Should the Mustang Have Gone This Route

[timmm55]

Why are you comparing Civics with Mustangs?

Other than loyal owners, they are in two totally different segments.

 

The Civic is the Dart/Valiant/Corvair/Falcon of it's day.....a reasonable sedan with good gas mileage.

While the Falcon begat the Mustang, it's no longer the sporty version of a economy car. It's latest platform origin is a Lincoln, albeit a heavily reworked and virtually unique one at that.

 

That's expensive. That the Mustang is as inexpensive as it is is commendable.

 

That kids will Hot Rod their cars is nothing new. Whatever the basic transportation of it's day: Flathead Ford, 55 Chevy, not just V8s either......remember the Falcon Performance Handbook?

http://falconperformance.sundog.net/

 

The issue isn't the Civic, Genesis or even the Camaro. The Mustang has evolved on it's own. Unfortunately it's running out of inexpensive sharable platforms. It IS becoming a Porsche 911 in terms of uniqueness.

 

I'd like to see a smaller, more compact, yet V8, EB V6....even a 4 cylinder Mustang. But there needs to be a new small RWD chassis.

[Deanh]

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.

sounds like an RS Fiesta/ Focus.....rally style....and they ARE awesome....

[RichardJensen]

Realistically, the Mustang is about 500 lbs heavier than the '67 fastback, 5" longer, and 3" wider.

 

That is, IMO, insignificant, when you consider how much the Mustang has been improved.

 

---

 

By contrast:

 

'67 Porsche 912: 163.9" long, 63.4" wide, 2300lbs

'09 Porsche 997: 175.6" long, 72.9" wide, 3020lbs

 

---

 

I don't think the Mustang can, or should, get much smaller, and when you compare it with other icons it holds up reasonably well.

[Versa-Tech]

Realistically, the Mustang is about 500 lbs heavier than the '67 fastback, 5" longer, and 3" wider.

 

That is, IMO, insignificant, when you consider how much the Mustang has been improved.

 

---

 

By contrast:

 

'67 Porsche 912: 163.9" long, 63.4" wide, 2300lbs

'09 Porsche 997: 175.6" long, 72.9" wide, 3020lbs

 

---

 

I don't think the Mustang can, or should, get much smaller, and when you compare it with other icons it holds up reasonably well.

I agree. Mustang should stay the same size. But a new shorter car based on the mustang architecture would be nice. Nobody uses those rear seats anyway.

[Deanh]

Realistically, the Mustang is about 500 lbs heavier than the '67 fastback, 5" longer, and 3" wider.

 

That is, IMO, insignificant, when you consider how much the Mustang has been improved.

 

---

 

By contrast:

 

'67 Porsche 912: 163.9" long, 63.4" wide, 2300lbs

'09 Porsche 997: 175.6" long, 72.9" wide, 3020lbs

 

---

 

I don't think the Mustang can, or should, get much smaller, and when you compare it with other icons it holds up reasonably well.

whoa, thats really interesting...I always thought the 67 was a big car, just gos to show I guess, and hell, as for the five inches, all one has to do is check out the front and rear bumpers.......500lbs? seriously, when one takes all the safety items and additional bells and whistles built into cars thats easily justified....

[Bored of Pisteon]

Take one of the last iconic automotive nameplates, and turn it into a politicly correct car for pussies?...No thanks.

 

You tell 'em!

[mettech]

Take one of the last iconic automotive nameplates, and turn it into a politicly correct car for pussies?...No thanks.

 

I own a '05 F-350, 6.0L PSD, dully, Crew Cab. Should I consider that everyone who drives a smaller truck with a smaller engine pussies? :reading:

 

BTW, what truck do you drive?

 

 

Anyway, I'm not against V-8 engines... I'm just support more advancements in engine technology.

 

If I can get a lighter engine that has more HP/Torq and gives better MPG.. ... put it in the hole.

 

 

I also believe that a 3.5EB AWD Fusion would smoke a 2010 Mustang GT on a track and 1/4 run.

 

 

Smoke it. :reading:

Edited November 10, 2009 by mettech

[Edstock]

I don't think the Mustang can, or should, get much smaller, and when you compare it with other icons it holds up reasonably well.

I agree. While narrower would be nice, side-impact regs probably make that impossible, without making the car a lot more expensive.

 

But the Ricer market does exist, and Ford should Focus on it, as well.

[jpvbs]

My fear is that the Mustang turns into a Harley - bullheadedly staying "traditional" to please the core. It seems that part of the original Mustang formula was that it was a very progressive vehicle. I'd like to see it be a leader in technology instead of just style leader.

Edited November 11, 2009 by jpvbs

[BlackHorse]

Why are you comparing Civics with Mustangs?

Other than loyal owners, they are in two totally different segments.

 

The Civic is the Dart/Valiant/Corvair/Falcon of it's day.....a reasonable sedan with good gas mileage.

While the Falcon begat the Mustang, it's no longer the sporty version of a economy car. It's latest platform origin is a Lincoln, albeit a heavily reworked and virtually unique one at that.

 

That's expensive. That the Mustang is as inexpensive as it is is commendable.

 

That kids will Hot Rod their cars is nothing new. Whatever the basic transportation of it's day: Flathead Ford, 55 Chevy, not just V8s either......remember the Falcon Performance Handbook?

http://falconperformance.sundog.net/

 

The issue isn't the Civic, Genesis or even the Camaro. The Mustang has evolved on it's own. Unfortunately it's running out of inexpensive sharable platforms. It IS becoming a Porsche 911 in terms of uniqueness.

 

I'd like to see a smaller, more compact, yet V8, EB V6....even a 4 cylinder Mustang. But there needs to be a new small RWD chassis.

 

 

What? I wasn't comparing civics and mustangs. What I was doing is explaining how young buyers end up in tuner cars "like the civic" as opposed to buying a new mustang.

[BlackHorse]

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.

 

LOL, I couldn't care less what Austin says. I've been in a few Mustang clubs, been to a lot of Mustang shows and seen a lot Mustang owners myself and from that I know there's nothing to spectacular about the demographics of it. It's not more impressive than just about any other car out there.

 

The fact that you think there is some kind of "throne" invovled to me just further demonstrates your absolute lack of any real world understanding of what has been discussed here.

[RichardJensen]

It seems that part of the original Mustang formula was that it was a very progressive vehicle.

But times change: The '78 Caprice, '84 Caravan & '86 Taurus were all progressive vehicles.

 

It's not like you can keep the Mustang a compact coupe -and- keep it 'progressive'.

[Deanh]

What? I wasn't comparing civics and mustangs. What I was doing is explaining how young buyers end up in tuner cars "like the civic" as opposed to buying a new mustang.

may be a lot to do with price as well...plus avail aftermarket...hell, I would SHOOT the driver of a mustang that stuck a spagetti can on their exhaust.....Ford actually did pretty wrell with the first generation Focus, especially the ZX3 in appealing to the sideways wearing baseball capped , black fly wearing, beltbuckle at the kneecap crowd....

[RichardJensen]

LOL, I couldn't care less what Austin says.

You couldn't care less what the demographics of Mustang BUYERS (not Mustang club members) are?

 

And yet you propose to judge the impact that Mustang fans will have on buyer demographics?

 

What was it Santayana said about people who couldn't remember the past?

[Deanh]

LOL, I couldn't care less what Austin says. I've been in a few Mustang clubs, been to a lot of Mustang shows and seen a lot Mustang owners myself and from that I know there's nothing to spectacular about the demographics of it. It's not more impressive than just about any other car out there.

 

The fact that you think there is some kind of "throne" invovled to me just further demonstrates your absolute lack of any real world understanding of what has been discussed here.

oh I duuno blackhorse....come to our next Mustang Mania ( once a year here at the dealership ).....there are some absolute AVID fans, their cars are their babies.....and the Mustang has a following few cars emulate, the only one ( current production ) I can think of off the top of my head would be the Corvette...no japanese or imported vehicles come close to the following and passion of these two icons.....would I restore a Civic to concours condition?....one word comes to mind....history..

Edited November 11, 2009 by Deanh

[RichardJensen]

Turns out I have a bit of experience on this issue; let me try to distill a lot of black binders into a few random comments:

 

...

 

6. Mustang buyers are very diverse, ranging from young to empty nesters looking for a fun car. It is very rare that a vehicle has emotion to this wide a spectrum.

 

...

 

9. Mustang is successful in markets (especially California) where Ford is just holding on until Ford has some interesting small cars to sell.

Bump.

[jpvbs]

But times change: The '78 Caprice, '84 Caravan & '86 Taurus were all progressive vehicles.

 

It's not like you can keep the Mustang a compact coupe -and- keep it 'progressive'.

 

I'm not arguing for a change in size one way or another, or that it shouldn't have a V8, I just don't think the Mustang should become pigeon holed as solely a V8 engined, solid axle'd, retromobile - as good as those things are. I believe it is short sighted to not make an attempt to try to attract an audience based on something other than its stereotypical attributes. That doesn't mean it has to alienate the core buyers to do so. As you said, times change, is the Mustang plan "stay the same?"

 

As far as the size goes, I think one of the reasons the Mustang has traditionally done so well, is that it has a back seat that is still useable on an occasional basis at least. I managed to have two kids in car seats in the back of my fox body for a couple of years as a daily driver. I think most people don't want to totally compromise practicality. So I'd argue against anything smaller, though I'm not opposed to lighter, or at least a lighter feel.

[RichardJensen]

I don't understand what you're getting at.

 

You have to at least have an optional solid axle, which means that you have to engineer the IRS to use the same mounting points as the solid axle (and end up with a compromised IRS design, or a compromised SRA design), or you have to add weight to the chassis (and cost to the design) by engineering two sets of mount points.

 

And the engines at least are getting more sophisticated.

 

Which pretty much leaves the shell. IMO the body's fine. It is what it is, and doesn't present itself as anything else.

[Versa-Tech]

I don't understand what you're getting at.

 

You have to at least have an optional solid axle...

WRONG. While I understand the reason why Ford uses a solid rear axel, the thought that ford HAS to offer one is ridiculous. The only solid argument for SRA is drag racing at this point. Well guess what? Racing is expensive and the majority of Mustang buyers shouldn't have to compromise so that the fringe can benefit when said drag racers have already committed to pouring loads of money into their cars. IRS isn't necessary, but the thought that an IRS Design should be compromised in order to maintain a SRA option is just...

[F250]

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.

 

Welcome to the 1960's and early '70s. Just about EVERY car was getting larger with each new generation, look at the Mustang, Falcon, Fairlane/Torino even the Galaxie. GM and Chrysler were doing the same thing. Hell, the Torino got so large and heavy the '72 went to body on frame while the previous generations were unibody. the '71-'73 Mustang was designed to handle the size and weight of any Ford V8 without the modification or extra reinforcement that was required on previous generations...that included the huge Boss 429. Unfortunately Ford did not put that engine in the '71 but it's optional 429 CJ was larger than the FE it replaced.

[F250]

My fear is that the Mustang turns into a Harley - bullheadedly staying "traditional" to please the core. It seems that part of the original Mustang formula was that it was a very progressive vehicle. I'd like to see it be a leader in technology instead of just style leader.

 

How about:

multi point EFI with a driver controlled fuel octane selector switch

Turbocharged

intercooled with functional hood scoop

overhead cam 4-cyl

unique geometry Koni quad shock suspension

and much more...

 

Ford already built it... way back in 1984, the SVO Mustang.

too expensive and few were sold.

 

...and the old school, iron block pushrod, carbureted V8 belted out more torque and would out run it for a lot less money.

Edited November 11, 2009 by F250

[RichardJensen]

when said drag racers have already committed to pouring loads of money into their cars.

Not all of them have.

[F250]

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?

 

Tell it like it really is...they will never buy a Mustang because it is a Ford and Ford is an American company which is something they hate.

 

Let's see, young man wants a brand new performance car. He could buy a great looking Mustang GT and get 315HP bone stock and fully warrantied, or he buys a Honda Civic coupe with 197 HP and starts voiding the warranty "tuning" it. If he really wants a performance car why not just buy one in the first place. Don't like Ford, ok get a Camaro, don't like GM ok get a Hemi Challenger..then he could tell all of his foreign car only buddies Chrysler is Italian owned and the Challenger is built in Canada...no...still too American.

Edited November 11, 2009 by F250

[rkisler]

LOL, I couldn't care less what Austin says. I've been in a few Mustang clubs, been to a lot of Mustang shows and seen a lot Mustang owners myself and from that I know there's nothing to spectacular about the demographics of it. It's not more impressive than just about any other car out there.

 

The fact that you think there is some kind of "throne" invovled to me just further demonstrates your absolute lack of any real world understanding of what has been discussed here.

 

Gee, BlackHorse, that's harsh.

 

But color you wrong. There is a large group of avid Mustang owners. It's a loyal group with excellent demographics that other manufacturers would kill to have.

 

When you're working on cars/trucks, you have to learn to step back with your personal feelings/preferences and try to understand the customer and develop a product that resonates. Personally, I would never own a Mustang. If I were spending the money, I would much rather have a used 3-series. But that doesn't keep me from understanding the basic attributes that are necessary to field a successful Mustang. The basic Mustang formula can be distilled into product attributes, and those are very well understood. That doesn't mean Mustang is "on a throne", but it does mean that the customers and Ford understand what a Mustang is. While some of the ideas I've seen on the previous pages might make an interesting car, some of them would not end up being a Mustang.

 

I also understand the appeal of Japanese "tuner" cars. This is the modern interpretation of cars I used to play with when I was younger. Get in relatively cheap, and then add improvements as you can afford it. But even though there are a lot of Mustang owners who add stuff to their cars, the Mustang will never, never, never be part of this group. This group is Asian oriented, partly because American cars (except for Mustang) are hardly present in the California market. They are generally anti-American, but they're really just playing with the cars they grew up with and those that are readily available used. There will be some chance for the new Focus and maybe Fiesta to play with this group. What it will take is some SEMA manufacturers and Ford to supply some fun parts and a few guys who want to do something different to show their friends. But it will take a few years until there are some used Foci available at lower prices for this to happen.

[suv_guy_19]

You're stupid because you don't agree with me.

 

K, I'm good now.