What should replace the mustang?

[suv_guy_19]

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

 

 

Have you ever read the reviews of a v6 Mustang? I just did the other day. They loved it, everything about it, including the engine.

[Tico]

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!

 

 

All I am saying is extra weight eats horse power. Look at the Charger SRT8 vs. Mustang GT. Dodge has over 100 more HP but is about same on 0-60 times because it weighs like 600 lbs more! Many people on this thead have pointed out that the car's outside dementions could be a little smaller.....

Edited October 19, 2007 by Tico

[silvrsvt]

All I am saying is extra weight eats horse power. Look at the Charger SRT8 vs. Mustang GT. Dodge has over 100 more HP but is about same on 0-60 times because it weighs like 600 lbs more! Many people on this thead have pointed out that the car's outside dementions could be a little smaller.....

 

 

Well I wouldn't mind a lighter mustang myself, I'm completely fine with the current cars dimensions...then again I do have one (but haven't driven in over 6 weeks) so I'm just a little bias...

 

I'm sure how Ford can make the car smaller then it is without screwing up the cabin space it has now...which is fine for 2 people

[NickF1011]

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!

 

The main reason is SIZE and SIZE alone. Yes, safety and rigidity considerations certainly add their fair share, but the Mustang has gotten bigger (and heavier) with every generation since the Mustang II decided to downsize compared to the 73's. The current weight (and size) with the S197's is just on the edge of acceptable. They can't keep pushing the envelope even more with subsequent redesigns without risking losing what makes a Mustang a Mustang.

[JETSOLVER]

Speaking as a former Fox and SN-95 Cobra owner, the biggest thing I noticed about my type of stang owner, vs. the latest generation of Mustang owner, is a certain, er ,well, plushness(hold on, I'm talking in general here!!! )

 

As such, it seems to me that keeping to the traditional 2 door, long hood short deck,2+2, simple "PONY" car is going to be even harder as value added stuff is the main selling point on new cars, and new car buyers expect and demand(and pay for) more rather than less.

 

The question is can Ford afford to continue an anachronistic smaller volume car based on values that may be changing even faster than the platform(S) can be updated, or do they need to think long and hard about a new beginning, trading on the huge brand equity? Or perhaps even more-so, can they NOT afford to, even in the face of lower volumes(assume that the newer competitors and a moving demographic both mean the end of no competition for Mustang and Ford).

 

I wonder if a bit of history might not be a lesson here.

 

Mustang II was all about parts sharing, however it seems it was the wrong parts.

 

Fox/SN-95 was all about sharing as well, however the sedan it shared with was awful long lived and served the ,well, value conscious(?) Mustang buyer well.

 

Its painfully obvious that this gen (S-197) is not going to be nearly as long lived as the long suffering Fox/SN-95, if for no other reason than it shares critical parts with the now dead T-bird and LS. The economies of scale just won't allow it in the new age. Not at the current profit per unit. Hence the plethora of dubious content special and limited editions of a car designed to turn a profit at 20k.

 

Tough call, especially as Ford has made a couple of whoppers lately(500/Taurus and the pending end of the Panther without a ready to go replacement).

 

Interesting times indeed, with the age of slim margins having to do right in front of us.

Edited October 19, 2007 by JETSOLVER

[Biker16]

what if we made the mustang much smaller.

instead of fusion size we mde it Focus sized?

 

no longer than 175in and lept the weight down to about 3100 lbs?

 

how would the buyer respond to that?

[ANTAUS]

If thats the case, then make it a 2 seater because with the Mustangs current size, the backseat is best suited to midgets...

[rkisler]

what if we made the mustang much smaller.

instead of fusion size we mde it Focus sized?

 

no longer than 175in and lept the weight down to about 3100 lbs?

 

how would the buyer respond to that?

 

Biker, I think you need to think of the upcoming BMW 1 Series coupe which I think is going to be about 172 inches OAL. We'll get to see the couple version in the US early next year I think with a cabrio to follow.

 

It's a car I quite like, particularly with the twin turbo six which should go like a scalded cat.

 

And it looks great and offers better utility than the Z4. I have no idea what the rear seat package is.

 

But....even though I think it's nice car.....it's not a Mustang in my opinion.

 

And, unfortunately, Ford does not have a small RWD platform to build a product like this. If any attempt were made to try to start from a larger platform and "shrink" it the results would be unacceptable.

[jpd80]

Biker, I think you need to think of the upcoming BMW 1 Series coupe which I think is going to be about 172 inches OAL. We'll get to see the couple version in the US early next year I think with a cabrio to follow.

 

It's a car I quite like, particularly with the twin turbo six which should go like a scalded cat.

 

And it looks great and offers better utility than the Z4. I have no idea what the rear seat package is.

 

But....even though I think it's nice car.....it's not a Mustang in my opinion.

 

And, unfortunately, Ford does not have a small RWD platform to build a product like this. If any attempt were made to try to start from a larger platform and "shrink" it the results would be unacceptable.

 

GM will "match" BMW with the Alpha RWD platform but I think Ford is better served sticking with a FWD/AWD variant of the Focus RS. Perhaps a 2-door coupe with PAG turbo 6 and AWD.

Those cars are an entirely different market to the Mustang.

 

On topic,

Currently, the Mustang's length is 187" - that should be the absolute maximum.

Look at the relationship between the next Camaro's length 183" and its wheelbase 110.5"

Increasing wheelbase has a greater affect on the car's packaging than increasing overall length.

Problems with rear seat / fuel tank locations, IRS pickup points can be eliminated more easily.

Edited October 20, 2007 by jpd80

[sranger]

What a thread!!

 

The current Mustang is nearly perfect for me for a few reasons. I guess first of all I should say that I was born and raise by blue collar workers in Georgia, so I am a bit "red around the collar." However, MOST of the new Mustang GT's I see around town are owned by more upper middle class people. I guess I also fit into that classification. My choice came down to a 350z, Porsche Boxter, C6 Corvette, and the Mustang GT. Obviously I chose the Mustang over these others. Price alone was NOT the main reason as I imediately put in another 10K in performance/Appearance modifications. In my opinon it was simply the best looking and gave me the biggest smile when I test drove it...

 

1) I am 6' 4" at about 230lb and it is one of the few sporty cars that is very comfortable to drive. I have driven the car several times on 10-12hr road trips and find it to be very comfortable...

 

2) I loved the retro look as soon as I saw it... I believe the 2005+ is the best looking Pony ever built... I think to move back to the 2004 style would be a hugh mistake...

 

3) It is fairly cheap for the performance you get. Yea, it only has 300hp, but it is enough to have fun with and not so much that people who are not accustomed to high HP cars kill themselves with it. It also can take a lot of abuse without breaking. Try running a Porsche as hard as a Mustang and see which one breaks first. Also, if you want more HP, there are endless and fairly inexpensive performance options. The short block ( from the factory ) will handle between 500-550hp with out much risk. I added a 8psi Saleen S/C to mine and it makes a little over 400hp at the rear wheels and about 400ft-lb of torque. This is with a conservative 93 octane street tune. Through an automatic, that equates to about 500hp at the crank. Think about it. I added 200hp and it is more or less as reliable at is was stock. In fact, it is easy to drive every day. Most 500hp cars are a lot more termpermental. It also still gets reasonable gas milage. I get about 16-18mpg around town and about 22-24mpg on the highway from a 500hp car! Of course, you have to drive it like a normal car to get this type of milage. If you have a lead foot all of the time, the 39lb injectors will drain the tank in short order. I have about $40K in the car including custom painted rally stripes, custom wheels, performance tires, GT500 Fuel Pump, magnaflow Exhaust, etc... I do not know of a single car in that price range that can run a 12sec flat quarter and handle as well and much higher priced "sports cars".

 

4) Contrary to some opinon here, the car handles quite well. The factory tires are too small for the GT and cause a significant amoutn of under steer, but with a good set of performance tires on wider rims, this new pony can hold it's own with most sports cars including the new C6 Vetts and the Z cars. The difference is not as great as some people seem to think. If you are willing to swap the springs/shocks and replace the rubber bushing with poly bushings, it will beat many far more expensive "sports" cars in handling. The new chassis is better than many will admit...

 

Now it does have a few easy to fix flaws:

 

1) Better attention to assembly. The dash still squeeks and rattles as bad as the old ones.

2) The car badly needs more rust proofing.

3) Better brakes should at least be an option. ( yea there are many aftermarket sets )

4) There needs to be a few more soft surfaces on the door panels and center console.

5) The GT should be bumped up to 350hp and have forged pistons, rods and crank. That way you could easly add power up to 600hp without having to go inside the engine.

6) The V6 needs the new 3.7L with some high flowing heads and the same dual exhaust as the GT. I see no reason why this engine cannot make 280-300hp on regular gas without forced induction.

 

I have mixed feeling about an IRS. It will ride and handle a little better, but they are not typically as stong or reliable as a solid axle. They also cost more. The drag racer crowd will prefer a solid axle, road the track boys would prefer a IRS... Whay not make it an option???

[Biker16]

how about a mustang fast back like the Eleanor from gone in 60 seconds?

 

 

 

notice the proportions of the rear end.

 

the super short deck lid, the exaggerated fast design.

 

while we are at it why not the mustang a hatch back again?

[silvrsvt]

while we are at it why not the mustang a hatch back again?

 

 

Because the hatchback removes structural strength for the car...it removes the connection at the C-pillars thus weakening the side-impact strength of the car. Plus it would make the car more expensive to develop.

 

The Hatchback Focus* had this issue and I'm thinking this is part of the reason why it was dropped from the 08 redesign.

 

* this was heard 2rd hand from an SVT Engineering from a friend of mine who developed a brace for his SVT due to this shortcoming.

[Biker16]

Because the hatchback removes structural strength for the car...it removes the connection at the C-pillars thus weakening the side-impact strength of the car. Plus it would make the car more expensive to develop.

 

The Hatchback Focus* had this issue and I'm thinking this is part of the reason why it was dropped from the 08 redesign.

 

* this was heard 2rd hand from an SVT Engineering from a friend of mine who developed a brace for his SVT due to this shortcoming.

 

maybe, maybe not.

 

There are many cars and SUVs that seem to overcome this issue.

[silvrsvt]

There are many cars and SUVs that seem to overcome this issue.

 

 

Most SUVs are built off of frames and are not unibodies like cars.

 

Its not a "huge" issue, but if I remember correctly, the Hatchback Focus doesn't fare to well on the rear occupant side impact test and this might be the reason why...how does the sedan stack up?

[NickF1011]

Most SUVs are built off of frames and are not unibodies like cars.

 

Depends how you define "SUV". The vast majority of "utilities", including both SUV's and CUV's, are unit body.

[Biker16]

Most SUVs are built off of frames and are not unibodies like cars.

 

Its not a "huge" issue, but if I remember correctly, the Hatchback Focus doesn't fare to well on the rear occupant side impact test and this might be the reason why...how does the sedan stack up?

 

"Most SUVs are built off of frames and are not unibodies like cars."

 

are you sure?

 

the rear pasenger didn't fare well/ (3doorone star vs the 3 stars for the sedan.

 

why? the hatchback has very little foam behind the rear side panel.

 

[joihan777]

what if we made the mustang much smaller.

instead of fusion size we mde it Focus sized?

 

no longer than 175in and lept the weight down to about 3100 lbs?

 

how would the buyer respond to that?

 

As I am itching to get into a convertible Mustang, with wife approval no less, I'm telling you a smaller Mustang would be great. On the outside! The interior is just right for a Pony car. The current 2005+ Mustangs look great. If Ford simply did a little trimming, making the Mustang a little more aerodynamic they'd be set. Shave a an inch or two off the front and a few more in back and you'd be set.

 

But the Focus sized idea is too small IMHO.