Should the Mustang Have Gone This Route

[F250]

1974 Anyone?

 

And Ford realized they screwed up not offering a V8 that year so they re-designed the hood, grille panel and a lot more to get the 302 V8 to fit in it for the following year. A lot of changes on a brand new car because they didn't intend to put a V8 in the Mustang II when it was originally designed.

[F250]

some things obviously SHOULD NOT be changed.....the Mustang and 911 have identities pretty much set in stone...if they ever deny a V8 in the Mustang it will be a sad day indeed...sure, go ahead and embrace "technology" to appese those inclined, but never ignore the purity of an icon...Mustang should ALWAYS offer RWD and a V8....always....

 

Well said.

[mettech]

It would be interesting to see a 3.5 EB AWD Fusion Sport vs a 2010 Mustang GT.

 

I believe that Ford has lost sales on the Fusion in order to protect the Mustang name.

 

 

The 3.5 EB in the Mustang GT would improve that car dramatical. :happy feet:

 

Less front weight

Better braking

Better handling

Better MPG

Better run times.

 

 

Keep the 5.4L for the Snake, but replace the 4.6 GT with the 3.5L EB.

 

4.6L V-8 = 315 hp and 325 lbs.-ft of torque

 

 

What does the 4.6 do that the 3.5 EB can't?

Edited November 10, 2009 by mettech

[351cid]

That was . . . . .not funny deanh.

 

 

I saw the post about the boosted 3.9 V8 and that is very interesting to me. I would like to see that.

 

 

Now as for the debate about making Mustang smaller than it currently is.

 

Let's all try to remember that the orginal idea of the Mustang was to make a small, affordable sports coupe. When the orginal Mustang came out in 65 it was considered a small car. By comparison to the cars of that era it was a small car. It was in fact a compact car by the standards of that era. That was the whole idea, small, lightweight, fun to drive, affordable.

 

Over the decades since then, cars across the automotive spectrum have gotten smaller (trucks is another issue). Yet even as sedans and other cars were getting collectively smaller the Mustang and Camaro / Firebird did not. This was because they had a following and that following demanded that those cars not change. They liked them the way they were, they didn't want the cars to change, not in size, not in configuration. So even though they were regarded as small cars in 65 and 67, because they didn't change with the times they are by all accounts rather large cars today. Even the "new" Camaro and Challenger are pretty large cars in keeping with their heritage.

 

If, however, Mustang had remained true to it's original idea more than to its original configuration we would right now be looking at Mustangs the size of say a Focus coupe, or a Civic coupe, because those are the current iteration of what constitutes a small compact car in this country. So, the truth of the matter is (IMO) Deanh is actually a more true Mustang enthusiast than most of the rest of you because he wants the tweaked out Focus.

 

Now the Focus is FWD though. I would submit that if Ford was truely remaining faithful to the orginal Mustang "idea" then we would be lookng at a RWD Focus size car with maybe a "boosted 3.9" for instance. Now that would be interesting wouldn't it. But would it sell? That's the real question.

 

 

With each generation; the Mustang had gotten larger and heavier until the 1974 Mustang II. A 1972 Mustang is almost as large as a 1972 Torino. I know this because I have a Torino ansd one of my best friends has a 1972 Mustang.

[mettech]

 

I had a '72 fastback in '79. Looked great.

[351cid]

 

I had a '72 fastback in '79. Looked great.

 

 

I'm in the midst of a major rebuild and converting a 73 into a 72 (sheet metal wise). My website will explain what I'm doing. I haven't updated in a while, but the car is a rolling chassis now with the full dash installed. Running gear is a 351C , T-5 tranny, and a 3.55 rear gear. http://mysite.verizon.net/vzepjcaa/

[silvrsvt]

It would be interesting to see a 3.5 EB AWD Fusion Sport vs a 2010 Mustang GT.

 

I believe that Ford has lost sales on the Fusion in order to protect the Mustang name.

 

 

I hear that excuse all the time when it comes to any performance model besides the Mustang....in all seriousness, if there was a demand for it, Ford would be making it. Plus I don't think the EB 3.5L can even fit into the current Fusion, nor do we know if the AWD system (from the Fusion, the Taurus is a different system from what I understand) can handle it. I'm surprised we haven't see anyone from SEMA try this year. I'd rather see a EB I4 in the Fusion (in a performance application) so its not as nose heavy

 

What does the 4.6 do that the 3.5 EB can't?

 

The 4.6L is a deadman walking, lets talk the 5L V8 thats replacing it...

 

Anyways, getting back to the 3.5L EB vs V8 argument...Personally I'd like to see the 3.5L EB in the Mustang, but with it possibility performing just like the upcoming 5L V8, whats the point besides splitting your buyers down the middle...it could wind up just like the 86 SVO and GT...the SVO sold like crap where the V8 GT sold much better.

 

Prob the best bet would to make the 3.5L EB a limited production model with 5-10K units sold a year...though outside of marketing it for great MPG (I'd assume 30 MPG highway), I'm not sure what other angle Ford could take with it.

[NickF1011]

Last I checked Nick, you can equip a V6 Mustang with all of the same options that you can get on a GT aside from the motor.

 

...and the body (lights, etc)...and the wheels...and the brakes...and the suspension (even though the '10 V6 is using the '09 GT suspension, it's still not the same as the '10 GT suspension).... It adds up.

[goinbroke2]

What does the 4.6 do that the 3.5 EB can't?

 

Sound like a mustang and put a grin on your face. There is a reason they piped engine sound into the too quiet cabin.

 

I drove a hot rod 32 ford with a flathead in it. Twin carb, magneto, full race cam, etc. It sounded BEAUTIFUL with the open pipes and pulled quite hard too. On the track it ran a 15 flat. Well gee, that's not that fast, this 4cyl "modern whatever" will run with that. (for example)

Let me tell you, if you don't get it, it can't be explained. The car was a blast to drive and I really enjoyed playing around town in 1st and 2nd gear. On the highway where everybody cruises at 65+mph? Eh..it was a little twitchy and with no O/D was reving quite hard.

Try to convince ANYBODY driving a hotrod flathead they should put in a modern 4 cyl...yeah, have fun with that.

 

Now, are there modern drivetrains in old cars? Of course, easier to drive, better on fuel etc. But the sound of a flathead (or any v8) can't be replaced. v8 sounds like power, history, etc. A zippy clean smooth reving 4 or 6? For an appliance maybe, but for the original ponycar?? no v8?? are you serious?? NOT!

 

Fox bodies were great, 4cyl, dirt cheap. 6cyl, more torque for luxury/smooth drive. V8, fun/fast

 

v8 must be top dog....because.

[Edstock]

I'm in the midst of a major rebuild and converting a 73 into a 72 (sheet metal wise). My website will explain what I'm doing. I haven't updated in a while, but the car is a rolling chassis now with the full dash installed. Running gear is a 351C , T-5 tranny, and a 3.55 rear gear. http://mysite.verizon.net/vzepjcaa/

Looks really fine. Wish you success.

[mettech]

What does the 4.6 do that the 3.5 EB can't?

 

Sound like a mustang and put a grin on your face. There is a reason they piped engine sound into the too quiet cabin.

 

I drove a hot rod 32 ford with a flathead in it. Twin carb, magneto, full race cam, etc. It sounded BEAUTIFUL with the open pipes and pulled quite hard too. On the track it ran a 15 flat. Well gee, that's not that fast, this 4cyl "modern whatever" will run with that. (for example)

Let me tell you, if you don't get it, it can't be explained. The car was a blast to drive and I really enjoyed playing around town in 1st and 2nd gear. On the highway where everybody cruises at 65+mph? Eh..it was a little twitchy and with no O/D was reving quite hard.

Try to convince ANYBODY driving a hotrod flathead they should put in a modern 4 cyl...yeah, have fun with that.

 

Now, are there modern drivetrains in old cars? Of course, easier to drive, better on fuel etc. But the sound of a flathead (or any v8) can't be replaced. v8 sounds like power, history, etc. A zippy clean smooth reving 4 or 6? For an appliance maybe, but for the original ponycar?? no v8?? are you serious?? NOT!

 

Fox bodies were great, 4cyl, dirt cheap. 6cyl, more torque for luxury/smooth drive. V8, fun/fast

 

v8 must be top dog....because.

 

I suggest that the 5.4 remain as "top dog", but the GT would do better for Ford with the 3.5 EB.

[silvrsvt]

I suggest that the 5.4 remain as "top dog", but the GT would do better for Ford with the 3.5 EB.

 

 

I still think GT=V8

 

Call its something else if you want a V6EB in it.

 

The GT has nearly always been about cheap V8 power

[NickF1011]

The GT has nearly always been about cheap V8 power

 

At least you did put the "nearly" in there. It was available for a short time with the 2.3 turbo also. Granted, it didn't last long.

[BlackHorse]

...and the body (lights, etc)...and the wheels...and the brakes...and the suspension (even though the '10 V6 is using the '09 GT suspension, it's still not the same as the '10 GT suspension).... It adds up.

 

I hear you but aside from the 2010 GT suspension I'm not inclined to count fog lights and wheels. Plenty of Mustang owners go out and put aftermarket wheels on their car soon after they buy it. Heck some of them do it before they ever drive it off the lot. How do you factor that in? In some cases a V6 Mustang could end up with better wheels and tires than a GT. In some cases worse than it started with depending on what wheels the owner picks.

 

I sincerely hope that there aren't people buying Mustang GT's just to get the grill mounted fog lights. How shallow can you get? I thought the whole point of opting for the GT was all about the performance numbers not some silly lamps in the grill.

 

The suspension I can see but given that the current V6 is using the same GT suspension from just last year and given how much praise has beeen heaped upon that suspension (not only here but even in the car mags) I would think that owners of the new V6 would be inclined to think they got a suspension that is much improved and quite capable. Suddenly it's not good enough? I don't think so and as a matter of fact I drove the current V6 mustang and while I thought the motor needed more punch the handling was really good.

[NickF1011]

Suddenly it's not good enough?

 

It's not a matter of it not being good enough. It's just not as good as what you can get on the other trim levels, which is the entire point.

[silvrsvt]

I sincerely hope that there aren't people buying Mustang GT's just to get the grill mounted fog lights. How shallow can you get? I thought the whole point of opting for the GT was all about the performance numbers not some silly lamps in the grill.

 

Um can get foglights in the grill on the V6 since the pony package came out in 2006! I'm not 100% sure about the 2010 though...

[BlackHorse]

It's not a matter of it not being good enough. It's just not as good as what you can get on the other trim levels, which is the entire point.

 

It "could" be the point. It could be that it just comes down to money. A Mustang GT is not as good as a Porsche 911 by any measure. But then you pay more (a lot more) for the Porsche. That doesn't mean that people who buy Mustang GT's are lesser people any more than people who buy V6 Mustangs are somehow lesser than those who buy the GT. In some cases it's just about financial ability and in some cases it's just about preference. I gurantee you there are people out there who can afford a 911 but decide instead to buy a Mustang GT because they just like the GT better (I happen to know at least 1 such person). That wouldn't be me mind you, I'd take the 911 over a Mustang any day of the week, but that's my personal preference and that has been my point here almost from the begining.

 

This inclination that we have to label certain cars as certain things or bought by only certain owners is (once again) a narrow minded and snobbish thing to do especially since those lables are almost universally negative in their conotation. It is wrong to try and make people feel bad, or uncomfortable with the vehicle they have selected. Every car has it's merits and it's short comings. The GT is a fast car, but until the last year or two the interior was a joke, lets face it. Even with the improvements to the interior of late, it is still not the greatest interior around. Regardless of that, I wouldn't begrudge someone for wanting a GT. If it's the car they want, let them buy it. Rather than focusing on what a V6 Mustang is "not" why don't you guys ever focus on it's positive aspects? As if your precious GT's were the pinnacle of automotive existence. It's a good car, but it's not all that.

 

This sort of brings us back to Richards lack of understanding about how car fans can affect the future of car companies. Look around at a lot of these young men that have just landed their first fulltime job and they want to buy a new car. How many of them are going out and buying the tuner cars? Civics, Eclipses, the Lancer and on and on. We all know the cars I'm talking about. How do they end up there? I have a cousin that just turned 20 and was in the market for a new car. Like most of his friends, he wanted (of course) a Honda Civic so that he could tune it or whatever the word is for hot rodding a car now. Why not a Mustang? It cost too much to get the good Mustang, it's an old mans car, the civic is more reliable and it's the kind of car that all of his friends are in to.

 

Now I haven't personally conducted any sociological studies on this theory I am about to put forth so suffice it to say that it is just my opinion and regardless of what any moderators around here might think, my opinion counts as much as anyone else around here. I think a lot young men end up in so called "tuner" cars because they just don't want to emmulate their grumpy old dads and uncles who won't shutup about a stupid Mustang. So at a young age, they become "fans" of a Toyota, or a Honda, or even (gasp) a Hyundai. They form life long preferences based on their life experiences. How do you get these guys to come buy a Mustang or some other Ford either in the near future or on down the line? Gee, lets call the cars they like "pussy cars", that'll get them to come around. Won't it? I promise you, the stuff people are saying on here they are out there spouting off in the actual real world. Given the things a good many of the posters on here say, I understand how people end up in other cars.

 

Course that applies to any car website. Visit a Jeep Wrangler forum sometime. Some of the biggest bunch of jerks you'll ever meet. Some nice guys too, but not enough of them.

 

Anyway, just food for thought. Gotta head out now and run errands. later.

[silvrsvt]

This sort of brings us back to Richards lack of understanding about how car fans can affect the future of car companies. Look around at a lot of these young men that have just landed their first fulltime job and they want to buy a new car. How many of them are going out and buying the tuner cars? Civics, Eclipses, the Lancer and on and on. We all know the cars I'm talking about. How do they end up there? I have a cousin that just turned 20 and was in the market for a new car. Like most of his friends, he wanted (of course) a Honda Civic so that he could tune it or whatever the word is for hot rodding a car now. Why not a Mustang? It cost too much to get the good Mustang, it's an old mans car, the civic is more reliable and it's the kind of car that all of his friends are in to.

 

So what your saying is that your Cousin is a bandwagoner because he got a Civic just like his peers did? lots of the excuses he or you uses sounds like envy to me. The only thing the Civic has over the Mustang is that its more practical for every day driving vs a Mustang. If you want to give up some practicality, the Mustang offers ALOT of things that no other car offer.

 

As for car fans in general....the are called fans for a reason...I like lots of different cars, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go out and buy one. Talk is cheap...you see pently of people on this website and others questioning why doesn't Ford offer a "performance" version of whatever...when they do, they don't sell. I think the last time I was out on a Ford lot, I saw a alot of Fusion Sports, more then any other Fusion out there.

 

The vast majority of people buy something practical/boring because they don't want to worry about it breaking down on them. If they don't want something like that, then they go to a Luxury car they can lease to project an "image" they want to portray.

Edited November 10, 2009 by silvrsvt

[BlackHorse]

So what your saying is that your Cousin is a bandwagoner because he got a Civic just like his peers did? lots of the excuses he or you uses sounds like envy to me. The only thing the Civic has over the Mustang is that its more practical for every day driving vs a Mustang. If you want to give up some practicality, the Mustang offers ALOT of things that no other car offer.

 

This answer is a perfect example of what I was talking about. I promise you my cousin has no envy of a Mustang. He really doesn't like them, and most likely because he's been around Mustang owners like yourself.

 

As for me. I've already owned two Mustangs. I don't have any envy issues of it.

 

As for the bandwaggoners, how the heck do you think the Mustang got put the map to begin with?

[Deanh]

Um can get foglights in the grill on the V6 since the pony package came out in 2006! I'm not 100% sure about the 2010 though...

they are a LOT smaller

[silvrsvt]

This answer is a perfect example of what I was talking about. I promise you my cousin has no envy of a Mustang. He really doesn't like them, and most likely because he's been around Mustang owners like yourself.

 

I'm not saying he does or not, just the comments in general of it sound dismissive and can be used to describe other cars, not just Mustangs. Many of the same things your cousin says about the Mustang apply to the Civic. Plus I don't go about dissing other cars and say how great my Mustang is and if your a 20 year old punk you should own one...I can appreciate most cars out there for what they are

 

I've had two small cars (Escort GT and Focus SVT) and two Mustang GT's....I know which one I like better out of the two cars...I still get complements about my nearly 4 year old Mustang then I ever did with the other two smaller cars. They where fun to drive at the time, but they aren't Mustangs.

 

I wont even go over the small car image problem that GM and Ford has...but hopefully that will be changing with the Fiesta and the next gen Focus.

[Sixt9coug]

What does the 4.6 do that the 3.5 EB can't?

 

Sound like a mustang and put a grin on your face. There is a reason they piped engine sound into the too quiet cabin.

 

I drove a hot rod 32 ford with a flathead in it. Twin carb, magneto, full race cam, etc. It sounded BEAUTIFUL with the open pipes and pulled quite hard too. On the track it ran a 15 flat. Well gee, that's not that fast, this 4cyl "modern whatever" will run with that. (for example)

Let me tell you, if you don't get it, it can't be explained. The car was a blast to drive and I really enjoyed playing around town in 1st and 2nd gear. On the highway where everybody cruises at 65+mph? Eh..it was a little twitchy and with no O/D was reving quite hard.

Try to convince ANYBODY driving a hotrod flathead they should put in a modern 4 cyl...yeah, have fun with that.

 

EXACTLY!!!

 

I have a Youtube video up of my car driving on the freeway and i got a couple comments of people bitching that im driving it too slow. I had to spell it out for them.... 3.89s on the freeway SUCK!!!!

 

Its not the fastest car on the road, but the sound and the experience is just awesome. Hell no would i ever put anything but a V8 in my car.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THUyBXH0pTc

[Edstock]

Look around at a lot of these young men that have just landed their first fulltime job and they want to buy a new car. How many of them are going out and buying the tuner cars? Civics, Eclipses, the Lancer and on and on.

IMHO, you have a point. That's why I feel it is important for Ford to have "go fast" parts for the Focus. Things like AWD conversion kits, aftermarket RevoKnuckle kits, transmissions that can take high-output.

 

The point is, American "hotrodding" has moved beyond the V-8 and a Holley. The Ricers are here to stay, and a lot of 'em will never consider a Mustang, even with a turbo 4.

[Versa-Tech]

Maybe ford should make a slightly shorter wheelbase car with the ecoboost I4 and awd... like a mini rice mustang, except it's not called a mustang.

[RichardJensen]

This sort of brings us back to Richards lack of understanding about how car fans can affect the future of car companies.

The Mustang has buyer demographics that car companies would kill for. Don't believe me? Ask Austin, who actually worked on the Mustang for Ford.

 

So your supposition that Mustang fans risk ruining the Mustang is not borne out by decades of Mustang owner contempt for the pretenders to the throne.