Talk:Ford Mustang

Split "Racing" into new list-type article

There's easily enough info here for it to be its own article, and it's written with the prose of a list versus that of a proper article. I think it'd be nice to move this material into its own article called something like "List of Ford Mustang racing victories" (or "racing titles"). If moved, there should at least be paragraph or two in this article to give an overview of the racing history with a "See also" tag in it. --Xiaphias (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

There does not appear to be any support for this. I cannot see a reason per WP:Split to split this article at this time. Op47 (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mustang (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Dicklyon (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

In particular, trying to go to the Mustang disambiguation page now takes one straight to the Mustang (horse) article; that is, the horse editors have claimed that their article is primarytopic, at a discussion that was not advertised to editors of the various car, airplane, and city articles affected, and was also not advertised as WP:RM as is standard. This notice is an attempt to get wider participation from editors of affected articles, but so far it has not. Dicklyon (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on Ford Mustang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090611090435/http://media.ford.com:80/NEWSROOM/feature_display.cfm?release=24065N to http://media.ford.com/NEWSROOM/feature_display.cfm?release=24065N
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.midcomustang.com/daveash.shtml
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=18037
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://fast_wheels.tripod.com/production.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.fastlane.com.au/News_Ford/Australianising_Mustang.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://media.ford.com/newsroom/feature_display.cfm?release=19987
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://media.ford.com/pdf/Dec2002sales.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://media.ford.com/article_download.cfm?article_id=27379
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://media.ford.com/images/10031/dec08sales.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=31604
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://media.ford.com/images/10031/Dec10sales.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ford Mustang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100113121843/http://www.fastlane.com.au/News_Ford/Australianising_Mustang.htm to http://www.fastlane.com.au/News_Ford/Australianising_Mustang.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Ford Mustang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150606062300/http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mellor.nsf/carfamilytree?ReadForm&ID=CCA415EA128144D9CA25712B00028949 to https://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mellor.nsf/carfamilytree?ReadForm&ID=CCA415EA128144D9CA25712B00028949
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://media.ford.com/products/presskit_display.cfm?vehicle_id=1052&press_section_id=398&make_id=92
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://media.ford.com/press_kits_detail.cfm?presskit_id=1982&item_id=5604&press_section_id=2859
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://media.ford.com/press_kits_detail.cfm?presskit_id=1982&item_id=5605&press_section_id=2878
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131022233558/http://www.marklines.com/en/report/rep054_200203 to http://www.marklines.com/en/report/rep054_200203
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://media.ford.com/images/10031/Dec11sales.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ford Mustang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708043641/http://jautosource.blogspot.com/ to http://jautosource.blogspot.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ford Mustang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160916104557/http://www.motoring.com.au/mustang-in-australia-40700/ to http://www.motoring.com.au/mustang-in-australia-40700/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

ubl vs br

Davey2010 (talk · contribs) and myself have a difference of opinion over whether {{ubl}} or <br> is better. Can others chime in on which they prefer:

| designer       = {{ubl
  | [[John Najjar]]
  | [[Philip T. Clark]]
  | [[Joe Oros]]
  }}
| class          = {{ubl
  | [[Pony car]]
  | [[Muscle car]]<!-- only some versions could be called "muscle" -->
  }}

vs

| designer       = [[John Najjar]] <br>[[Philip T. Clark]] <br>[[Joe Oros]]
| class          = [[Pony car]]<br>[[Muscle car]]<!-- only some versions could be called "muscle" -->

Both render the same to readers. I prefer the ubl version because it clearly puts one item per line, making it much easier for editors to see the individual items. Whereas the br version packs it all in tightly, making it hard to see where the division are or even to see how many items are even there. Also, {{unbulleted list}} (a synonym of ubl) is already used in the article just below where I inserted ubl.  Stepho  talk  13:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

You can add a break after the <br/> so it would show as a seperate line in edit mode however for convenience most leave it as for instance [[UK]]<br>[[USA]],

The br code is common on most articles and is more easy for editors to understand I guess,

That being said if consensus is to use the templated version than I won't object,

Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ford Mustang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151007124534/http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2015/04/22/director-goes-behind-scenes-making-2015-ford-mustang/ to http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2015/04/22/director-goes-behind-scenes-making-2015-ford-mustang/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Ford Mustang Estate Wagon

In Amsterdam The Netherlands, they produced the Mustang Estate wagon, working on a Amsterdam Ford wiki items now, what can we say here, the Estate Wagon is missing now, in the 1968 model sold till 1975? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A452:7D4C:1:7C34:E37A:1C41:CF72 (talk) 07:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

That was a one-off prototype. See http://www.mustangandfords.com/featured-vehicles/1605-the-saga-of-1965-mustang-wagon/ and http://www.amcarguide.com/muscle-cars/mustang-sedan-and-station-wagon-myth-busted-or-not/ . You would need proof that it was made in real numbers and whether it was a factory offering or an aftermarket conversion.  Stepho  talk  19:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Year change if possible to 1964.5

The 1964 mustang was referred to 1964 and a half because of what time of year it came out. Loganscoggins420 (talk) 10:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Mustangs that are often referred to as 1964½ were all registered as 1965 model year vehicles (note: the 1965 model can be any range of dates that includes Jan 1, 1965). The Ford Mustang#Non-traditional (1964½) introduction section details this. The article has done the correct thing.  Stepho  talk  08:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ford Mustang GT Bleu 5.0-litre V8 - Free Car Picture - Give Credit Via Link (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Not to be confused with gas powered SUV of the same name and Ford Mustang Mach-E electric crossover vehicle

There's merit to

Not to be confused with Ford Mustang Mach-E.

because it's a completely separate vehicle. An alternative would be to put a several inch description of equal size to the pony car, which I wouldn't think is appropriate.

About 15 years ago, there was a SUV sold in the UK called the Ford Mustang. It looked like the Escape but I'm not sure what the model was called in the United States. Charliestalnaker (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

You might be thinking of the Ford Maverick. Andra Febrian (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2022

S650 reveal in September 14. 88.236.155.36 (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Mach-E is unrelated... and yet has a section on this article

Hello! I noticed at the top of the article, it says "For unrelated battery-powered crossover see Ford Mustang Mach-E"... however the keyword here is "Unrelated". If it were actually unrelated then why would it have a section on this article? I don't get it. This article is about the Ford Mustang. The Mach-E is supposedly unrelated and yet it has a section dedicated to it on this article that even says it's unrelated. So could I get an explanation as to why it's even included? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Ford advertises it with the word "Mustang" - so people go looking for "Ford Mustang" on Wikipedia - so we need to deal with people looking for Mach-E information here. Just a fact of life.  Stepho  talk  23:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Well yes I Get that, I'm not saying get rid of the hat note. If they're looking for the Mach-E they'll see that hatnote and (Hopefully) go to the Mach-E page. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 00:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2023

The mustang 6th generation needs to be changed to 2015-2023 as its officially ended production Dinobrewster2 (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: @Dinobrewster2: None of the other section titles have their end dates in them. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2024

2A02:C7C:5676:8D00:C8F1:3CD4:92AD:B39B (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

the main picture of the car is from 2018, not 2017

 Done This seems to have been a typo, the Wikimedia description says 2018. Jamedeus (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

thank you, Happy 60th Birthday Ford Mustang! 2A02:C7C:5676:8D00:B170:104D:1B2B:5FA9 (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

First turbo mustang -error-

the first turbo charged 2.3L Mustang is 1979...not 1984 as stated on page. Which makes it pre- SVO Mustang. 2603:8001:2A00:70BC:3C42:80A8:4E7:9A41 (talk) 05:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

5.0L is 5.0L

I edited some incorrect references to a nonexistent 4.9L engine in these cars, but they were reverted. The Ford 4.9L engine exists, and it was never available in any Mustang - it's a stationary equipment & truck engine; the largest of the Ford straight 6s, which are described on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_straight-six_engine in section 16. So there should be no mention of 4.9L anywhere on this Mustang page because it's not a Mustang engine. It's strictly called 5.0L by Ford & by enthusiasts, regardless of the mathematical conversion of its precise displacement. Steve8394 (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello Steve8394! The 5.0 designation for the Ford 302 engine is a marketing decision by Ford to "rebrand" the engine using the metric system. The actual displacement of 302 cubic inches is also mathematically closer to 4.9 liters. Encyclopedia articles provide the exact size, not a manufacturer's efforts to round up the number because it sounds more impressive. Moreover, the "5.0" designation helped differentiate the 302 V8 from Ford's 300 cubic-inch inline six-cylinder truck engine. However, the V8 was marketed as a 5.0 and called that by enthusiasts; the actual measure is still 302 or 4.9 L. Moreover, please review Wikipedia's conventions on displacement by clicking here. Cheers! CZmarlin (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

update main photo to seventh gen model

should we update the photo at the beginning of the article to the current seventh generation model? it's been 2-3 years since the sixth gen ended production (and even longer since that facelift used as the main photo) and there's photos on the wikimedia commons depicting the seventh gen. Pastastraw^(talk) 15:47, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

As per WP:CARPIX (point 5), we do not need to show the latest version of any car. No generation is preferred over any other generation - not the latest, not the first, not the fastest, not the slowest, etc. This is because we are here to show the entire history of the car, not just the last year.  Stepho  talk  23:41, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@Stepho-wrs i don't know if we should keep the current information box image, the 6th generation did end production in 2023 and I feel like updating the information box might be better The number 8th (talk) 13:15, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

No, it should be a very good photo of a typical Mustang of any generation. Not sure the sixth-gen photo is the best; I'd probably go for the iconic '64½. Absolutely no need to use the 7th gen; this is not a new car listing. Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:54, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Number 8, there is no priority given to the latest model. We are an encyclopaedia, not a sales brochure. We select an image that is of good quality and is our best attempt to represent the entire history of the Mustang. Please read WP:CARPIX (point 5) and WP:RECENTISM.  Stepho  talk  21:19, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

should we wait a year until the 7th generation is 4 years before we change the information box image ? The number 8th (talk) 05:00, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Why not a year until the third gen is 58 years old? Really, the age of the image is not the issue.  Stepho  talk  09:03, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

SN95 series: Cobra, SVT Cobra and Cobra R

I freely confess that I'm not a SN95 expert or connoisseur. But I do remember that Ford marketed a version called the SVT Cobra because I almost bought one new back in the day. My question is: is that the same as the one that's just called the 'Cobra', as it's referenced here on the Mustang Wiki article? Or are they actually different variants?

Then there's the limited SN95 Cobra R that isn't in the article as of the post date of this discussion comment, which I think was a single year run around MY2000 or MY20001. It's the one with the TALL wing in back that somehow reminded me of an ironing board (without a tapered end). And crazy expensive (at least for a modified Fox-chassis Mustang) from what I remember from Road & Track and/or Automobile magazine articles. I would post my ID, but it's been so long since my last entry I don't even remember what my username was here on Wikipedia, let alone what my password would've been. ~2026-16927-59 (talk) 07:03, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

How to fix incorrectly listed engine displacement?

All 302ci Ford engines are showing up as 4.9L via what I assume is a faulty conversion, I can't figure out how to fix it.

ALL 302 cubic inch small block V8 Ford, Lincoln & Mercury engines produced were advertised & badged as 5.0L.

There was never a 4.9L V8 produced by FoMoCo.

The "4.9L" was a 300ci inline six cylinder engine (as you can now see this makes the article text extremely misleading), not offered in many of the cars listed as having a 4.9L.

If someone could provide me with the proper coding to fix the error, I'd be happy to post it on the pages in question.

It just needs to read:

302 c.i./5.0L small block V8

And on models available with the 351 Windsor as an option:

302 c.i./5.0L small block V8

351 c.i./5.8L Windsor small block V8 ~2026-22670-50 (talk) 05:26, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

There is no error. The 302 ci engine was advertised as a 5.0 L in most places but it is a 4,948.9 cc engine - which rounds to 4.9 L. Note also that Ford Australia badged the 302 Cleveland engine as a 4.9 L when it was offered in the 1970s and 1980s. Also note that this exact example is given at WP:AUTOCONV#Displacement.

So, this means that "5.0" is a name rather than a displacement. In Wikipedia we have to be careful about whether we are calling something by its name or by its actual displacement.  Stepho  talk  05:57, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2026

Change:

Third generation (1979) "From 1979 to 1986, the Capri was domestically produced as a badge engineered variant of the Mustang, using a few of its own styling cues."

This should be updated to make it clear that its the second generation Capri. First generation Capri linked to at the top of the Capri page was a European import.

To: "From 1979 to 1986, the second generation Capri was domestically produced as a badge engineered variant of the Mustang, using a few of its own styling cues."

Update the link "Capri" to link in there to the second generation Capri. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_Capri#Second_generation_(1979%E2%80%931986) Dvinell64 (talk) 07:45, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

It's even more complicated than that. In Europe, the Ford Capri came in 3 generations - in calendar years these are MkI (1969-1974), MkII (1974-1978) and MKIII (1978-1986). If we start saying second generation then Europeans will think you are talking about the 1974-1978 Capri. And there was also the Mazda 323 based Ford Capri (Australia) for calendar years 1989-1994 that was also sold as the Mercury Capri in N.America.  Stepho  talk  10:50, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

• Not done for now: see above. --signed, TheAuroraBorealis 14:47, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I took the liberty of changing the link to Mercury Capri#Second. I also added the appropriate anchors in the Mercury Capri article to make the link robust. But I didn't change the text in either article.  Stepho  talk  23:31, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

How can 1965 Mustang be the same "generation" as a 1973 model, when they look nothing alike?

There's nothing in common between a 1965 and 1973 Mustang, they have completely different sheetmetal. I don't believe they should be included in the same "generation". And yes, I realize that the platform is the same, but so what? The 1999-2004 and 1994-1998 are also separate generations, in my view. MisterZed (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Major platform redesigns classify automobile generations, not exterior appearance. Rather than cosmetic sheetmetal updates, a new generation means an entirely new vehicle architecture, often including new powertrains. Within a single generation, automakers typically release mid-generational facelifts and body design refreshes. These updates are the cosmetic changes you can see. An example is the vastly different-looking first-generation Mustangs. The exteriors changed, but the "dress" updates do not constitute a full "new generation" because the underlying 1965 platform remained unchanged through the 1973 model year. Of course, automakers put new clothes (sheetmetal) on existing platforms to attract buyers and sell more cars! Cheers - CZmarlin (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

So why is the 1995 Ford Explorer considered the "2nd generation" model, when it's just new sheetmetal over an old platform? Same deal with the 2006 Explorer based on 2002 model underpinnings, yet they're considered separate generations on Wikipedia. MisterZed (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately the car world is not consistent. I have seen many models that made changes to sheet metal but with the same old platform being called a new generation. But somehow the Mustang community always groups them as 1964-1973, 1974-1978, 1979-1983, etc. See https://mustangforums.com/articles/illustrated-look-mustang/ . It's just how things are. Definitely not a WP invention.  Stepho  talk  06:40, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Although the "generation" classification may seem simple, its application may depend on other factors. The classifications may also be influenced by automakers or their marketing agencies, as well as by enthusiasts of certain brands. In other words, it is not a WP decision! Please also see the following: Saur, Brendan (October 2, 2015). "QOTD: What Defines a "New" Generation of a Car?". curbsideclassic.com. Retrieved June 5, 2026. Cheers! - CZmarlin (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2026 (UTC)