Ford Working on Radical New Mustang

[NickF1011]

the notch back vs Fastback thing is subjective, I feel the 2005 mustang was inspired by the fastback but for intents and purposes is a notchback. but I digress.

 

Given that Ford will likely be pretty constrained on the costs associated with developing the next gen Mustang, I'd say the options will be limited. If there are any major engineering differences that would be required for a convertible body and a fastback body, I think it would be safe to say that the fastback option would be a pass. My guess is we will continue to see some form of the "hybird" fastback-coupe body style of the SN95 and S197 along with a convertible. It's probably just easier from an engineering standpoint.

[StevenCaylor]

Another way to describe the difference between a notchback and a fastback, the notchback has a decent back seat, the fastback does not.

[Biker16]

Given that Ford will likely be pretty constrained on the costs associated with developing the next gen Mustang, I'd say the options will be limited. If there are any major engineering differences that would be required for a convertible body and a fastback body, I think it would be safe to say that the fastback option would be a pass. My guess is we will continue to see some form of the "hybird" fastback-coupe body style of the SN95 and S197 along with a convertible. It's probably just easier from an engineering standpoint.

 

how do you know how constrained on cost with the next mustang? I think is ford was cost constrained on the mustang they would not have made it a global product, and could have simply done a heavy refresh of the current car. since it is global it require a heavy trashing of the existing car to meet global standards. To me this speaks of a non cost constrained mustang.

[Biker16]

Another way to describe the difference between a notchback and a fastback, the notchback has a decent back seat, the fastback does not.

 

agin that is not an absolute rule.

 

example the VW CC had a decent backseat, just like the old Passat had a decent backseat.

[StevenCaylor]

agin that is not an absolute rule.

 

example the VW CC had a decent backseat, just like the old Passat had a decent backseat.

 

Yes, but we are talking about Mustangs here. Back in the 60's, my Mom's car was a 65 Mustang coupe, thus is was the family car. At 6', I could sit comfortably in the back seat (admitably, my parents were shorter than I was).

Edited May 7, 2012 by StevenCaylor

[NickF1011]

how do you know how constrained on cost with the next mustang? I think is ford was cost constrained on the mustang they would not have made it a global product, and could have simply done a heavy refresh of the current car. since it is global it require a heavy trashing of the existing car to meet global standards. To me this speaks of a non cost constrained mustang.

 

The current architecture underlying the Mustang is going on a decade old. It was going to be a relatively clean-sheet design whether it was going global or not. Making it global just makes the costs of that platform even easier to recover. It really doesn't cost anything more to design for global standards in a clean-sheet design.

[Biker16]

The current architecture underlying the Mustang is going on a decade old. It was going to be a relatively clean-sheet design whether it was going global or not. Making it global just makes the costs of that platform even easier to recover. It really doesn't cost anything more to design for global standards in a clean-sheet design.

 

but going to a clean sheet design which BTW we don't know if it is, means it is not cost constrained.

[NickF1011]

but going to a clean sheet design which BTW we don't know if it is, means it is not cost constrained.

 

D2C was relatively clean-sheet, and we know that development was extremely cost constrained. When you need a new vehicle, you need a new vehicle. Either you bite the bullet and do it on the cheap or you cancel the vehicle. Really aren't any choices beyond that. As competitive as the Mustang's segment has become and as thin as margins likely are, letting the vehicle just go unchanged (like they are with the higher margin Expedition/Navigator) isn't really viable.

Edited May 7, 2012 by NickF1011

[Versa-Tech]

 

What, a Focus Hatch versus a Focus Sedan versus a Focus stationwagon are not comparable?

 

Edit,

For the record, European and ROW weights of Focus are as follows:

Focus hatch 1.6 1278 Kg

Focus sedan 1339 Kg

Focus s/W 1307 Kg

 

 

But all three body styles have been subjected to a standardized test that confirms that they all crash to 5 stars to NCAP

 

Not being snippy VT, but I rest my case because the burden of proof now lies with you to prove the contrary.

 

Cheers,

 

John

Comparable in the context of the entire vehicle, perhaps... But, 69 lbs in the context of a single functional element is huge. I'm sure a portion of that has more to do with the form factor of the extended roofline (and a less that ideal c pillar angle), which would not apply to the mustang, but lets just say ( in the spirit of the debate) that a mustang would only suffer half that weight penalty. Any engineer that would be willing to accept such a compromise with impunity would more than likely be willing make several others. Before you know it, you got yourself a Camaro.

 

Given that the primary design directive dictates maximum efficiency, such a compromises are unacceptable. I speak from experience.

[Biker16]

D2C was relatively clean-sheet, and we know that development was extremely cost constrained. When you need a new vehicle, you need a new vehicle. Either you bite the bullet and do it on the cheap or you cancel the vehicle. Really aren't any choices beyond that. As competitive as the Mustang's segment has become and as thin as margins likely are, letting the vehicle just go unchanged (like they are with the higher margin Expedition/Navigator) isn't really viable.

 

cost constrained means you don't design an all new car. you go out and make the car FWD/AWD or use the old platform. if you cannot afford to do it right you should not do it at all.

 

Ford made 20 billion dollars in profit for 2011.

[NickF1011]

cost constrained means you don't design an all new car. you go out and make the car FWD/AWD or use the old platform. if you cannot afford to do it right you should not do it at all.

 

Ford made 20 billion dollars in profit for 2011.

 

S197 was cost constrained, but it was still an all-new car. According to many, they didn't "do it right", by saddling it with SRA and (originally) largely carryover or outdated engines. But it needed to be done.

 

I fully expect the next generation will have its share of compromises as well. There always are in any vehicle program. Given the tight budget that Ford is likely working within, I don't expect it to push any boundaries in terms of groundbreaking design or manufacturing processes either.

 

Ford's profits in 2011 were acheived precisely through budget consciousness, not in spite of it.

[Biker16]

S197 was cost constrained, but it was still an all-new car. According to many, they didn't "do it right", by saddling it with SRA and (originally) largely carryover or outdated engines. But it needed to be done.

 

s197 still cost 1.2 billion or so to make. I would venture that the cost constraints came after the car was greenlit, not before.

 

back to my point which is rather simple. you are assuming that the next mustang is cost constrained, when Ford hasn't given any impression that it is.

 

I fully expect the next generation will have its share of compromises as well. There always are in any vehicle program. Given the tight budget that Ford is likely working within, I don't expect it to push any boundaries in terms of groundbreaking design or manufacturing processes either.

 

I feel the next Car will be used to catch up with Ford's global architectures, so expect ample use of hss Steel and other stuff that have become standard in new Fords.

[papilgee4evaeva]

agin that is not an absolute rule.

 

example the VW CC had a decent backseat, just like the old Passat had a decent backseat.

 

Counterexample: E-Class has a decent backseat. CLS-Class backseat sucks. (at least true for the last generation) :reading:

[NickF1011]

back to my point which is rather simple. you are assuming that the next mustang is cost constrained, when Ford hasn't given any impression that it is.

 

 

The Mustang has historically always been one of Ford's most cost-constrained vehicles. With its volumes near its lowest levels ever (even with predicted global demand) I don't see that really changing much. Even if they manage to design it around a more flexible platform that could handle some other duties underpinning other vehicles, I still don't see it has a high volume platform -- certainly not to the level of any FWD or truck platform they develop. Ford will want to keep costs down in order to recooperate those platform costs as easily as possible. Now, hopefully they don't make the same sorts of compromises as they have in the past, but there will undoubtedly be areas where Ford is forced to skimp on a feature or two -- one of those, by my guess, would be a third body style.

[FordBuyer]

The Mustang has historically always been one of Ford's most cost-constrained vehicles. With its volumes near its lowest levels ever (even with predicted global demand) I don't see that really changing much. Even if they manage to design it around a more flexible platform that could handle some other duties underpinning other vehicles, I still don't see it has a high volume platform -- certainly not to the level of any FWD or truck platform they develop. Ford will want to keep costs down in order to recooperate those platform costs as easily as possible. Now, hopefully they don't make the same sorts of compromises as they have in the past, but there will undoubtedly be areas where Ford is forced to skimp on a feature or two -- one of those, by my guess, would be a third body style.

 

Cost constrained or not, the Mustang has and will continue to have more body styles than its most popular car, the Fusion. Go figure. I really like the new hatches like A7 that look like sedan, but are in fact more functional hatches. The above is to me a silly argument in that all mass volume vehicles have cost targets and the bean counters come in when they even sniff that engineers and designers are beginning to get arouind that target number. I remember my Dad telling me he hated automotive engineering compared to his earlier work in aeronautical engineering because of the constant cost restraints in place all the time at Ford. Back then Ford was big in defense work, and he lamented having to work on automotive side after Ford got out of defense business. I still talk to design checkers at Ford and everyone complains to this day about how they find a problem with design, and some executive over rules them on redesigning it after determining that original design afterall still works, so why bother. I can get into a $80,000 sports car and find areas especially in the interior that bespeaks of cost cutting. And I would bet there are other cost compromises where you can't see them galore. Even an expensive sports car has a cost target that must be met let alone a mass produced Mustang that sells in the many thousands every month, not hundreds.

[Biker16]

The Mustang has historically always been one of Ford's most cost-constrained vehicles.

 

Can you independently verify this statement?

[NickF1011]

Can you independently verify this statement?

 

It doesn't need to be verified. It's common sense. One look at how long the Mustang rode on the fox platform or some variant of it tells you how little money it was being given. Even the original Mustang was done on a well-documented shoe-string budget using as many Falcon mechanicals as possible. Even in more recent years with SVT and special edition Mustangs, they were always done within very tight confines. SVT has almost been eliminated entirely I don't know how many times.

 

And yeah, the Mustang comes in more variants than the Fusion...but fewer variants than Ford's midsize sedans overall. Mondeo comes in a hatch and wagon. And FAR fewer variants than are on Ford's C/D platforms overall.

Edited May 8, 2012 by NickF1011

[Versa-Tech]

 

 

The Mustang has historically always been one of Ford's most cost-constrained vehicles. With its volumes near its lowest levels ever (even with predicted global demand) I don't see that really changing much. Even if they manage to design it around a more flexible platform that could handle some other duties underpinning other vehicles, I still don't see it has a high volume platform -- certainly not to the level of any FWD or truck platform they develop. Ford will want to keep costs down in order to recooperate those platform costs as easily as possible. Now, hopefully they don't make the same sorts of compromises as they have in the past, but there will undoubtedly be areas where Ford is forced to skimp on a feature or two -- one of those, by my guess, would be a third body style.

I agree with one exception. You can't really compare the new mustang's budget rational with previous models because the mustang is no longer just a domestic pony car. It's also a global halo. While anything developed outside of goverment is cost constrained, to say that the cost constraints of the new mustang are anywhere close to any previous iteration is simply ignorant. Such short-sighted planning was something the old Ford would have done. Even the bean counters are aware that this platform has to last at least 15 years, so they will be looking to recover development costs in 2022 at the ealiest.

[Edstock]

because the mustang is no longer just a domestic pony car.

With IRS and the EB 3.5 and the 5.0 Boss, it becomes a vehicle that is an alternative to an A-5 coupe or BMW 3 or 6-series coupes, for example, and NVH standards have to reflect this, IMHO. It will be interesting to see what all-out Shelby and SVT variants will offer.

[2b2]

^ BMW 3 AND 6-series coupes!!

every time I see a 6er it just looks SO MUCH like a Mustang.

Fomoco can take on both BungleMWs ...esp with:

I agree with one exception. You can't really compare the new mustang's budget rational with previous models because the mustang is no longer just a domestic pony car. It's also a global halo. While anything developed outside of goverment is cost constrained, to say that the cost constraints of the new mustang are anywhere close to any previous iteration is simply ignorant. Such short-sighted planning was something the old Ford would have done. Even the bean counters are aware that this platform has to last at least 15 years, so they will be looking to recover development costs in 2022 at the ealiest.

 

since I'm fixating on there also being Lincoln variant(s), AND architecture tie-ins with GRwdP, I'm betting they won't skimp in the least.

[Captainp4]

Man I hope this new mustang spawns some other RWD goodness for Ford and Lincoln. I know I'm not a customer in the segment, only had one car in my life, usually stick with trucks, but I want to see some RWD badassedness out of Ford, damnit!

[Versa-Tech]

Man I hope this new mustang spawns some other RWD goodness for Ford and Lincoln. I know I'm not a customer in the segment, only had one car in my life, usually stick with trucks, but I want to see some RWD badassedness out of Ford, damnit!

Pleas

[NickF1011]

I agree with one exception. You can't really compare the new mustang's budget rational with previous models because the mustang is no longer just a domestic pony car. It's also a global halo. While anything developed outside of goverment is cost constrained, to say that the cost constraints of the new mustang are anywhere close to any previous iteration is simply ignorant. Such short-sighted planning was something the old Ford would have done. Even the bean counters are aware that this platform has to last at least 15 years, so they will be looking to recover development costs in 2022 at the ealiest.

 

I think you are overstating the potential sales of this vehicle as a global entry. I doubt the rest of the world will account for even 50% of the North American sales, and as such, would likely mean total Mustang volume will still be lower than it was during the height of the original, Mustang II, fox body, and SN95 eras.

[akirby]

I think you are overstating the potential sales of this vehicle as a global entry. I doubt the rest of the world will account for even 50% of the North American sales, and as such, would likely mean total Mustang volume will still be lower than it was during the height of the original, Mustang II, fox body, and SN95 eras.

 

I think he was referring to the global viability of the entire platform, not just the Mustang. I think we would all agree global Mustang sales would be relatively small.

[NickF1011]

I think he was referring to the global viability of the entire platform, not just the Mustang. I think we would all agree global Mustang sales would be relatively small.

 

Eh. At this point it doesn't seem very likely that the Mustang's next platform will spawn a whole lot of other vehicles except maybe a low volume Lincoln or two.