What should replace the mustang?

[suv_guy_19]

You can always get rid of the heavy safety equipment!

 

 

Or maybe we could go back to the old floppy frames.

[LincolnFan]

Or maybe we could go back to the old floppy frames.

 

Armada Master and Vic dude would love that.

[Sixt9coug]

Or maybe we could go back to the old floppy frames.

 

 

look at the cars i've owned in my sig. big and floppy would describe me.

 

 

 

wait! uhh... i mean... crap.

[suv_guy_19]

look at the cars i've owned in my sig. big and floppy would describe me.

wait! uhh... i mean... crap.

 

 

Who was it on here that said, "yes, the good old days of chrome plated railroad ties?" They had it about right.

Edited October 15, 2007 by suv_guy_19

[jpd80]

Keep the Mustang at its present size but,

I believe for Europe there would be room for a coupe slightly smaller than a Mustang with I-4 and V6.

I believe FoA would love a 2-door Falcon, slightly larger than Mustang - could double as a Thunderbird.

 

With the right platform all of this is possible without killing the budget.

 

Edit,

Once we lose the Inline 6 in the Falcon, the nose can decrease by 4"

meaning the new car's 190" length is the same as a Fusion.

A car with the same internal room as a Crown Victoria but the same size as a Fusion?

Then, take 3" out of Falcon's 111.3" wheelbase and 4" off the longish trunk,

that's a Mustang 183" long - how short do you want to go.

Edited October 16, 2007 by jpd80

[Edstock]

I'd like to see a wagon, "shooting brake" version, with a Volvo-type glass hatch if possible. With a 6.1 and a 6-speed.

 

Here's what BMW did with the Z3 back a decade ago.

 

[LincolnFan]

I'd like to see a wagon, "shooting brake" version, with a Volvo-type glass hatch if possible. With a 6.1 and a 6-speed.

 

Here's what BMW did with the Z3 back a decade ago.

 

 

That's really ugly.

[Edstock]

But the concept might work really well with the Mustang.

 

Here's the Volvo P-1800

 

1ZVHT82H865113036.pdf

[FordBuyer]

I have heard that the next Mustang GT will have a more aggressive look and be pushing out 350 hp in stock form. That makes sense with Camaro out in about a year or so. Ford will have to up the ante on the GT and the V6 version. But remember, the key to Mustang has always been affordability. So Ford has to keep the base Mustasng GT in $26,000-27,000 range and V6 in low $20,000 for it to be volume seller. Now yeah...offer the options to those who want to spend much more, but keep base price with nice, standard equipment list like present for those who don't want to spend $10,000 more. I could go for Mustang GT with 350 hp and nice shifting 5 speed. To keep price affordable, I doubt if you will see 6 speed manual and other high end features included on base price model. Maybe a 6 speed as an option and maybe even IRS as on option, but I doubt it. I know Ford stayed up late worrying about putting IRS on 2005 Mustang because it would have made the base price unaffordable.

[Biker16]

My god make IRS an OPTION! Do not make it standard! Then lets see what the buying public really wants!

this, i am afraid , is not an option. you need one or the other you can't have both, without compromising the IRS.

[jpd80]

this, i am afraid , is not an option. you need one or the other you can't have both, without compromising the IRS.

Not true.

We have IRS in the current sedans and leaf springs in a station wagon variant.

Previously we had watts link as standard with Multi-link IRS optional (1998 -2002)

 

The current IRS is a bolt in module - made that way to make it easy for everyone!!

Pick up points for a Mustang style SRA are in different locations for IRS Bolt in Flanges - won't affect either.

 

Been there, done that.

 

Edited October 16, 2007 by jpd80

[Watchdevil]

My biggest concern with the Mustang is to get the interior right. If they can make it feel and look as nice (not interpeted to look like) as a a GTI then it would be great. It's mostly a matter of getting rid of many of the hard plastic surfaces and some of the unescessary hard edges. It also needs a better automatic shift lever and parking brake design. It needs better interior door panel detailing, console surfaces and design, and better looking seat materials on base models without leather. They could also expand interior design by adding the choice of contrasting stitching like they do on the Fusion and return the choice of blue trim to sell along with the red. They can even go for some rugged western colors like saddle brown...

Edited October 16, 2007 by Watchdevil

[Watchdevil]

But the concept might work really well with the Mustang.

 

Here's the Volvo P-1800

 

 

Those old Volvos were cool!

[suv_guy_19]

My biggest concern with the Mustang is to get the interior right. If they can make it feel and look as nice (not interpeted to look like) as a a GTI then it would be great. It's mostly a matter of getting rid of many of the hard plastic surfaces and some of the unescessary hard edges. It also needs a better automatic shift lever and parking brake design. It needs better interior door panel detailing, console surfaces and design, and better looking seat materials on base models without leather. They could also expand interior design by adding the choice of contrasting stitching like they do on the Fusion and return the choice of blue trim to sell along with the red. They can even go for some rugged western colors like saddle brown...

 

 

What is it with people and their soft touch surfaces. I was talking to someone the other day about the Super Duty interior and how it had came up on here that it was hard plastic. My uncle had just bought a Lariat 350 crew cab PSD and I looked. Yeah its hard plastic, but it doesn't look cheap. Anyway, they asked me why it really matters as long as it looks good. They wanted to know who really sits there feeling up their dash. I was pretty much speechless, but I agreed. As long as it looks good, does it really matter what it feels like. I mean my Intrepid interior is all soft touch and Our 40000 F150 is hard plastic. The F150 doesn't look cheaper, and the super duty certainly does not. Soft touch for pats of the the doors is important, but thats about all.

[Ford-150]

What is it with people and their soft touch surfaces. I was talking to someone the other day about the Super Duty interior and how it had came up on here that it was hard plastic. My uncle had just bought a Lariat 350 crew cab PSD and I looked. Yeah its hard plastic, but it doesn't look cheap. Anyway, they asked me why it really matters as long as it looks good. They wanted to know who really sits there feeling up their dash. I was pretty much speechless, but I agreed. As long as it looks good, does it really matter what it feels like. I mean my Intrepid interior is all soft touch and Our 40000 F150 is hard plastic. The F150 doesn't look cheaper, and the super duty certainly does not. Soft touch for pats of the the doors is important, but thats about all.

i agree, as long as it looks good, interior is definitely not my # 1 priority.....its like # 4 or 5

[Watchdevil]

Intrepid interior is all soft touch...

 

It's very soft touch... It's very sheer injection molded vinyl with a very soft thin foam underneath. It also attributes to less squeeks and rattles and creaks in the dash. The same for the last generation Mustang. What is so bad is that the thin layer of foam foam underneath starts to crumble sooner and the eventually starts to split or distort

 

The GTI and the Fusion have a thick substantial firm foam that is slightly pliable and has a nice grain pattern. None of it looks wavy or distorted.

 

On the GTI it extends on upper door panel trim. Where the dash extends down and accross the lower stack the fit is exquisite and tight. It both looks and feels like quality.

 

What is plastic on the GTI is the body center console. It is made such that it is not flimsy in any sort of way and has a nice grain pattern that makes you forget it's plastic. The armrest is of corse covered in leather.

[NickF1011]

Uh, no you can not move the rear seats further back. You will lose headroom. I'm 5'5" (yeah, I'm short) and I can sit comfortably in the back seat. I figure at 5'8" or 5'9", you will run out of headroom. If you move the rear seat back even a couple of inches, I would probably run out of headroom. By the way, you can comfortably seat four people of 5'8" or less in the current model.

 

I like the rest of your suggestions.

 

The other issue with moving the rear seat back any further is where do you put the gas tank? Do you really want it under the trunk floor, right behind the rear bumper like on previous generation Mustangs? I doubt it. Moving the seats back any further would also require moving the shock towers rearward as well, which would be a complete mess.

[joihan777]

Any reason the back seat only has two seat belts?

 

Maybe they could put in a 3rd seatbelt in the backseat. I think the car

is wide enough to accomodate that, if only for small adults/children.

[NickF1011]

Any reason the back seat only has two seat belts?

 

Maybe they could put in a 3rd seatbelt in the backseat. I think the car

is wide enough to accomodate that, if only for small adults/children.

 

It's not wide enough for 3 seats. If you think it's wide enough, you've never been in the back of one.

[Biker16]

The other issue with moving the rear seat back any further is where do you put the gas tank? Do you really want it under the trunk floor, right behind the rear bumper like on previous generation Mustangs? I doubt it. Moving the seats back any further would also require moving the shock towers rearward as well, which would be a complete mess.

 

the tank is currently under the seat already. to be honest you could only move the seats back 3-6 inches because of a loss of head room with the fastback roof line, but you could add knee room.

 

again with a purpose built IRS floor pan, you would free up space taken by the swinging driveshaft for a reshaped fuel tank.

 

the shock could be eliminated completely like what we have in the fusion's IRS, or moved lower in the body.

 

what would the potential mustang buyer prefer? more rear legroom or more cargo space?

 

keep in mind this mustang would be exportable.

[NickF1011]

what would the potential mustang buyer prefer? more rear legroom or more cargo space?

 

I don't think anybody with those priorities anywhere on their radar aren't going to be looking at a Mustang in the first place.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

I don't think anybody with those priorities anywhere on their radar aren't going to be looking at a Mustang in the first place.

Come on Nick the back seat room is very important to a Mustang owner, what would you need more cargo room for? Somewhere to put the future Mother-in-law in before you bury her. I can see why Fords sales are slipping Biker 16 more cargo area in a Mustang get real, what next nappie tables in a Ferrari.

[ShockFX]

I don't think anybody with those priorities anywhere on their radar aren't going to be looking at a Mustang in the first place.

 

They aren't priorities. The are potential places where additions can be made. What if 70% of Mustang owners reacted positively to the idea of more leg room (provided nothing is sacrificed)? You can improve a car without changing the features people prioritize about it.

[NickF1011]

They aren't priorities. The are potential places where additions can be made. What if 70% of Mustang owners reacted positively to the idea of more leg room (provided nothing is sacrificed)? You can improve a car without changing the features people prioritize about it.

 

 

It would be impossible to improve leg room without sacrificing anything. You're either going to lose trunk space (which is at a premium already) or you are going to add significant weight. The S197 is an overweight pig as it is. I think you'll find the number of Mustang OWNERS complaining about rear leg room is far less than 70%. Nobody concerned with rear leg room buys them in the first place. Most Mustang owners look at the back seat as additional trunk space as opposed to an actual seating area anyway. It has always been that way.

 

I think the real solution to this problem is to offer a modern RWD SEDAN instead. Why compromise the Mustang to satisfy the small few who are looking for a more "executive coupe" type vehicle? A few more inches of leg room still isn't going to satisfy many people, so why do something half-assed? People looking for an actual useable back seat are likely never going to be content with ANY coupe arrangement.

Edited October 17, 2007 by NickF1011

[ShockFX]

It would be impossible to improve leg room without sacrificing anything. You're either going to lose trunk space (which is at a premium already) or you are going to add significant weight. The S197 is an overweight pig as it is. I think you'll find the number of Mustang OWNERS complaining about rear leg room is far less than 70%. Nobody concerned with rear leg room buys them in the first place. Most Mustang owners look at the back seat as additional trunk space as opposed to an actual seating area anyway. It has always been that way.

 

I think the real solution to this problem is to offer a modern RWD SEDAN instead. Why compromise the Mustang to satisfy the small few who are looking for a more "executive coupe" type vehicle? A few more inches of leg room still isn't going to satisfy many people, so why do something half-assed? People looking for an actual useable back seat are likely never going to be content with ANY coupe arrangement.

 

If the redesign stretched 2 inches, would you rather leg room or cargo space? That was the type of simple question. Agreed, if either is a priority you are looking at the wrong car.