Ford Mustang Reliability

[mkaresh]

In late 2005 I started conducting my own reliability research. I'm reporting absolute stats like "times in the shop" that will make the differences between cars much clearer. Relative ratings obscure too much--how large is the difference between "better than average" and "worse than average"? I’ll also be updating results four times a year, so there will be information on new models sooner.

 

I'm collecting data on recent years of the Mustang, but the number of participants is marginal. More Mustangs in the panel would be very helpful.

 

To encourage participation, panel members will receive full access to the results free of charge.

 

Details: Vehicle reliability research

 

Comments, questions, and suggestions welcome.

[mkaresh]

Next results in August, but probably still not enough Mustangs owners involved to include it. A few more might do it, depending on the participation rate. The update after than one will be in November.

[mkaresh]

Next results in August, but probably still not enough Mustangs owners involved to include it. A few more might do it, depending on the participation rate. The update after than one will be in November.

 

The August results included just enough responses to include the 2006 among the asterisked results, with the asterisk for insufficient sample size. None of these owners reported a repair, so the Mustang appears to be quite solid these days.

 

Full set of results:

 

TrueDelta Vehicle Reliability Survey results

 

Next set in November. With more participants we can get rid of that asterisk.

[Ralph Greene]

The Mustang is a relatively simple car. With many parts that have been used in other Ford cars for years. Example....Engines, transmissions, differentials, etc. It's braking systems, for the most part is just standard Ford stuff as well. Ditto for the electricals mostly. How could it not be reliable? You are wasting your time.

[jonas1022]

The Mustang is a relatively simple car. With many parts that have been used in other Ford cars for years. Example....Engines, transmissions, differentials, etc. It's braking systems, for the most part is just standard Ford stuff as well. Ditto for the electricals mostly. How could it not be reliable? You are wasting your time.

Sometimes "Sh** happens", often when and where you least expect it.

[mkaresh]

The Mustang is a relatively simple car. With many parts that have been used in other Ford cars for years. Example....Engines, transmissions, differentials, etc. It's braking systems, for the most part is just standard Ford stuff as well. Ditto for the electricals mostly. How could it not be reliable? You are wasting your time.

 

I collect data on all cars, both the reliable and the unreliable ones, in order to provide results that make the size of the differences between them clear. The Mustang wasn't know for its reliability as recently as five years ago. It seems to have gotten much better in recent years.

[Ralph Greene]

My point is the Mustang is such a simple car, it's so easy to fix anything wrong with it. It also just uses stuff Ford already has figured out.

 

As a consumer, I don't see how your data has any use.

 

But i know folks just like to do stuff.

[mkaresh]

My point is the Mustang is such a simple car, it's so easy to fix anything wrong with it. It also just uses stuff Ford already has figured out.

 

As a consumer, I don't see how your data has any use.

 

But i know folks just like to do stuff.

 

Few people work on their own cars these days, even when the car is relatively simple. I used to do my own oil changes, but when it costs only $15 to have someone else do it...

 

It is true that some people are much more interested than others in reliability information. It's certainly true that everyone doesn't see it as useful. But for those people who want to know about how often a car will require a repair, I want to provide it.

[Dave M.]

Few people work on their own cars these days, even when the car is relatively simple. I used to do my own oil changes, but when it costs only $15 to have someone else do it...

 

It is true that some people are much more interested than others in reliability information. It's certainly true that everyone doesn't see it as useful. But for those people who want to know about how often a car will require a repair, I want to provide it.

 

Karesh, thanks for your work. For those of us who had (have) been repeatedly burned by poor-reliability vehicles. every little bit counts. As someone who ran to Japanese vehicles 25 years ago after two crap cars (Trans Am, Mustang) in a row, I can attest how important the reliability is to many consumers. Since my defection, with three cars (Toyota, Nissan, Isuzu) with a combined 1,200,000 miles, I've had ONE relianility issue - a bum transmission - and that was covered by warranty.

 

Consumer Reports is my bible, Karesh is my torah, and other consumer reflections matter as well. It's all good, and adds up to make a wise consumer decision.

 

It seems only recently (6-7 years) that Ford is getting serious about improving their vehicles - a very welcomed move on their part. Hopefully the reliability holds up as well.

[mkaresh]

I don't know if the current sample sizes deserve such confidence, but I'm working on them. When comparing ratings, know that the confidence intervals are currently wide.

 

That said, the Ford products I have data on are all doing well. They're mostly young, though, and time will tell how they do as they age. That's where the prompt quarterly updates come in.

 

We might not yet have CR's samples sizes, but our data averages over ten months more recent. The November results will cover owner experiences through the end of September.

[Tico]

All that matters to me is the two cars I have now '04 Taurus and '04 Mustang. Since 2004 over 90K between the two cars. Problems: Zero. Times in the shop besides oil changes and tires: Zero. Granted these are old designs but maybe that is why they are so reliable. Even through three Wisconsin winters.

[NickF1011]

The Mustang is a relatively simple car. With many parts that have been used in other Ford cars for years. Example....Engines, transmissions, differentials, etc. It's braking systems, for the most part is just standard Ford stuff as well. Ditto for the electricals mostly. How could it not be reliable? You are wasting your time.

 

By what you covered there, almost every car on the market is "relatively simple". The version of the 4.6 3-valve in the Mustang was new to that application, particularly the electronic throttle linkage, as was its pairing with the 5R55S transmission. So there's plenty that COULD have gone wrong there. The Mustang also utilizes completely new caliper/rotor assemblies not used on any other vehicle. Then you get into the entirely new front and rear suspension designs, all new chassis, interior, switchgear, sheet metal. New electronics like the Mach 1000 and MyColor. There really was very LITTLE "carryover" in the S197 Mustang program compared to a lot of other cars.

 

Regardless of what is carryover and what isn't, by all survey accounts I've seen, the latest Mustang (and even the SN95's to most extent) are/were VERY well-built, reliable cars. That means something regardless.

[mkaresh]

Yes, owners have been reporting very few repairs for the current Mustang. Two years were included in TrueDelta's latest results, but with asterisks for insufficient sample size. Only results with sufficient responses are visible to non-members. I'd like to get the Mustang there, but more participants are needed.

 

Auto reliability research -- need more Mustangs!

[mkaresh]

Next results in a few weeks. They'll include the 2006 and 2007, though the results will probably again be asterisked for insufficient sample size. The 2007 is currently three responses short of getting rid of that asterisk, while the 2006 is six short. Not enough responses for the 2005 yet to include it in the results at all.

 

So, clearly more participants would help.

 

Details here:

 

Auto reliability research - need more Mustangs!

[mkaresh]

The 2007 is currently the only model a single response short of a full result. And this is the last day of data collection for December, so it's going to be tight.

 

92 other model/model year combinations will be in the next set of results, which will be released in a week or so.

 

I'd like to have full results for all years of the current Mustang, but it's going to take more people.

 

Vehicle reliability research

[mkaresh]

Never got that last response, so the result for the 2007 Mustang ended up with an asterisk. As did the 2006.

 

Next update in May. I'd like to get rid of those asterisks and also have a result for the 2005. More owners have joined recently, so it should be possible. But it's going to be close. More participants very much needed.

 

For the details, and to help us provide the best possible info for your model year:

 

Vehicle reliability research

[Mr. KABC]

Hmmm... site is down. thought I would stop by and enter my input.

 

FTR, my 2005 has had ZERO defects and ZERO problems, only maintenance issues like oil and a set of tires. This car has been wonderful for the past 50,000 miles.

 

Great job Ford!!! :shades:

 

And YES, my car WAS built on a Wednesday...

[mkaresh]

Hmmm... site is down. thought I would stop by and enter my input.

 

FTR, my 2005 has had ZERO defects and ZERO problems, only maintenance issues like oil and a set of tires. This car has been wonderful for the past 50,000 miles.

 

Great job Ford!!! :shades:

 

And YES, my car WAS built on a Wednesday...

 

 

Please give it another shot if you haven't already. For about 30 minutes last night EVERYTHING was down at my hosting company, even their own home page.

[mkaresh]

Updated results next week. There will be a full result for the 2007, and an asterisked result for the 2005.

 

The 2006 could go either way--it's a single response short of losing the asterisk.

 

Additional participants needed for all years:

 

Vehicle reliability research

[FordFanForEver]

Updated results next week. There will be a full result for the 2007, and an asterisked result for the 2005.

 

The 2006 could go either way--it's a single response short of losing the asterisk.

 

Additional participants needed for all years:

 

Vehicle reliability research

 

Which engines are you testing? all 3 of them?

[mkaresh]

With the Mustangs, I'm able so far to provide results for the 2005, 2006, and 2007. For all three years hardly any owners have reported any repairs. So there's no point in reporting results separately for each engine. My expectation is that this will only be necessary when the cars are older and engine problems become more common.

[mkaresh]

The results have been updated, and repair rates remain low for all three included model years. The 2005 result is asterisked owing to a marginal sample size.

 

I'd like to eliminate that asterisk and include additional model years in future updates.

 

For the full set of results, and sign up to help (if you haven't already):

 

TrueDelta Vehicle Reliability Survey results

[mkaresh]

Next update in August.

 

Additional participants always helpful, especially for the 2008.

 

Vehicle reliability research

[Mark R. Boler]

The Mustang is a relatively simple car. With many parts that have been used in other Ford cars for years. Example....Engines, transmissions, differentials, etc. It's braking systems, for the most part is just standard Ford stuff as well. Ditto for the electricals mostly. How could it not be reliable? You are wasting your time.

 

Ha. Not wasting time at all. In 1999 I bought a new Cobra. The new rear end couldn't be aligned. It ate rear tires and that's because of the alignment, not the power. Then engine was underpowered too. Huge recall. Ford didn't even make a 2000 MY Cobra because of it.

 

I got rid of that one as soon as I could.

 

Now, my 2007 V6 Mustang with 22K miles seems to shift a little weird. I went to check to see if it was low on fluid, and there is no fluid checking rod or filler neck. Doesn't seem standard to me.

[randy_tho]

Ha. Not wasting time at all. In 1999 I bought a new Cobra. The new rear end couldn't be aligned. It ate rear tires and that's because of the alignment, not the power. Then engine was underpowered too. Huge recall. Ford didn't even make a 2000 MY Cobra because of it.

 

I got rid of that one as soon as I could.

 

Now, my 2007 V6 Mustang with 22K miles seems to shift a little weird. I went to check to see if it was low on fluid, and there is no fluid checking rod or filler neck. Doesn't seem standard to me.

 

Pretty sure that is normal for all newer Ford Autos.

 

Not the weird shifting, the no fill/ no dip stick.

Edited July 8, 2008 by randy_tho