The original BOSS 302 also comes from that design.

It goes on and on and on. I lived those days and owned those 'stangs, but I doubt any of them except for the 428 SCJ could hold a candle to the new car. I'm waiting for the next iteration(s) beyond the new GT.