You might want to brush up on your history. The Mustang was introduced as an "affordable sports car," and was introduced with a base model that came equipped with a 170 c.i. 6 cylinder that put out a whopping 101 horses to go along with the 289 on the upscale model. So where you get the idea that they "cheapened" it when it was their intention to have two versions from day one is beyond me. Again, read what I said. They ALWAYS had the lower model version. I don't get what you're trying to say when it was always that way. There was no change. About the same as I call a third generation Camaro with an inline 4-cylinder and a whopping 165 horses in the Z28. By '91 it was up to 230 horses, while still retaining the base 6 cylinder model. Or the second generation Challenger with the 1.6 or 2.6L 4 cylinder and NO performance model. That's my point. Why are you ragging on Ford when it was something EVERY auto maker was doing? As did Camaro owners. After '73 the bottom dropped out on all models, unless you consider a 150 horse 350 engine a beast. As for the SVO making 200 horse with a 4 banger, I guess if it's not an 8 cylinder it isn't muscle to you. I'll have to remember that next time I'm taking to a Grand National owner. smh I'll quote from Camaro history: "1996 Camaro - 61,362 Camaros Produced. The Rally Sport Coupe and the Rally Sport Convertible were reintroduced this year after quite an absence. The SS, with its 305 horsepower rating was the first factory Camaro to break the 300 horsepower barrier since 1971." Your point? And up until is discontinuation in 2002 the Camaro hovered around 345 while continuing to have base 6 cylinder models. Again, why single out Ford? Who's not paying attention? Once again, it was ALWAYS that way. As it also was with Camaro. When Camaro was first introduced, it had a base model with 140 horses, and has ALWAYS had a base - i.e. - affordable model. This is getting tiresome. I'll say it again....it was ALWAYS that way. In the 60's and 70's, Ford offered an affordable base Mustang and the more powerful performance models. The SAME thing they have always done, yet you keep citing that era as "iconic." Nothing has changed. Nothing. Not. A. Thing. Again, a 210 horse "piece of ****" base model had the same power as the fabled IROC Z. Why are you avoiding that fact? So is the legendary IROC a "piece of ****" also? AGAIN, the same for Camaro. Why isn't this sinking in? And in one sentence you say I'm "just one person" when in the paragraph before you state that there were "a million disgruntled" protest letters. Which is it? Apparently, there are plenty of car owners who like the Mustang just the way it is. And you miss the point entirely. Modifying cars GIVES you that exclusivity. There's no other Stang out there like mine. Buy a Z350, while there's not as many of them out there as Mustangs, it's still the same damn car when you see another one except for color. I have. I don't talk out my ***. It's too big, floaty, and feels more like a cruiser than a musclecar. And I have almost a full sleeve and 10 other tattoos. Doesn't mean I want my car to look like a tattoo. On one hand you're snarking about heritage and tradition, then on the other you say you like a car that's painted up like a Lincoln Tunnel whore. You're a study in contradiction, bro! But the color thing is taste. Simple as that. As for your comments blasting Ford, they did what every other car company trying to keep their sales up did. Only with them it worked and allowed an icon to remain in production. If you don't believe me, then feel free to go buy a new Trans Am, or GTO, or Cutlass, or Roadrunner, or Cuda, or...ooops.