# 2010 Mustang unveiled **URL:** \ **Category:** NYSpeed Automotive\ **Created:** [November 19, 2008, 9:39am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2010-mustang-unveiled/58417 "2008-11-19T09:39:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![66impalass](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/66impalass/32/7429_2.png) [@66impalass](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/66impalass)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 3:13pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2010-mustang-unveiled/58417/41 "2008-11-19T15:13:52Z")
fuck the mustang… I am selling everything to get a CTS-v… seriously ---
**Author:** ![ILC](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/ilc/32/5337_2.png) [@ILC](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/ILC)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 3:18pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2010-mustang-unveiled/58417/42 "2008-11-19T15:18:10Z")
> [@66impalass](#): > > fuck the mustang… I am selling everything to get a CTS-v… seriously :tup: glad we’re on the same page here ---
**Author:** ![IanK](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/iank/32/5016_2.png) [@IanK](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/IanK)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 3:38pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2010-mustang-unveiled/58417/43 "2008-11-19T15:38:11Z")
> [@66impalass](#): > > fuck the mustang… I am selling everything to get a CTS-v… seriously YES…Power, luxury, class…Oh and best of all, reliability. Im so jumping on this bandwagon, go CTS-V. [http://videos.streetfire.net/video/StreetFirenets-cjonesy-h\_90356.htm](http://videos.streetfire.net/video/StreetFirenets-cjonesy-h_90356.htm) ---
**Author:** ![02NismoSpecV](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/0/74df32/32.png) [@02NismoSpecV](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/02NismoSpecV)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 3:41pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2010-mustang-unveiled/58417/44 "2008-11-19T15:41:52Z")
meh i dont really like it at all. the front grill/headlights is squished in there. i dont even like the current gt’s i liked my style 99-04 like the roush but currently i only like the shelby and roush packaged cars, the front end on the 2010 mustang does nothing for me ---
**Author:** ![AJC2500](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/ajc2500/32/4965_2.png) [@AJC2500](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/AJC2500)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 3:43pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2010-mustang-unveiled/58417/45 "2008-11-19T15:43:18Z")
so it just looks like someone did some light photoshoping to the '05 mustang and then someone put it into production. I like the V6 front bumper better then the GT. on the other hand its nice that they are making more differences between the two. ---
**Author:** ![ILC](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/ilc/32/5337_2.png) [@ILC](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/ILC)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 3:50pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2010-mustang-unveiled/58417/46 "2008-11-19T15:50:20Z")
> [@IanK](#): > > YES…Power, luxury, class…Oh and best of all, reliability. Im so jumping on this bandwagon, go CTS-V. > > [http://videos.streetfire.net/video/StreetFirenets-cjonesy-h\_90356.htm](http://videos.streetfire.net/video/StreetFirenets-cjonesy-h_90356.htm) CTS-V :tup: ---
**Author:** ![IanK](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/iank/32/5016_2.png) [@IanK](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/IanK)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 4:04pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2010-mustang-unveiled/58417/47 "2008-11-19T16:04:27Z")
OMG LOL…BigRon Im so fucking envious of you, sexiest car on the borad ---
**Author:** ![mickdad246](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/mickdad246/32/7274_2.png) [@mickdad246](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/mickdad246)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 5:11pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2010-mustang-unveiled/58417/48 "2008-11-19T17:11:09Z")
that first pic that u posted looks, PS ---
**Author:** ![355firebird](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/355firebird/32/7369_2.png) [@355firebird](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/355firebird)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 5:43pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2010-mustang-unveiled/58417/49 "2008-11-19T17:43:12Z")
The V6 front end does look better, and they make a supercharger to get over 400 hp for the 4.0. :tup: ---
**Author:** ![Wahoo](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/wahoo/32/8265_2.png) [@Wahoo](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Wahoo)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 5:58pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2010-mustang-unveiled/58417/50 "2008-11-19T17:58:58Z")
the front is much better but I don’t like the back seems like the rear window is too long wierd ---
**Author:** ![Garick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8797f3/32.png) [@Garick](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Garick)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 10:10am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2010-mustang-unveiled/58417/51 "2008-11-20T10:10:36Z")
don’t really like the new look. 315 hp is not near enough either. They should’ve gone to a 302. And What is with the 4.0 V6? 200 HP? ---
**Author:** ![Wahoo](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/wahoo/32/8265_2.png) [@Wahoo](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Wahoo)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 10:50am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2010-mustang-unveiled/58417/52 "2008-11-20T10:50:48Z")
:gay3: ---
**Author:** ![Mike93](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/mike93/32/7325_2.png) [@Mike93](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Mike93)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 10:58am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2010-mustang-unveiled/58417/53 "2008-11-20T10:58:06Z")
> [@jt76](#): > > The 2010 GT is rated at 315 HP huh… and My TA was rated at 320 in 2000, and in 1998 for that matter. > > Schweet. If it isn’t obvious, Ford isn’t making huge efforts in the HP wars…this has never been their intent since they sell enough of these cars to keep them in production. Also, your TA has 60 some cubic inches on the Mustang so from that stand point the Mustang has a more efficient engine… 281=315hp 346=320hp > [@jt76](#): > > Fuel efficiency? I have yet to see a Mustang with a V8 get 26- 28mpg, and i have seen that out of my T/A. Hell TurboLs1ss is making 900 rwhp with a 408 and boost and hes getting 20mpg… My GT was slow and guzzled gas. FWIW, my 302 Mustang pulled 28mpg when I had stock gearing. With 3.73’s it dropped to about 24-25mpg (highway #'s). Keep your TA out of that nice 6th gear and things may change… ---
**Author:** ![TrueBlue](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/trueblue/32/7245_2.png) [@TrueBlue](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/TrueBlue)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 11:02am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2010-mustang-unveiled/58417/54 "2008-11-20T11:02:57Z")
LOL. My '68 fastback gets damn near 23 highway with the TKO in 5th. ---
**Author:** ![Wahoo](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/wahoo/32/8265_2.png) [@Wahoo](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Wahoo)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 11:07am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2010-mustang-unveiled/58417/55 "2008-11-20T11:07:40Z")
> [@Mike93](#): > > If it isn’t obvious, Ford isn’t making huge efforts in the HP wars…this has never been their intent since they sell enough of these cars to keep them in production. Also, your TA has 60 some cubic inches on the Mustang so from that stand point the Mustang has a more efficient engine… > > 281=315hp > 346=320hp > > FWIW, my 302 Mustang pulled 28mpg when I had stock gearing. With 3.73’s it dropped to about 24-25mpg (highway #'s). Keep your TA out of that nice 6th gear and things may change… Every single LS1 ever created or touched by god is a 345HP motor, only difference between the vette motors and the F body ones are the exhaust manifolds and the intake… not saying its the best motor but it was underrated, most stock LS1 F Bodys dyno 310-315 through a 6speed to the TIRES. So not too bad for an old push rod V8. ---
**Author:** ![Mike93](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/mike93/32/7325_2.png) [@Mike93](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Mike93)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 11:32am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2010-mustang-unveiled/58417/56 "2008-11-20T11:32:04Z")
> [@Red00WS6](#): > > Every single LS1 ever created or touched by god is a 345HP motor, only difference between the vette motors and the F body ones are the exhaust manifolds and the intake… not saying its the best motor but it was underrated, most stock LS1 F Bodys dyno 310-315 through a 6speed to the TIRES. So not too bad for an old push rod V8. The last thing we need here is another LSx humpfest…yes, we know it’s a solid engine. Calling it an old push rod V8 may be a stretch since it’s the continued advancement of technology that has been put into that smallblock that has brought it to where it is today. My point was the Ford doesn’t care about that (power numbers), they care about making enough sales to keep the car in production and (hopefully) profitable. Case in point is the fact that they add blowers to the mod motors to get the hp numbers that the people want. The TA that was rated at 320hp was doing so with 346 cubic inches. I don’t give a shit about what LS1’s make in Vettes, or with bolt on parts, my point that the 315hp Mustang 4.6 was more efficient at making power than the TA LS1 used as comparison. ---
**Author:** ![Wahoo](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/wahoo/32/8265_2.png) [@Wahoo](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Wahoo)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 11:38am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2010-mustang-unveiled/58417/57 "2008-11-20T11:38:08Z")
It was underrated so people who wanted vette’s thought they had a more powerfull motor… it makes the same power. ---
**Author:** ![9ONA3OOZX](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/9ona3oozx/32/7242_2.png) [@9ONA3OOZX](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/9ONA3OOZX)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 11:41am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2010-mustang-unveiled/58417/58 "2008-11-20T11:41:05Z")
> [@Willybeen](#): > > meh… not as drastic a change as i expected. +1 ---
**Author:** ![Mike93](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/mike93/32/7325_2.png) [@Mike93](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Mike93)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 11:42am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2010-mustang-unveiled/58417/59 "2008-11-20T11:42:08Z")
> [@Red00WS6](#): > > It was underrated so people who wanted vette’s thought they had a more powerfull motor… it makes the same power. I understand that…but to stir the pot:) Mustang 281 cubic inch=315hp 346 cubic inch LS1=345hp Do the math and my point stands, the Mustang engine is more efficient. Still gonna be slower, but the people buying the car really don’t care. ---
**Author:** ![oxwhitegt03](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/oxwhitegt03/32/5324_2.png) [@oxwhitegt03](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/oxwhitegt03)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 11:44am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2010-mustang-unveiled/58417/60 "2008-11-20T11:44:48Z")
New mustang is nice, i like the front it looks kewl, as far as rims go so far they are just ok. [Previous page](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2010-mustang-unveiled/58417.md?page=2) [Next page](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2010-mustang-unveiled/58417.md?page=4)