What should replace the mustang?

[BORG]

I just want a more civilized Mustang, not something quite so pure. I'm not sure I would buy one, but I'm probably going to be more enthused by the forthcoming Camaro and it's substantially more advanced chassis (and pricier one). The Mustang is a nice product for its market, but I'm not in its market in its current form.

[jpd80]

If Ford can pull off a bigger Mustang without losing the characteristics that make it a Mustang, more power to them.....I just don't see how they can. As I've stated many times already, I think the current Mustang is already pushing the reasonable limits in size for a pony car.

 

If the Huntsman platform ends up being as flexible as we predict, then perhaps it wouldn't be too much to expect an intermediate coupe to slot between the fullsize sedan and the Mustang that could address many of the issues being brought up here. New Thunderbird perhaps? If they could pull THAT off, we'd all win. The Mustang would be free to return to its smaller, more intimate roots, and those wanting a more comfortable, larger coupe would have a suitable option as well.

I think the Mustang's wheelbase will grow but overall length will remain the same.

Know your enemy:

 

SPECIFICATIONS - CHEVROLET CAMARO CONCEPT

Vehicle type: two-door, four-passenger rear-wheel drive sport coupe

Wheelbase (in / mm): 110.5 / 2806

Length (in / mm): 186.2 / 4730

Width (in / mm): 79.6 / 2022

Height (in / mm): 53 / 1344

Track (in / mm): 63.8 / 1620 front; 63.3 / 1607 rear

Engine: 6.0-L V-8 LS-2, 400 hp / 298 kw, with Active Fuel Management

Transmission: six-speed manual T56

Suspension: four-wheel independent: MacPherson strut front, multilink rear, progressive rate coil springs, gas-pressurized dampers

Brakes: four-wheel disc, 15" rotors with four-piston calipers

Wheels: cast aluminum, 21" front, 22" rear

Tires: 275/30R21 front, 305/30R22 rear

[Biker16]

Wider, shorter, taller? You looking to build the Ford Mustang Five Hundred?

 

It's one thing to try to please more customers, but if pleasing more customers sacrifices what made the car successful in the first place, you may as well build a completely different car. What you are describing ends up being a Mustang only in name. What it really is, is more of an intermediate personal coupe more like the MN12 Thunderbirds and Cougars. Those were fine cars, but they weren't Mustangs.

I am not trying to please more customers i am trying to make out current customers as happy as possible. By nature that may mean making the car better, GOD FORBID.

 

I mean the definition of pony car has changed greatly over the last 40 years. so much so that there is only one pony car left.

 

Ask the question, why is the mustang still around, and the camaro, firebird, and challenger aren't?

 

in the last few years of the camaro, It was evident that the mustang was more practical, more space and more comfort than the Camaro. even though it had less power. people liked it more, it was easier to live with, more comfortable, more modern.

 

how does shorter = the DOA 500?

 

There is a reason for the height is for a more expressive roofline without loosing head room.

 

the width is for larger tires and more aggressive stance, also to make it easier to share underpinnings with a larger vehicle.

[NickF1011]

I am not trying to please more customers i am trying to make out current customers as happy as possible. By nature that may mean making the car better, GOD FORBID.

 

I mean the definition of pony car has changed greatly over the last 40 years. so much so that there is only one pony car left.

 

Ask the question, why is the mustang still around, and the camaro, firebird, and challenger aren't?

 

in the last few years of the camaro, It was evident that the mustang was more practical, more space and more comfort than the Camaro. even though it had less power. people liked it more, it was easier to live with, more comfortable, more modern.

 

how does shorter = the DOA 500?

 

There is a reason for the height is for a more expressive roofline without loosing head room.

 

the width is for larger tires and more aggressive stance, also to make it easier to share underpinnings with a larger vehicle.

 

More modern is fine. But bigger, bigger, bigger isn't the answer by any means. The Mustang survived because it was the only one that REMAINED TRUE to the original. It has kept its size and layout similar for over 40 years. When did Mustang sales drop in the past? When it got too large.

[rkisler]

This is quite an interesting thread. You might think that Mustang would be one of the easiest cars for Ford to plan as it seems well defined. But, as the comments on this thread indicate, opinions on Mustang are wider ranging than you might think, and there is often a lot of strong opinions and shouting.

 

Let's start at the beginning. Let's assume that there is an opportunity to hop on to a new global RWD platform around 2012 -- or not. The first basic question that needs to be answered is "what do we want the Mustang to be?" Not as easy as it seems. Questions could include things like:

• Do we keep the Mustang as a traditional pony car? Or make it more like, say, a 3-series which provides great performance with smaller engines?
  
• What is the relevance (and sales) of pony cars going to be over the 2012-2020 time period for the platform with increased demands for fuel economy and perhaps a shift in thinking among the population in their attitudes toward big V8's?
  
• Is there room for a 4-door "coupe" model?
  
• And on, and on, and on.
  

Let's assume Ford decides to continue with a traditional V8 powered pony car with traditional Mustang cues.

 

The vehicle architecture of the Mustang is actually quite unique. In most cars, a lot of the engineering effort takes place in the front of the car as you have to worry about engine package, front suspension, and crash performance. But in the Mustang, the rear is also critical and takes a lot of time to sort out. The Mustang has a distinctive sloped rear that drives the rear passengers down to ensure enough head room. But the rear passengers are sitting on top of the fuel tank, and there has to be clearance for the suspension and hopefully for the lowest restriction exhaust possible. So you can think of the critical area of the Mustang as being around the butts of the rear passengers.

 

Every time you try to move things around in the rear of the Mustang, they tend to snap back into place based on other concerns.

 

Biker, you are correct that an IRS would certainly help. But maybe not as much as you think. You can eliminate the area where the axle and driveshaft is hopping up and down, but you still need room for the drive shaft, differential (which is stationary), the halfshafts, and the more complicated geometry. S197 was originally designed with a blade-type IRS similar to C170. The Mustang team and FoA worked for over a year to try to pull together a common design but failed, so simply adopting Orion's IRS might not work. jpd80 mentioned having a live axle with IRS optional. This was done with both the Fox Cobra and the Falcon. But it's a compromise as you can't gain back the space you gave up for the live axle, you compromise the geometry of the IRS, and you pay big bucks on a unit basis for the limited volume. Hopefully any new Mustang would have IRS standard, but you'll still hear whining from the drag racing crowd.

 

Let's assume there is a Huntsman platform that starts with a 4-door sedan (i.e., next gen Falcon). The first question will be "what bits can I adopt from the prior platform to save cost?" Maybe the new front suspension, maybe the rear? Who knows, but it would be examined in detail. Making a Mustang from a new 4-door platform is not a piece of cake. You can't just make it into a coupe, and you can't just shorten the wheelbase. jpd80, you might be aware that FoA took a crack at a Falcon based Mustang, but it looked more like a Commodore coupe than it did a Mustang. To make a Mustang requires a totally new rear end including floor pan and structure. And, as I mentioned, the suspension is problematic -- even with a blade suspension, the forward mount is not easy to package due to the relatively short distance between the rear suspension and the door opening. And the rear package for people, fuel, exhaust, suspension, and luggage will have to be sorted out. But even this isn't enough -- when you put it all together, the exterior has to say "Mustang" a couple of blocks away. Biker, I think this is where you might run into problems with your ideas -- proportions are key to Mustang styling, and taller, shorter might not work out well. I think it might be kind of frumpy.

 

More to come I'm sure including whether or not Ford believes there is a need for a new GRWD platform in North America.

[jpd80]

Well said Austin,

Standing at the crossroads, Ford has to decide whether they want to go the Zeta route and have all of its RWD cars on one architecture or is it more feasable to work with common parts and supply lines.

The Falcon sedan and it's CUV sibling, the Territory have only 40% carry over. If we were to look across Falcon, Mustang, Territory and a LWB sedan like Fairlane, that 40% carry over starts to look good. Even though this seems low, it's actually quite necessary to maintain the identity and integrity of design for each vehicle.

 

Sharing powertrains, electrical systems and suspensions may yield as much savings as trying to do a Zeta platform. Ford may be better off forging closer links between Aussie and North American products but not at the expense of uniqueness.

 

Edit,

A Falcon coupe is not a Mustang and an Aussie Fairlane is not a Crown Victoria.

Ford North America must decide which vehicle languages it actually needs.

Edited October 18, 2007 by jpd80

[CPBroncoBoy]

cool "FORD POWER" push to start button.

 

Turning on a playstation doesn't have the same effect to me as turning a key and hearing an engine roar to life.... maybe I'm weird?

[ShockFX]

Turning on a playstation doesn't have the same effect to me as turning a key and hearing an engine roar to life.... maybe I'm weird?

 

Some of those first gen Xbox 360s were so loud it might as well have been an engine roaring to life.

[LincolnFan]

Some of those first gen Xbox 360s were so loud it might as well have been an engine roaring to life.

 

Play TES IV: Oblivion, and you can actually hear a chainsaw!

 

Oh, the Xbox360 note is way off. It sounds like an 80s Toyota engine, thrashy and lame.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Turning on a playstation doesn't have the same effect to me as turning a key and hearing an engine roar to life.... maybe I'm weird?

 

Not at all. There is something about being connected to the car that you can't get from pressing a button. The idea was cool when it was limited to high end cars like the Aston-Maritn. Sort of like James Bond in that car. It just doesn't translate to moderate priced cars the same way. I think it is cheap.

[SysEng]

I think the Mustang's wheelbase will grow but overall length will remain the same.

Know your enemy:

 

SPECIFICATIONS - CHEVROLET CAMARO CONCEPT

...

Width (in / mm): 79.6 / 2022

...

 

You know this width number for a fact? :eek5:

 

'Cuz it means Chev need merely add about 10" to the wheel base...

 

...and Presto... direct competition for "panthers" and DCX C300s

 

Which means Fords gameplan for RWD better include some serious

updates to the "panthers"...

[LincolnFan]

Not at all. There is something about being connected to the car that you can't get from pressing a button. The idea was cool when it was limited to high end cars like the Aston-Maritn. Sort of like James Bond in that car. It just doesn't translate to moderate priced cars the same way. I think it is cheap.

 

Yeah, I can say the same about usings keys. Why not just go back to cranking?

[ShockFX]

Yeah, I can say the same about usings keys. Why not just go back to cranking?

 

Keys injure people's knees in car accidents. It's a safety feature to not have them on the side of the steering wheel.

[jpd80]

Keys injure people's knees in car accidents. It's a safety feature to not have them on the side of the steering wheel.

You'll notice most ignition locks are slightly recessed now, the key head is soft plastic and the lower steering column covers

are trapezoid or oval in shape. These measures help to deflect the knee area away from the key and if a key strike occurrs,

it's mainly on the soft plastic of the key head.

[kevinb120]

cry all you want about 'mustang handling', I had a BMW 5 series loose it and smash the guardrail behind me the other day trying to keep up with me on an on ramp.... :shades:

[silvrsvt]

cry all you want about 'mustang handling', I had a BMW 5 series loose it and smash the guardrail behind me the other day trying to keep up with me on an on ramp.... :shades:

:ohsnap:

[NickF1011]

You know this width number for a fact? :eek5:

 

'Cuz it means Chev need merely add about 10" to the wheel base...

 

...and Presto... direct competition for "panthers" and DCX C300s

 

Which means Fords gameplan for RWD better include some serious

updates to the "panthers"...

 

It has all but been directly confirmed that the next Impala will use the same platform, so yeah, direct competition is certainly returning.

 

Forget the "serious updates" to the Panthers...they need an all-out replacement pronto.

[Biker16]

cry all you want about 'mustang handling', I had a BMW 5 series loose it and smash the guardrail behind me the other day trying to keep up with me on an on ramp.... :shades:

 

drivers make the difference.

 

It has all but been directly confirmed that the next Impala will use the same platform, so yeah, direct competition is certainly returning.

 

Forget the "serious updates" to the Panthers...they need an all-out replacement pronto.

 

 

I think We would expect the mustang to keep it's own floorpan, and other structural members.

 

As we know th demands of the 160,000 unit mustang are special. The convertible being something that would necessitate a standalone floorpan, that would not be shared with a sedan or CUV the volume of th mustang makes it affordable not to share.

 

What you would share would be the frontal crash structures, Front and rear sub-frames and suspensions, powerpacks (engine/ transmissions) , motor mounts, electrical architectures, interior bits, and other logical things.

 

The Explorer/territory would also require, a standalone floorpan and modified IFS and IRS systems, but its volumes ,at 180,000+ are high enough to make that affordable.

 

with another 180,000 for the sedans we do have enough commonality to make it work, and maintain the identity of our high volume models. model.

Edited October 19, 2007 by Biker16

[ShockFX]

drivers make the difference.

 

Learn 2 apex teh turns!

[Watchdevil]

A quad coupe might work...but not as a Mustang.

 

I didn't say anything about it being a Mustang... I would never suggest such a thing. Just a quad coupe as a Ford offering in general...

 

By the way I am up visiting in Michigan as a type. The GTI was great on the trip. It was cool to see the AAI plant on the way in. It was also cool to see all the names of places I recognize from so many years of reading automotive journalism.

 

It's really nice here in Saint Clair watching the ships go by and seeing Canada right accross the river. I cannot get over how blue the water is...

Edited October 19, 2007 by Watchdevil

[goinbroke2]

The mustang, no matter what it's next form is, cannot be heavier/bigger or ricer. And by ricer I mean it can't go FWD or screeming 4cyl turbo.

Bigger and heavier is not "pony" it's "cruiser" if you will. Build a small light mustang and use oversize underpinning from a larger RWD intermediate. (like a galaxie 9" in a small mustang was) Make it handle well but not try and compete with corvettes or miata's. It is a pony car, not a supercar or a corner burner. It has to be fun to drive, women have to like it, and guys have to be able to compete with other pony cars. And if the other "pony" cars get heavier and bigger like they did last time...they will die off again and the mustang will be the lone pony car once again. More than once the camaro was faster/quicker/had a bigblock/whatever, but the mustang was more appealing to not only guys wanting to race, but women buying 6 cyl auto's and sold more. Yes the LS1 camaro was faster/quicker...and cost a lot more and was way heavier. We know the results of that!

 

How many GT v8 mustangs sell compared to 6's? I actually don't know but I would suspect GT's would sell a lot less than bread and butter 6's.

 

Whine all you want about fox's, but when ford started selling stripper lx's with GT drivetrains, by 88 you couldn't keep them in stock. I still have the newspaper add from toronto "0 to 130mph for $11,999".

 

It's a pony car, concentrate on light/good handling cars the masses want that are fun to drive and can be optioned up. A bare bones stripper 6 cyl for a college kid that can add custom wheels/stripes/chrome as they can afford it would appeal to the masses. If they can afford more they check off more boxes. And if you want a loaded GT convert with all the bells and whistles then that can be optioned too, but it will cost a lot more.

 

Oh, and by the way, as long as it's a mustang, or has RWD it will be drag raced on the weekends. Don't kid yourselves, check out fun ford weekends or nhra or ihra. (nhra has the LARGEST motorsport membership in the world bar NONE)!

[Tico]

The Mustang did not survive 40+ years by having the most horse power or the meanest sheet metal or the latest technolgy. It survived by giving the customer the most bang for the buck. Yes it needs a new higher HP better MPG V6 yesterday. Yes the GT needs 50 more HP and cylinder deactivation to keep up with the competition. Yes IRS woudl be nice. But no we don't need the V6 to cost $27K and the GT to run $35K. Mustang has almost always cost less than comparably equipped competition. Ford must not lose that edge. If you want IRS offer it on a a model just above the GT, unless you can do it and stay priced well below the GM and Mopar pony cars. I agree with making the car smaller (lighter). Mustangs of the late 80s / early 90s were almost 500 lbs lighter than the current car. You can make up for a lot of horse power simply by shaving a few hundred pounds off the car. See current MOPAR V8 cars for example of what I mean in reverse. Finally, Mustang should go after the youth market more like the imports do with options that apeal to the under 40 crowd. This will sell more cars than a 450 HP IRS limited edition that only 55 year old empty nesters can afford.

 

To summarize keep Mustang what it always has been: small, cheap and fast!

[silvrsvt]

How many GT v8 mustangs sell compared to 6's? I actually don't know but I would suspect GT's would sell a lot less than bread and butter 6's.

 

 

Since the 05 Restyle, the V8 are selling better then expected...around %50 of sales!

[ShockFX]

Since the 05 Restyle, the V8 are selling better then expected...around %50 of sales!

 

Probably because the V6 is a terrible engine and the GT is affordably priced.

[silvrsvt]

Mustangs of the late 80s / early 90s were almost 500 lbs lighter than the current car.

 

 

No airbags and a flexible flyer chassis are the main reason why...

 

I don't get why people are bitching about weight, ALL cars have gained weight in the past 10-15 years due to tougher crash standards/safety equipment and electronics used in car. The new Scion xB weighs over 3000lbs and thats a b-sized car!