chromehorn

I think it's safe to say that "retro-light" has worked out just fine for the Wrangler. I like this rendering a lot, other than a few little niggles. Even so, I'd gladly park one in my garage if it looked exactly like this, so long as it maintains the ability to be a solid off-road performer (solid front axle, good approach/departure angles, low-range, at least a rear locker, etc...).

Oh yeah! Those put out around 140 HP IIRC.

Saw the title of this thread and immediately knew it was the MT-5. For some odd reason, I thought that would be a cool car to own, in spite of the anemic 4 cylinder engine. Never ended up buying one of those models though. I remember the Taurus being so much different than everything else at the time and did end up over the years with 3 of them...a 93 SHO, a 2000 SEL, and a 2008 SEL. Still have the 2008 (just a touch over 200k totally trouble-free miles on it) model that our soon to be 16 year old will have as a first car.

Congrats on the Z, looks very nice! Is it blue? I still haven't quite warmed up to the new schnoz but I suppose I'm in the minority. My 2013 3.7 was a CPO too. Had 27k on the clock when i got it in 2015. Sticker was $44k, bought it for $30k. That's some pretty steep depreciation, but it worked in my favor. It's got 72k miles on it now and has been a great car so far.

Not sure if this is an option for you, but.... A lightly used MKZ with the 3.7 in FWD is a pretty fun ride. I know mine is plenty quick for my needs and handles pretty well in Sport mode. Could I use more HP, sure. Who couldn't? I haven't officially tested it, but I believe the FWD is faster than the AWD version. My guess is it's capable of just under 6 seconds to 60, and somewhere in the mid to upper 14's in the 1/4 mile. For about $20k you can pick up a 2013 model around where I live.

Uhm, this doesn't qualify a desert runner? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-VRqzAhTS_4 I suppose if you want to get technical, some consider a desert runner a 2WD pre-runner. Even then, they had Big Oly... http://www.bajabronco.com/BigOly.shtml and another Stroppe Bronco called Pony http://www.bajabronco.com/Pony.shtml I'm fine with whatever they do as long as it has a transfer case (preferrably manual) with a low range and 4 door option. Some type of rear locker would be nice too. Hard core off roaders may have less appeal to the masses but people keep buying wranglers. Even though most wranglers that are sold never see any significant type of off-road use, people buy them I think just for the "look". If Ford can give us a Bronco that has say 3/4's the off-road capability of a Wrangler in a bit more civilized package, they'll sell the snot out of them. That very type of vehicle is what we wanted when we bought our 2010 Escape for my wife. Being a Ford loyalist, I got the closest thing I could get at the time from a size standpoint that my wife liked.

So is it safe to say that the new Edge will be a home for the new EB 2.3? 320hp in that package would be, uhmmm, interesting?

I'm not 100% (about 99.9%) sure but I don't think the Tempo 2.3 was in any way related to the good old 2.3 OHC "Lima?" that powered everything from Pintos, Mustangs, Rangers, Thunderbirds, etc... in both N/A and Turbo versions. My sister had one of the 2.3 HSC engines in her Tempo. Total turd as I recall. Some of my best memories of horsing around in a Mustang were behind the wheel of a 86 SVO. Either on or off on the powerband. Quite weak from a pure thrust perspective in stock form compared to todays Mustangs but was very adept at carving up the road which is what it was designed for.

Great idea! I think there was a small run of Twister II's or something like that in '85. Being from Kansas, I like the idea a bunch. Wasn't that model kind of a dealer promotion or something like that? Mostly just paint and decals on a Mach1 or something? How about a Mach1 on this body style?

Was thinking the same thing. Makes perfect sense to me in a very selfish way! The 2012 and 2013 Boss models drew styling details from the 69 and 70 models respectively. The only problem with following that line of thinking I suppose is that the '71's were a completely different body style and the current body style doesn't draw any styling cues from an appearance standpoint from the '71's. I dunno. We're there any other unique 69 or 70 Mustangs they could do as a limited run model for 2014? Grande? (just kidding)

Sorry for the lack of clarity. I wasnt referring to anyone here talking about loyalty at RFR, but more the perceived loyalty as described by the media.

So I got in my car and was listening to NASCAR radio on Sirius/XM and hear that Jack said Matt was going to the Dark Side. Well, I don't know Jack Roush personally, but I know enough about him to know that means "Toyota". I guess my belief that somehow all would be better in Ford Racing Land was a bit myopic. I was surprised to hear that he himself was completely taken off-guard by Matt leaving. Not so much that he was taking him for granted, but more like he was focusing on the technical racing stuff he enjoys, and not on the personnel side of the business. I find it quite curious that no one let Jack know what was happening on this. Almost makes me think that Matt was so ticked off at someone in the organization (don't think it was Jack) in past years for letting Mark Martin and Jeff Burton get put out to pasture that he wasn't going to let himself be the next one in the line of tenured drivers at Roush sent packing. The over-exuberance of Ford and RFR to keep Carl around at seemingly all costs probably didn't set well with Matt either. Though they have repaired their on screen relationship, I wonder if it wasn't more of a result of a mandate coming from Jack(?) that he wouldn't tolerate any antics between his drivers at the track while the cameras were rolling. Kind of like a parent telling their kids to get along or else... If what I'm thinking is right, Matt was probably looking at the new, young guys coming up in the Ford ranks like Ricky and Trevor and realized that his time at RFR wasn't going to end any differently than his friend and mentor Mark Martin who urged Jack to give Matt a ride at Roush Racing. If he was feeling a bit under appreciated as well, he probably handled this the way he would handle other things that match up with his reported personality. Quietly go about his business, and rather craftily deliver the news that no one could believe and be the one in control of his own destiny. I guess he gets the last laugh then... One last thought for now. I wonder if Ford's loss of drivers like Jeff Gordon and Kasey Kahne to Chevy and Dodge has made them overly sensitive to protecting their interest in their current crop of young drivers at the expense of those who are nearing the middle to end of their careers? For all the talk of loyalty at RFR, I guess I haven't really seen much of it now that I think about it.

OK. My $.02 I have followed Matt since he came into the series in 2000. Even remember him in the Busch series driving a Chevy and filling in for Bill Elliott I think for one Winston Cup Race in 1998 or 99 IIRC. When I saw the news he was leaving Roush it stopped me dead in my tracks with dis-belief. Like others it actually made me a bit angry that a former series champion, current points leader, and all around decent guy that doesn't do stupid stuff on AND off the track like (insert your most disliked driver's name here or if you don't have one just use one of the Busch brothers) could be leaving my favorite Ford race team. How could this have happened? So I've been listening to all the media types blowing and going on how Matt is leaving Ford AND he is going to Gibbs to race Toyotas. As of this morning there is no news of a pending relationship with Gibbs, Toyota or anyone other than pure speculation. I'm not saying Matt isn't going to another team or manufacturer, I just find it interesting that their is no news of this to be found anywhere. What benefit is there in waiting to announce this news if it is as some say a done deal? So all of this has me wondering, if Matt wins another championship as a driver, what does he really have left to prove. Many already consider him worthy of the NASCAR Hall of Fame based on his current body of work. Another championship will put him in pretty good company and it seems highly unlikely he could ever match Jimmie's 5 championships (although I will always feel there should be an asterisk at the end of that statement due to the fact his team always seems to be cheating). So who's to say he doesn't do what most drivers won't do. Hang up the racing helmet when you're on top. The latest news I'm finding on line is that he is ready for the next opportunity. Could it be that Jack has given Matt an option to step into a leadership role at RFR outside of the racecar? Maybe eventually replace Jack at the helm? As mentioned by others, Jack is getting up in years and I'm sure he'd like to keep the legacy of Roush Racing going strong in the future. Who better to run things than someone he has trusted in representing his company and has never done anything to cause Jack any problems? Matt knows racing, and has proven himself able to work with most everyone around him at RFR. Only question is whether or not he has the business acumen to run a company that large. I bet he has the ability to learn from Jack though.

Been done before... I remember seeing this Mustang probably 10-15 years ago and thinking to myself that it was pretty cool.

While I like to see Ford benefit from this (helps me too as I currently hold a chunk of F common and F preferred) I hate to think of how this effects people who either sell the product, or worse yet own it.

What's up with the mirrors? Looks like they are just kind of hanging on there. I suppose their is some sort of unique mirror they are putting on it...didn't want to give away any other clues? I know it seems strange to point that the mirrors look goofy, obviously not production units, but the other day I was looking at an '10 sho and '10 mustang when I realized they had virtually identical mirrors on them. Maybe the production units will have integrated turn signal indicators in them (kind of like the Acadia) for the benefit of those driving on the flanks? The current model doesn't have those, does it? I don't think many Fords (save for maybe some trucks) have ever had those.

I want a shortened Raptor with 2 doors and a removable top. Yup, that's right. I want a Raptor based Bronco. :shades:

Interesting. I own an 08 Taurus and have sat in a '10 Taurus and noticed that it certainly feels more cozy. The only big gripe I had was the back seat area. At 6'4" tall, if I sit upright in the back seat, the top of the window opening is at the bottom of my ear, forcing me to bend over to see out of the window. There is plenty of head room, it just feels like my head is part way inserted in an inverted bucket. Which is better than completely inserted into an inverted bucket I suppose. :blink: Or completely inserted into something else.

Nah...someone would probably call it "Tween Forsay". I do like that name better though and wish they would have kept it. Around my neck of the woods, I always have fun with non-Kansas natives that make fun of us calling the Arkansas River "AreKansas" instead of "Arkansaw". They typically are astute enough to know that once the river leaves Colorado and enters Kansas it's pronunciation changes until it gets into Oklahoma where once again it becomes the Arekansaw River. So when questioned about this oddity in our local vernacular, I tell them that I don't live in Wacheetah, Kansaw and that's how we pronounce things around here. As far as the Taurus is concerned, I always called mine an S-H-O and will call the new one S-H-O also. It seems to me that is the original and historically correct way to pronounce it. Just my 2 cents. :shades:

:huh: Que? Is the author trying to state that these cars even qualify for C4C? I guess Ms. Elliott is simply trying to suck people into reading her article by using the word "clunkers" in the title. I certainly hope that is what she was trying to do. As it is, the whole premise of the article is quite ridiculous. Most everyone knows that the cars listed have either a high depreciation rate, a high hunger for fuel, a high need for maintenance or any combination thereof. Caveat Emptor.

Unless something really dramatic has changed between the '08, '09's and the '10 model, the author of the article is just plain biased or has no idea what real torque-steer feels like. My '93 SHO had some pretty pronounced torque-steer. Under full throttle from a standing start, things were pretty manageable until the wheels stopped spinning. At that time you had better have a good idea where the wheels were pointed because you were going there really friggin' quick. The typical auto mags at the time were amazed at how well the SHO's managed torque-steer. As bad as those early SHO's were, they were nothing compared to some other fwd cars of that general era that had lots of HP (for the time) that were true white knuckle rides. The Shelby tuned GLH Dodge Omni had a reputation for being an absolute nightmare to handle. IIRC, the common feeling at the time was that the most HP a fwd car could handle was about 225. Having said that, my '08 fwd Taurus has little or no hint of torque-steer. Whether the traction control is on or off, the car pulls hard and straight. In fact, with TC off it will leave two black marks the length of the car. Progress is a good thing, but often not appreciated W/O some historical benchmark to compare it too.

Wha? :huh: I guess I'm either too young or come from too poor of a family to have ever seen one of those! Cool "analog" idea for the times I suppose but probably sucked when driving on anything other than smooth-as-glass pavement. Back to the clock issue, I never understood why you would want to have the fancy analog clock when there is typically a digital one included in the radio display. I guess it's all for appearance and not necessarily functionality.

What the heck is that thing Nick? It looks like a CD player...sort of. Is that some sort of a Photoshop job? Pardon my ignorance, but I don't think I've seen anything like that and it's just plain wacky looking in that car with the old timey b&w photo look.

I guess if you add the '08 / '09 front end to the '10 body you would effectively have the Interceptor Concept wouldn't you?

Yup! The lowered roofline is to blame. Not sure about the rear seat cushion being lowered though it wouldn't surprise me...I've heard mention that the front seats are a little lower also. It's a good thing there was alot of leg room back there to be taken. At 6'4" I can have the front seat all the way back and still have about 2.5" of legroom for myself when I sit in the back seat of my 08 Taurus. For your average height person, it will still seem like quite a bit of room. I think it still compares favorably with others in the segment also. It seems the consensus is that the new style is worth the trade-off in rear-seat legroom. I like my '08 just fine, but I do think the '10 does look better.