Next Generation Mustang

[Tornado]

My prediction for the next mustang:

Will ride on a revised s197 platform(think FOX to SN95 changes)

Will add IRS in all models(maybe have a SRA in the entry level and/or a Mach 1)

Slightly smaller and lighter(chop the over hangs)

Overall styling will have 69-70 profile w/ slightly less or about the same amout ot retro stlying as the 2010

1) Base - 210hp-230hp EB2.0 4cyl

2) GT, SVO, or new name* - 300hp-330hp EB2.5-7 4,5,or6 cyl (Ford needs an all new engine here, would replace NA V-6s)

3) Mach1 or GT - 400hp 5.0l w/ solid rear axle tuned for softer ride

4) Boss - same as Mach/GT but with IRS and tuned for sporty ride

5) Cobra/Shelby - 550hp EB 5.0l w/ IRS

 

*Logiclly you would call the 300-330hp the GT but I don't know if that would go over well.

 

Pros: This gives a nice variety with only 3 different engine blocks. It will improve the CAFE numbers.

Cons: You will have to pay for V-8s

[NickF1011]

*Logiclly you would call the 300-330hp the GT but I don't know if that would go over well.

 

Don't see why not. That's barely an uptick over the current model, but, with the 5.0 probably taking the GT moniker next year, you're right.

 

I don't see there being a lack of a N/A V6 anytime soon either.

Edited July 22, 2009 by NickF1011

[calypsocoral]

Here is what I think the next Mustang lineup should look like...

 

If I were in charge!

 

Highlights:

 

1) The return of the LX trim, for a Mustang on the cheap.

 

2) The introduction of a "GS" trim for 4-and-6-cylinder models, reserving "GT" for the V8.

 

3) The BOSS 5.0-- a lightened GT with more performance upgrades than you can shake a stick at.

 

4) The Shelby GT-350-- a 400hp 3.5L EcoBoost V6, which the man himself has already expressed interest in.

 

5) Engine lineup consisting of 2.5L DI, 1.6L EcoBoost, 2.0L EcoBoost, 3.7L DI, 5.0L DI, and 3.5L EcoBoost.

 

6) A Hybrid Mustang-- The California Special, with a lightweight Lithium Polymer battery pack.

[NickF1011]

Here is what I think the next Mustang lineup should look like...

 

If I were in charge!

 

Highlights:

 

1) The return of the LX trim, for a Mustang on the cheap.

 

2) The introduction of a "GS" trim for 4-and-6-cylinder models, reserving "GT" for the V8.

 

3) The BOSS 5.0-- a lightened GT with more performance upgrades than you can shake a stick at.

 

4) The Shelby GT-350-- a 400hp 3.5L EcoBoost V6, which the man himself has already expressed interest in.

 

5) Engine lineup consisting of 2.5L DI, 1.6L EcoBoost, 2.0L EcoBoost, 3.7L DI, 5.0L DI, and 3.5L EcoBoost.

 

6) A Hybrid Mustang-- The California Special, with a lightweight Lithium Polymer battery pack.

 

Seems a bit overkill for a single vehicle, don't you think? Especially line item #5. 2.5 and 1.6? What would be the point?

 

As for the LX, well, I really don't see what they could axe out that would be acceptable for most buyers that would make a lick of difference in overall weight. It's not like the current GT has some cumbersome body kit that adds considerably to the weight as was the case in comparison to the last LX. Radio delete? Nobody would accept that. Crank windows? Simply not practical anymore from a cost/production standpoint. Remove sound deadening? See radio delete.

[joihan777]

Mustang Base: EB 2.0 I-4 @ 275hp

 

Mustang GT: EB 3.5 V6 @ 355hp , short run option of NA 4.6L V8 @ 315hp while supplies last

 

Mustang GT400: NA 5.0L V8 @ 400hp

 

???? Mustang GT500: EB 5.0L V8 @ 500hp+ ????

 

I kinda figured we don't see EB in all applications yet is due to capacity... but eventually most Mustangs will use them.

I believe that's one reason the new V6 is a NA 3.7 instead of the EB 3.5.

 

Also, a Mustang Hybrid needs to be created, eventually. So long as the 0-60 times are good there shouldn't be too much crying.

Edited July 22, 2009 by joihan777

[417strokers]

Wether a I 4 is a good idea depends on wether the car stays at 3600 pounds that is to heavy for a low power I 4. Mustang II and Fox with I 4 were under 3000 pounds . The reason Ford sells more mustangs than Chev and Dodge sell there pony cars is because the Mustang can be bought in a bread and butter series this is were all the numbers come from . I know a real car Guy don't want a I4 but if ford can make a profit selling the I 4 model then they chould make lots of them . There is no way that Ford should drop the V8 mustang or incorperate a japaniese chassies like they tryed with the probe . The probe is dead the mustang would be as well if it had went that way.

[calypsocoral]

Seems a bit overkill for a single vehicle, don't you think? Especially line item #5. 2.5 and 1.6? What would be the point?

 

As for the LX, well, I really don't see what they could axe out that would be acceptable for most buyers that would make a lick of difference in overall weight. It's not like the current GT has some cumbersome body kit that adds considerably to the weight as was the case in comparison to the last LX. Radio delete? Nobody would accept that. Crank windows? Simply not practical anymore from a cost/production standpoint. Remove sound deadening? See radio delete.

 

The way I wrote it, the 2.5 was only available on the LX model-- basically, because both up-front AND maintenance costs would be cheaper with the 2.5 than the 1.6 EcoBoost. For that matter, I should probably axe the 2.0 EcoBoost from the LX as well (leaving the 2.5, the 3.7, and the 5.0).

 

I put in the 1.6L EcoBoost for the sake of CAFE 2016, but, with 180 hp, I figured it was more than quick enough for a Mustang.

 

On the other hand, Nick, I guess if someone can splurge for the extras in my "GS" trim, they can afford the fuel cost for a 3.7 and the maintenance cost of a 2.0 EcoBoost.

 

So, yeah, I guess in the end you're right-- it doesn't need a 1.6 EcoBoost.

 

AFTER 2016, however...

[atomaro]

Remember, that is the same or more HP than the 199-2004 GT!!!!

 

 

Don't get hung up on peak numbers. The entire powerband and torque is what matters.

 

 

Did I read something about a Mustang hybrid a few posts back?? RUH...cancel the vehicle before that happens.

Edited July 23, 2009 by atomaro

[Tornado]

I am going to refine my line up to reduce it to just 2 engine blocks:

1) Base - NA 2.7L 5 or 6Cyl - 240hp+/- (all new I5 or destroked 3.5L V6)

2) GT, SVO or new name - same as above but with EB - 340hp+/-

3) GT or Mach1 - NA 5.0L - 400hp+ w/ SRA tuned for soft/drag oriented ride

4) Boss - NA 5.0L - 400hp+ w/ IRS tuned for cornering

5) Cobra or Shelby - same as above but with EB - 550hp+/-

 

The problem with this line up is if the base 2011 Mustang comes with a 275+ 3.7L, my line up will be a step down. Frankly, I think the 3.7L is too much for the lowly base model. I know people will balk at that statement, but people who buy base model 'stang do it mostly for it's looks and don't care how fast it is. I know the 4.0L needs to go and the 3.5L and 3.7L are the only choices. I would like Ford to offer a 3.5L tuned for the best gas mileage with about 250hp.

On a side note, does anyone think this RWD 3.7L is the Lincoln engine(bored out 3.5L) or could it be a stroked version of the 3.5L for more torque, for split duty as the base F150 engine, replacing the 2V 4.6?

Edited July 23, 2009 by Tornado

[StevenCaylor]

Am I the only one who would like to have 3 Mustang models again. In addition to the current fastback and convertable models, bring back the coupe. For decades, one advantage the Mustang had over the other pony cars was a model with a decent back seat. Our 1st Mustang was a 65 coupe that was my mother's car, and thus, the family car for the four of us.

 

As to drivetrains

 

Base - 3.7 NA

SFE - 2.0 EB

SVO - 3.5 EB

GT - 5.0 NA

GT500 - 5.0 EB

 

All with 6-speed manuals and autos.

[ice-capades]

With all this talk about the next generation Mustang and possible powertrains I have to share a few thoughts based on my experience in the business in the mid-1980's.

 

In the mid-1980's the CAFE requirements had a major impact on the vehicles that were produced and available to Ford Dealers. The CAFE situation was so critical that Ford knew exactly how many Escorts it had to build and sell in order to build a single Crown Victoria, Mustang GT, etc. At the time, most Ford Dealers could count on one hand how many Mustang GT's they'd get in a Model Year.

 

Unfortunately, with the new CAFE standards being phased in over the next few years, Ford and all manufacturers are going to be forced to push the technological envelope fast along with downsizing vehicles and putting new fuel efficiency technology into production. To Ford's long term benefit, thanks to CEO Alan Mulally, its years ahead of most competitors in introducing the next generation of fuel effiecient engines/powertrains to help it meet the future CAFE standards.

 

Although my CT dealership sells mostly Mustang GT's, nationwide the majority of Mustangs sold are the V6 models. For many years through the 1980's the base engine in a Mustang was a 4-cylinder with the 6-cylinder being an upgrade before reaching the GT's traditional V8. With today's technology there's no reason why the next generation base Mustang couldn't use a new 4-cylinder or EcoBoost version as its base powertrain that would provide both the performance and fuel efficiency that most buyers will be looking for along with the benefits of helping Ford meet the new CAFE requirements without requiring the production limitations of the past.

 

Thanks for reading!

[mettech]

best torque = electric.

 

A I4 or V6 EcoBoost with electric assist on a AWD platform.. 0-60 5.5 sec

Tesla speed with Fusion MPG.

[plev72]

I thought Ford was trying to streamline the engine offerings...

 

I would expect to see ---

 

2.0EB will probably have slightly bumpted HP by then... maybe 250? Shared as SVT engine for Fiesta and high end engine for Focus, base engine for Fusion, base engine for Ranger replacement (?) --- http://wot.motortrend.com/6560835/auto-new...gine/index.html

3.0EB or 3.5EB for 350HP SVT engine for Focus (?) SVT engine for Fusion (?) base or optional engine for anything bigger (Taurus, Ranger, Explorer, F150 etc).

5.0 minor updates for power and fuel economy to ~425HP

Then who knows for specialty engines... a 5.0EB I would think could easily be good for 600? (Good for new SVT Lightning w/ 650hp?)

[96stang4.6]

I think that the 80s and early 90s can give some good ideas for the next generation mustang. Give it an Lx model with a V8 that is stripped down of all the fancy do dads and make it cheaper than the GT or if you want fancy do dads and styling go for a GT model with a V8 include a top model such as a cobra or and an economical eco boost 4cyl SVO. I think also if you get rid of the V8 you will also get rid of one of the fun factors for enthusists of mustang or sportscars period. I hope they dont give it some styling from the 1974-1978 mustangs.

[97svtgoin05gt]

I'd like to see it smaller/lighter/tighter with no excess overhang.

 

 

That looks pretty cool. A few tweaks and I think its a winner.

[syrtran]

2) GT, SVO, or new name* - 300hp-330hp EB2.5-7 4,5,or6 cyl (Ford needs an all new engine here, would

 

SVO - 3.5 EB

 

economical eco boost 4cyl SVO.

 

Not picking on you guys, just using you to illustrate a point. To this day, people don't understand what the SVO was. The SVO wasn't just a turbo-4 Mustang. That was the '84-'85 GT Turbo. The SVO was a streetable race car - no, not Trans-Am, it was designed for the SCCA B-production class, which allowed you to upgrade the stock engine or suspension, but not both. Like Carroll Shelby's GT-350 or Ford's own Boss 302, Ford Motorsports (aka SVO) chose a high-performance suspension and an 'upgradeable' engine. In B-Prod, the SVO competed with other turbo-4s (Porsche 924s/944s, Saab 99s) and normally-aspirated V8s (Camaros, Mustangs, Vettes).

 

From what I can figure from the rumors here and elsewhere, the proposed EB Mustang will be more like the GT Turbo than the SVO - i.e., a 3.5EB V6 with GT suspension. In order to create a 'modern' SVO, Ford would need a 300-350 HP EB engine (preferably a 4, but more likely the V6) and the suspension from the FR500S (*). Oh, yeah - it would also need to be restyled with a more aerodynamic front end.

 

Otherwise, my lineup would look like this:

 

Mustang - 3.5 V6 N/A (or EB I4, if possible)

 

Mustang GT Turbo, GT Ecoboost, or, possibly, just GT - 3.5 V6 EB

 

Mustang GT (if we need to separate this from above, then this becomes the Mach 1) - 5.0 V8 N/A

 

Cobra/GT500 - whatever's better than the coyote.

 

 

Ford needs to stay away from the SVO name unless they're willing to make a "true" SVO that can handle like the Z06, is livable on the street, and can be entered into the Koni Challenge series.

 

 

(*) Oddly enough, what used to be Special Vehicle Operations is now Ford Racing.

[syrtran]

Wether a I 4 is a good idea depends on wether the car stays at 3600 pounds that is to heavy for a low power I 4. Mustang II and Fox with I 4 were under 3000 pounds . The reason Ford sells more mustangs than Chev and Dodge sell there pony cars is because the Mustang can be bought in a bread and butter series this is were all the numbers come from . I know a real car Guy don't want a I4 but if ford can make a profit selling the I 4 model then they chould make lots of them . There is no way that Ford should drop the V8 mustang or incorperate a japaniese chassies like they tryed with the probe . The probe is dead the mustang would be as well if it had went that way.

Just FYI: an I4 Mustang, whether EB or NA, would be less than or about equal in weight to the V6, which is 3400 lbs. The SVO is about 3100 lbs. and the engine is rated 205 HP / 248 TQ.

[417strokers]

The problem of using a turbo on the low line engines is the cost goes through the roof . There is no such thing as a cheep turbo even the ones they use on a snowmobile are at least $5000.00 extra . IF you add that to the cost of a low line mustang the price will be out of reach for most entry level buyers.

[the_spaniard]

Please, move away from the retro-theme. Do another one in another 50 years, until then, give us a modern car, inside and out.

 

Keep the V6, and the V8 for the GT.

 

Make it lighter, more balanced, and add AWD as an option.

 

Please give the GT a six-speed option.

[plev72]

somehow I can't ever see AWD being an option on the Mustang --- adding weight for what purpose? winter drivability??? Maybe if they wanted to make a lux version w/ different sheet metal as a lincoln I could see AWD...

[Tico]

Thanks for all the comments. But a little redirect here on the conversation:

 

1. Forget the IRS / Live Axel discussion. That topic has been beat to death. There are dozens of threads already about this argument. We will not settle anything by rehashing it.

 

2. Forget the engine speculations. I think it is hard to guess what the 2014 or 15 models will have under the hood, but we all have an idea what engines Ford will have in the stable by then. Guessing which ones will be offered on the 2014 or 15 Stang is futile. Even Ford will change it's mind 10 times between now and then.

 

3. FOCUS ON THE SHEET METAL DIMENSIONS AND POSSIBLE PLATFORMS. I think this is the area that is hardest to predict. If they change platforms what options does for have? Someone mentioned Falcon? If the car gets smaller what platform will it be on? If it looks more modern what will it look like?

 

FOCUS ON THE SHEET METAL, DIMENSIONS AND POSSIBLE PLATFORMS!!! Photo shops would be cool.

 

Ideas?

[calypsocoral]

FOCUS ON THE SHEET METAL, DIMENSIONS AND POSSIBLE PLATFORMS!!! Photo shops would be cool.

Ideas?

 

Hi Tico,

 

Yeah, I certainly get your point.

 

Sheet Metal-- truthfully, I'm pretty happy with the 2010 Mustang sheetmetal-- I think the 2005 was a little too retro. The 2010 re-skin gives it a more 21st-century appearance. To all the guys who want to completely ditch the "retro" theme, I say "Be careful what you wish for!"

 

What I like about the 2005 and 2010 models is that they look like a Mustang-- they cannot possibly be mistaken for anything else.

 

Even Nissan's 370Z has a bit of the old Datsun Z-car in its design DNA.

 

As for dimensions, I don't think it will get any bigger-- I think we have once again reached that point in automotive history where things need to downsize in order to reach a government mandate. Just like 1974. Ford needs to be careful not to make a Mustang II, though. Steer clear of hatchback, sedan, wagon, or "4-door coupe" (*cringe*) body formats-- DON'T WATER DOWN THE FORMULA!!!!!

 

I would absolutely love to see a new platform, loosely based off of a downsized Falcon platform, roughly correlating with the size of a BMW 3-series. Ford would use it for the Mustang. Lincoln could use a slightly-stretched version as a Mark IX coupe and a REAL LS successor (the name "Premier" comes to mind).

[silvrsvt]

Sheet Metal-- truthfully, I'm pretty happy with the 2010 Mustang sheetmetal-- I think the 2005 was a little too retro. The 2010 re-skin gives it a more 21st-century appearance. To all the guys who want to completely ditch the "retro" theme, I say "Be careful what you wish for!"

 

What I like about the 2005 and 2010 models is that they look like a Mustang-- they cannot possibly be mistaken for anything else.

 

I think the who retro thing and the Mustang have been overrated...look at the Mustang over the years..the only mustang that really didn't look like a Mustang was the 79-94 Models, but in the early 1990s, more of the classic styling elements that should be on the Mustang made a come back on the fox Mustang.

 

Look at the 911 as to what direction Mustang Styling should go, improving upon the basic shape it has.

[jtstakelin]

Ok here is what I think:

1) keep the s197 chassis and bring the "track pack" down to all versions of the mustang

2) Engines: 3.7L 280HP V6, 3.5L EB 365HP (Call this an ST), 5.0L 400+HP V8 (GT and tweek it with a shaker for a Mach 1 return) 6.2L NA 550+ HP V8 (cobra, be done with F/I for a change. I'm tired of the first thing out of the GM boys mouth being "Ford can't make power with out F/I")

3) Styling, change the car to a true fastback. go off the Iococca Anniversary Mustang. Just work on the lines to make it flow better

4) KEEP THE SRA SETUP!!!! A mustang isn't a mustang with IRS. This is what keeps the price of our cars down. Just add the track pack features and be done.

5) For pete's sake move the fog lights out of the grill and move them to the bumper. I have always disliked the fogs in the gill on the S197 cars. Look at how clean the V6 2010 pony package looks compared to a GT.

 

That is all I can think of. I LOVE my V6 S197 and hope to keep it for a very long time. Keep of the hard work Ford. We can't sit back and just hang out for 7 years like we have. The camaro coming back is the best thing to happen to the mustang in a long time. Now we need to get ahead of it and stay out in front.

[akirby]

3.5L EB 365HP (Call this an ST), 5.0L 400+HP V8 (GT and tweek it with a shaker for a Mach 1 return)

 

You guys keep missing the point. The EB3.5L in a RWD vehicle with a RWD tranny will put out at least 380 hp - possibly closer to 400 hp. It has to be torque limited for the 6F55 tranny in the D3s. In the mustang there would be no torque limitation. I also don't think the production 5.0L will be quite 400 hp but I could be wrong.

 

I don't see a need for 2 380-390 hp engines, especially when the EB3.5L could be used in other applications where the 5.0L could not.