Why does the Ford Mustang have so many worthless body parts on it? There are so many scoops and cowls on the car, but none of them are functional as they're all blocked off my pieces of plastic. What gives? Does a V6 mustang really need a fake hood scoop?

My friend has a modified GT and he even kept the plastic block-off bits on all the body scoops. I don't understand it!

 

Similar reason that the GC8's had hood scoops that were not functional.
Why do Boxters have side vents with no function? It's all about style.

 

I would disagree, I'll start off with the GC8

It is sort of a function, it will reduce the underhood temp of the car by allowing air to get in.

The Boxter, I'm sure that air feeds into the engine compartment to cool the underhood temp also, since that's one of the only ways to get air into the mid engine platform car.

Scoops are not just for intercoolers, they are also for cooling devices.

 

your argument WOULD be valid EXCEPT that the GC8's hoodscoops were blocked off. as in.. non-functional

 

the mustang has useless parts because its all about nostalgia...
the mustangs of the 60's were all functionality.
it would be an unwise financial and marketing decision for Ford to delete the
pieces that remind us of the mustangs of old.





aloha from the summit of Mauna Kea

 

It does identify the difference between an RS and an L though, so ya it is somewhat functional

 

Have any of you seen the Mustang model that actually had NOSTRILS on the hood? They were very clearly horse nostrils -- and yes, they were just pits in the surface which were blocked by black plastic. If I find a pic, I'll post it for you.

EDIT: here it is, on the weak-sauce 1996 model:

http://www.insydious.com/albums/album09/P4050397.jpg

You've got to love those side air-vents that help to cool your wheel well! Someone forgot to tell the designer that the Ferrari he stole those from was a mid-engine car...

 

I'm pretty sure they are just there for styling. The vents on the sides of the 3rd generation MR2 are functional, and feed into a radiator, but not on the Boxter.

Doesn't really matter, someone else mentioned it's all about marketing. Correct answer.

 

If you want to see a Rustang that has useless features in the extreme please check out the Roushe level 2 package.

Skirts, 18" wheels, fake hood scoop (blocked off), fake side vents, and its lowered all stock baby too.... omg..

 

Sounds like your the one with problems.
I work with a gal who has 250K on her Escort. My dad's got 185K on his F-350 which tips the scales at just under 9,000 pounds when he's got all his tools in it, which he almost always does. Uncle has a Taurus with 200+K miles. Some Fords are lemons, some aren't. Just like Subaru, Audi, Toyota, whoever.

The reason the tires blew, is because people did not maintain the proper pressure in them and drove them too fast. That's an operator error, not a manufacturing one. I see morons running 80+ mph with visibly under-inflated tires all the time. No company can engineer the stupidity out of people.

For the record, I'm not offended. I just think you're dumb.

edit: I guess I'm not "affended". LOL

 

what about the spoilers we all dig on our STI's and our RS's. Sorry, but none of us really drive so fast regularly that they would even make a difference. Every car has at least 3 very non-funtional parts. Once again, its all about marketing.

Shhh, the emperor has no clothes!

[QUOTE]No company can engineer the stupidity out of people.[/QUOTE]

fantastic quote, lol.

EDIT : but not so fantastically quoted. ah well.

 

[QUOTE=constellation]
Shhh, the emperor has no clothes!

Dude, is that really a quote from The Emperor Has No Clothes? I never read it. Seriously.

 

i really like fords, i have a 1967 beautiful mustang with brand new paint, and all new interior, disc brake conversion, and new engine

it might be my favorite car in the world, but i got the subaru for drivability

 

Sounds nice. When I turned 16 (in 1987), I test drove a bunch of Mustangs from the era of 65-'71. Every single one of them would pull very hard to the right or left when I got on the brakes, which is why my dad never let me buy one. I wound up with a '71 Nova, but always liked the old 'Stangs looks more.
A buddy of mine had a '67 fast back which would turn low 14's in the quarter mile. We all thought that thing was smoking fast. It's crazy my little Japanese 4 banger will get within a few tenths of that in stock form today.