Alternator and brakes went out; other than that, I never had a problem with the car.
Good power even with the V6; was super easy to work on.
Very nice sound system.
1995 body style even now looks up to date.
Biggest drawback and my #1 gripe is it's a REAR wheel drive car; it handles like pure crap when it rains, and if it snows, don't even drive it.
I would hydro-plane coming off a interstate ramp at 35 mph with brand new tires on it, just BS for this day and age.
I have NO IDEA why anyone would make a rear wheel drive car no days, other than the fact some idiots like to do doughnuts in the snow, or some stupid things like that.
If the Mustang were front wheel drive, I'd probably still have mine.
They are built very rugged and tough, the transmission is the same for the V8, and you won't tear that baby up.
Another gripe is just no room in the car, too small and uncomfortable, needs more leg room. Good for a small girl and that's about it.
Wow, with the handful of rear wheel drive cars still available, this dude buys one and then complains about it being RWD...
To further point out the obvious, 1994 was 14 years ago, that is not "nowadays". Rear wheel drive cars are still made because of performance -- case in point the Chrysler 300 and Dodge Viper. I have never had a rear-wheel drive car hydroplane in rain just because it was rear-wheel drive. A front-wheel drive will still spin the tires and hydroplane on the highway, so it isn't all roses.
You were driving too fast. Yes, even 35 mph can be too fast if the slope of the road is steep enough, and there is enough standing water on the road.
The Mustang is a sports car. Sports cars are supposed to be RWD. That's like buying a GMC truck, then complaining that it gets bad gas mileage. Just silly.
We own three cars. Two are rear drive and one is front drive. We seldom have snow here, but when we did I was really surprised to discover that BOTH our rear drive cars actually had better traction and handled better in snow than our front drive compact sport sedan. The front drive car drives very well, and is a great car, but front drive is grossly over rated.
I remember one winter night some years back when I was following my friend in a really bad snow storm. He had a brand new Toyota Corolla and I was driving my classic 1972 Plymouth Duster V-8. We had dined at a local restaurant and were on our way home on snow covered streets. I was worried about my old Mopar making it home in the deep snow. After following my friend along at a snail's pace for a couple of miles I realized my rear drive Duster was doing just great. I pulled into the deeper snow in the left lane, blew past my friend and made it home way before he did. That Duster was the best handling car in snow I ever saw. After that I always got a kick out of blowing front-drive cars away in the snow.
If the reviewer wanted a wimpy front drive compact, why on Earth buy a sporty car like a Mustang?? The Camry or Accord would have been better for you if all you wanted was a basic appliance.
Why would you complain about a car having rear wheel drive? I mean sure, it's outdated and proven to be less efficient than front wheel drive, but you bought a Mustang! A Mustang should never have front wheel drive! The whole "doing donuts in the snow" part, um hello? If you're buying a performance car then yes, you do donuts! Front-wheel drive is good for efficiency and safety. Neither of which the Mustang was built for. It was built to be raced around quickly and spinning its tires. Don't buy a Mustang when you want something to get you around town and to work in all four seasons. Buy an Accord or Camry, they're meant for that. The Mustang is meant to be a toy for the weekend.
Note: A Comments RSS Feed is available. New comments appear in the Members Area before the main site