Should the Mustang Have Gone This Route

[RichardJensen]

.....ancient history

Indeed. One wonders what might have been----it doesn't seem Jaguar is sustainable in its current form.

 

The Mustang is like the F150. One wonders how Ford managed to get those things so consistently right, while wandering all over the map with the rest of their offerings......

[jpd80]

I'm still not quite sure what you have in mind, but a new, smaller, lighter, "more nimble" Mustang would require an all-new platform; there's no way you can get from here to there without it. All you have to do is look at the relative weights of the 3-series and 1-series (a derivative of the 3-series) to see you don't get much weight savings (only 150 pounds) when you just try to cut around 10 inches without doing a complete ground-up job. And a new platform is simply not in the cards so this whole conversation is a moot point.

In regards the time line for a new platform, the CEO at FoA was indicating that the decision on the

next Falcon product cycle beyond 2015 was still 18 months away.

 

Given that timeline for the Aussies, is it possible that the Mustang will lead on the design direction

like it did in the 1960s and the Falcon will follow suit a couple years afterwards?

 

By that reasoning, a new Mustang platform could be on the cards for 2013 YM,

does that sound about right?

[mettech]

All of this debate about the V-6 vs V-8..

 

We haven't even said anything about electric or hybrid mix in the Mustang yet..

 

Here are my guesses on the next Mustang:

 

1. Weight reduction due to reduced size, smaller engine but mostly by lighter steel, and glue instead of welds. Weight reduction will be 400lbs or more.

 

2. I4 and 3.7 V-6 offered in base car. 3.5 EB in GT. Coyote in others. Ford will have no choice due to the EPA.

 

 

By MY 2019 , if Mustang is still alive ( sung to the song

) it will have electric drive plus a EB V-6 and I4). It will be size of a current Focus. Edited November 7, 2009 by mettech

[goinbroke2]

Wow, this thread is funny after half a bottle of whiskey!

 

Oh and mettech, your posts sucked, point 1 and 2 were probably close, but the rest is bull.

[chiefstang]

oh come on, dont tell me you wouldnt like to take a spin....300 hp in a focus...more than one way to skin the performance cat other than a V8, and thats what I think blackhorse is attempting to relay....personally, and I'll get ROASTED for this, I prefer tossable smaller cars, Mustang is too big for my tastes...LOVE the car, just feels too bulky for my tastes...anmd since my 88 it most definitely HAS grown....I realize why, but..........

 

 

Not only would I love to drive the RS, but have never driven an SVT Focus. Always wanted to, but never got one on the lot.

 

There are a few "pussy" cars I like. Dean's ok with his Mini Cooper. Mazdaspeed 3. Subaru STi (lesbians and all). Nissan Altima 3.5. The Camaro... I kid, I kid... I HATE the Camaro!

 

My '69 Beetle was an uber-pussy car, so I can't rightfully roast you, Dean!

 

If they can make the Mustang lighter without changing it into something else, I'm all for it. Iguess I don't want it to end up being a skinny, quick featherweight. I want that chiseled middleweight that will give you that brutal knockout. I want it to be a brawler, not a 12 round decision winner.

 

Mettech: My only gripe is you have the GT with the Eco-Boost. The GT has to have the V8, IMO. I kinda hope they badge the EB Mustang the SVO... Four or six cylinders.

[Ralph Greene]

RE the idea that the Mustang has to have a V8......I remember how die hard Pontiac Fire Bird owners loved their big V 8's....until the turbo V6 blew their doors off. When they realized the turbo V6 could be modified to make more HP than a modified NA V8.

[rmc523]

RE the idea that the Mustang has to have a V8......I remember how die hard Pontiac Fire Bird owners loved their big V 8's....until the turbo V6 blew their doors off. When they realized the turbo V6 could be modified to make more HP than a modified NA V8.

 

And which vehicle is still around?

[Edstock]

This link is from Reigner92 on Photoshops and Renderings section. Thanks, Reigner.

 

http://forums.themustangsource.com/showthread.php?p=5743942

 

Some awesome ideas on the next Mustang.

 

[chiefstang]

This link is from Reigner92 on Photoshops and Renderings section. Thanks, Reigner.

 

http://forums.themustangsource.com/showthread.php?p=5743942

 

Some awesome ideas on the next Mustang.

 

 

 

Like the fastback roofline alot!

[Sixt9coug]

And which vehicle is still around?

 

 

yet which vehicle from 89 is worth more?

 

TTA's are baaaad aaaaaass

[PolarBear]

The Sport/GT/Pony cars will have to live with the I4/I6/V-6 world soon. The V-8s will be limited productions in the car world and as such, that "brand" of cars will will not be the core product.

 

Everyone that owns a 911 or a Boxster is not a snob. :shades: They are a consumer that buys real performance and balance handling with clout.

 

It would be nice to see more Mustangs in the $1 million neighborhoods instead of the trailer parks. :shades: That is the consumer Ford should go after.

 

Boxster buyers may not all be snobs, but the Boxster should be re-named the "Chickster." It's what you buy your wife or S/O when she sez she wants a Porsche.

 

re: Genesis Coupe. Nice car. Who'd have believed Hyundai would build the successor to the Supra? BUT- I strongly suspect those buyers and Mustang buyers aren't the same crowd- or demographic. If Toyota's past experience still holds true, the real Supra market is when the cars are about 5 yrs old and can be bought used for a reasonable amount of money, then modded. Remember Toyota dropped the Supra because they couldn't give those mothertruckers away when they were new.

[Blue II]

All of this debate about the V-6 vs V-8..

 

We haven't even said anything about electric or hybrid mix in the Mustang yet..

 

Here are my guesses on the next Mustang:

 

1. Weight reduction due to reduced size, smaller engine but mostly by lighter steel, and glue instead of welds. Weight reduction will be 400lbs or more.

 

2. I4 and 3.7 V-6 offered in base car. 3.5 EB in GT. Coyote in others. Ford will have no choice due to the EPA.

 

 

By MY 2019 , if Mustang is still alive ( sung to the song

) it will have electric drive plus a EB V-6 and I4). It will be size of a current Focus.

 

You forgot the 3.9 boosted V-8. Don't choke on your Kimchi.

[TomServo92]

You forgot the 3.9 boosted V-8. Don't choke on your Kimchi.

 

I was wondering if the idea of smaller, boosted V8s was being evaluated....

[syrtran]

You forgot the 3.9 boosted V-8. Don't choke on your Kimchi.

Don't you forget that that '3.9 boosted V8' will have over 400 HP and will power that 3200-lb GT to low-13 quarters, and - because of lighter weight and better balance - will out-handle the current FRPP-equipped GT.

 

And will still get worse mileage than a 365-HP 3.5 EB V-6 in the current car. And still won't have an IRS for better ride.

 

Don't choke on that chuck steak.

 

 

 

P.S. Oh, and a Mustang with (proper-sized) electric motors powering the wheels will -always- out-accelerate an IC engined one. The time will come when gearheads will demand electric drive.

[RichardJensen]

The time will come when gearheads will demand electric drive.

Once they figure out where to put all the electrons they'll need to power those motors.

[rkisler]

A few more comments about Mustang direction:

 

1. There have been a lot of comments about "smaller and lighter". While I buy off on lighter, I'm not so sure about smaller as the Mustang is all about proportions. Even though the Mustang is rather large OAL for the interior volume, as I mentioned, it is what it is because of its iconic shape. The rear seat is where a lot of the action takes place. Because the roof is sloped, the rear passengers' butts are pushed down into indentations in the fuel tank. The passengers and fuel tank are fighting for room with the rear suspension. And of course you want room for some luggage and also have the provision to package the convertible top. All of this combined with a muscular front end leads to the car where it is now. Making it smaller would sacrifice something -- either back seat or luggage capacity. And if you reduce the width, then you also reduce the powerful image. And if you want to raise the roof in the back, then it's also probably not a Mustang. At any rate, smaller is not in the cards unless you go to an all-new platform.

 

2. I'm going to assume that Ford is investigating actions to reduce weight across all their car and truck lines. As I mentioned earlier, those actions are for both the competitiveness of the individual car/truck lines and also to meet Corporate requirements on fuel economy. In general, there are several areas to attack on an existing platform, but for the Mustang, it really comes down to two general areas -- powertrain and closures (hood, decklid, doors)/fenders. Going to all-aluminum engines is a good weight purchase -- about 60-80 pounds IIRC. Alternative materials can be considered for closures and fenders. Aluminum works well, but there can be limitations on stamping highly-styled parts. And aluminum doors do have issues in fabrication. But if the stories I heard about a potential one-piece magnesium liftgate on the new Explorer are correct, this technology might be applicable to Mustang also. BTW, composites (such as SMC) don't help. They reduce tooling cost but are actually heavier than steel in most applications. Carbon fiber has been used for the roof of the BMW 3M, but it's very expensive, so I view it as not likely for Mustang due to affordability.

 

3. I see very limited application of either hybrid or electric powertrains for the Mustang for the forseeable future. First, there is nowhere to put the batteries (see my first point). Second, there is no RWD hybrid system inside Ford, and very few RWD hybrid systems in the industry. Third, it's not important for the Mustang image. The only possibility I could see is perhaps an Integrated Starter Generator (ISG -- which Honda calls IMA) which would consist of a "wafer" between the engine and transmission with a limited battery that could also be used for start-stop. But that's about it, and I haven't read anything that would indicate Ford is working on this concept. Nor do I expect it considering the limited RWD volume in NA.

[RichardJensen]

I think time may force IMA-style hybrids onto most vehicles--including the Mustang, but not on this platform. Ford should be able to meet the 2016 targets without needing such things for the Mustang, given its share of overall volume, and the 'low hanging fruit' available by replacing the volume motor with more fuel efficient offerings.

[rkisler]

I think time may force IMA-style hybrids onto most vehicles--including the Mustang, but not on this platform. Ford should be able to meet the 2016 targets without needing such things for the Mustang, given its share of overall volume, and the 'low hanging fruit' available by replacing the volume motor with more fuel efficient offerings.

 

I agree. When you apply technology, you want to get the maximum leverage to up the average -- that means Focus & friends, and Fusion & friends on the car side, expecially since you have a chance to influence the platform development.

[RichardJensen]

If a guy had a mind for it, and the means to pursue it, developing a 'plug-n-play' IMA/regenerative braking/battery pack kit for RWD vehicles would be (potentially) a license to print money--especially if it could be scaled up for use on trucks.

[Blue II]

Don't you forget that that '3.9 boosted V8' will have over 400 HP and will power that 3200-lb GT to low-13 quarters, and - because of lighter weight and better balance - will out-handle the current FRPP-equipped GT.

 

And will still get worse mileage than a 365-HP 3.5 EB V-6 in the current car. And still won't have an IRS for better ride.

 

Don't choke on that chuck steak.

 

 

 

P.S. Oh, and a Mustang with (proper-sized) electric motors powering the wheels will -always- out-accelerate an IC engined one. The time will come when gearheads will demand electric drive.

 

You're wrong on all counts, and misinformed!

[ausrutherford]

Don't you forget that that '3.9 boosted V8' will have over 400 HP and will power that 3200-lb GT to low-13 quarters, and - because of lighter weight and better balance - will out-handle the current FRPP-equipped GT.

 

And will still get worse mileage than a 365-HP 3.5 EB V-6 in the current car. And still won't have an IRS for better ride.

 

Don't choke on that chuck steak.

 

 

 

P.S. Oh, and a Mustang with (proper-sized) electric motors powering the wheels will -always- out-accelerate an IC engined one. The time will come when gearheads will demand electric drive.

 

Iv heard of a 4.0 but not a 3.9.

[jpd80]

If a guy had a mind for it, and the means to pursue it, developing a 'plug-n-play' IMA/regenerative braking/battery pack kit for RWD vehicles would be (potentially) a license to print money--especially if it could be scaled up for use on trucks.

Exactly, energy conservation in larger vehicles has the potential to reap big dividends.

An F150 with that sort of technology has the potential to recover a lot of monthly sales

but it depends on how much buyers would have to pay....

[F250]

...I wouldn't mind seeing a slightly smaller Mustang with a good inline turbo engine. That is by no means going to destroy the "iconic Mustang" because some of you I'm sure remember when they did it before . . .

 

 

A Mustang that, by the way, has become one of the most collectible Mustangs. But it's a 4 cylinder turbo so it must be for pussies. lol

 

Cool picture of the very rare 1983 Mustang GT-Turbo 2.3L! They were very rare because nobody bought them. Only 604 sold in '83 and 3,798 in 1984 resulted in Ford cancelling the bad idea after those 2 years. Ford did spend (and charged) a ton of money developing the intercooled SVO Mustang even posting HP (not torque) ratings that matched the 5.0L V8 but after 1986 the SVO was gone as well.

[papilgee4evaeva]

Iv heard of a 4.0 but not a 3.9.

 

Only one I've ever heard of was used in the Lincoln LS.

[Edstock]

Here's a nice article on SVO turbo Mustangs:

 

http://www.carthrottle.com/retrospective-1...rd-mustang-svo/

 

 

Eco-Boost can't arrive soon enough.