How will the 08 Mustang look?

[Blue II]

Some are saying the reskin will go away from the retro look. It would be wrong to stay with the current style too long, but what can Ford do to top the current model?

[philsshon2]

Some are saying the reskin will go away from the retro look. It would be wrong to stay with the current style too long, but what can Ford do to top the current model?

well, the reskin got pushed back to 09. I think you'll still see the three bar tailights, the pony in the grille, and side scoops. These all can be sone in a modern way, look at the 99-03 model. The Roofline will stay the same, so it won't be drastic. that's my two cents

[Edgey]

The Mustang came out in 2005, isn't it too soon to expect a complete redesign in '09? There's nothing wrong with the current car that can't be augmented with a revised face and interior.

[ford4v429]

Some are saying the reskin will go away from the retro look. It would be wrong to stay with the current style too long, but what can Ford do to top the current model?

 

Much like when they 'one-upped' the sharp looking 67-69 fastbacks in 69, I would have to guess(and hope) the 69 quarter panels w/scoops return, and the hockey stick goes away- that crease severely limits stripe options...a 'new' mach1 sidestripe, a reverse cstripe boss, etc along with the 'hips' as they call it now would keep the existing chassis selling strong for at least several more years. Whatever they do, Ford needs to be very careful- the 05 looks very good and improving upon that will require a lot of feedback from mustang enthusiasts. I'd bet the return of the 69 hood lines and factory shaker arent far off either- the fang hood/shaker looks so 'factory' that I cant believe Ford aint offering it already. the 05 hood is really the only 'bland' part on the 05- yet still juts out enough to look great...

 

things like sequential lights and louvers are very cheap to produce, and highly profitable- Ford needs to get in on some of that action too. I still think if they'd offer a 'underhood engine appearance package' that included painting the block/heads/covers they could really make a few hundred bucks per car easily...look how many folks are buying underhood dressup stuff. I paid 150 for my sequentials- in volume I bet those could net ford 100 bucks profit per option sold- thats almost free money if theyd just go after it.

 

in a way I kinda hope they keep delaying the update till things start slowing to a 'normal' pace, especially as I hope to get the 06 paid for before a even better looking one comes out- might just 'have to have one' but cannot even imagine ever parting with the 06

 

As long as a model is selling reasonably well and the tooling isnt wore out, I never understood why the changes...I still think if they produced the current model for years it would still be selling...pretty cars dont go out of style, especially if they perform exceptionally well...just revise the interiors, offer more options- perhaps even 'reskins' should be options- would be a smart way to 'test the waters' before just dumping a 'here it is' model on the public and hoping everyone likes it. I dsont think any car company has ever reskinned a new model but kept the old skin as an option...with the flex lines used today, no reason not to, and then if a styling 'mistake' is made, the old still popular style will still keep selling.

Edited August 5, 2006 by ford4v429

[Misteredog]

The Mustang came out in 2005, isn't it too soon to expect a complete redesign in '09? There's nothing wrong with the current car that can't be augmented with a revised face and interior.

 

And a new modern V6 in the base model.

[ford4v429]

And a new modern V6 in the base model.

I still think even a 4 cyl 'mpg' model might not be a bad idea either- but only if they can really up the mpg from the already fuel efficient 6/8's...one thing a 4 cyl might open up is youth sales- insurance on even a v6 might be hampering sales to college kids, like my nephew- he drives a honda element that cost over 18k...tell me if you had to choose between a similarly priced 4 cyl 'box' and a 4 cyl 'cool car' which do you think would sell?

Edited August 5, 2006 by ford4v429

[Edgey]

The Mustang is a rough-n-ready type of sports car. Things like "modern" and "V6" don't seem to pair well in the Mustang. I think the main reason the Mustang is so simple is to keep its price-point very low but still offer robust performance. The more you modernize the Mustang, the more you risk losing its punch and decreasing its profit margins (or increasing its price), especially in the V6 model where profit margins could shrink with the D35.

[Watchdevil]

It's scary to think if they decide to change the Mustang in some way that goes too far from being what it is now. To move it forward they may consider changing some things that could backfire. It's important not to disturb some styling traits that distinctly make a Mustang a Mustang. For instance, if they forgo the current front end treatment for something more laid back aerodynamic the Mustang may loose something... What comes to mind is the photochop someone did by grafting a Falcon nose onto the silver Mustang fastback concept. It just ended up looking like an evolution of the 1999-2004 Mustang. And unfortunately that front end design looks too much like it could be on any car from an ambiguous luxury sedan to an economy car.

 

We all know what happened when the Mustang changed too much in the late 60's and early 70's... It was without the C-scoop detail and then eventually for 1971 it just adapted then current styling language the rest of the passenger car line had with fewer original cues styled in. There was a desire to get those recognizable Mustang traits back into the car. Unfortunately, it ended up on a glamorized Pinto. Then when 1979 came around, it went to a totally euro look with no Mustang heritage with only the headlamps swept back on the ends and nothing else. Keeping that body design for so long almost killed the Mustang. So 1994 brought the styling cues back that made the Mustang recognizable as such again, but using a lot of modern design language found on the rest of the Ford car lines. Then 1999 brought the awkward new edge look which to me was always imbalanced as if I wanted to fix a line or surface here and there. The new 2005 Mustang seemed to have fixed all of that into something that is close to perfect, as if the Mustang evolved naturally from the 1960's adding modern surfacing to a recognizable styling package with most of the hard points in place.

 

There is a reason styling over the generations keeps going back to the C-scoops, specific greenhouse and grille shape. There is a challenge bringing forth forward surfacing and detail without loosing the Mustang charm. Like the VW Beetle, you can't abandon the familar shapes because if VW made a Beetle into a box it would loose it's identity. The Mustang is simply a car that has to evolve like the Porsche's have over the years looking like there was never a drastic break from the original form, but incorporating new and fresh styling devices without abandoning the styling formula that made it popular. The exact styling of what makes a Mustang look like a Mustang makes it an icon that has beauty and stand the test of time over decades. Simply put, you do not want to makeover Stevie Nicks to look like Jessica Simpson... If that's the case, then create a whole new car with a new name and market it under another Ford division that could use it... However as history already proved, the Probe and Cougar is no longer around... Neither is the euro-styled 1979-83 Mustang.

 

I don't think it will be necessary to change the Mustang too much... It's a car that can go longer on the body shell without major changes. I think the only thing that may go against it is the more aggressive body sculpture that the Camaro and Challenger will present. If that is the case then the Mustang could become more muscular and aggressive like the 1967 models did. All I know is we don't want a repeat of the 1970's where the Mustang lost it's identity. It would be interesting to see what designers can come up with to evolve the current style without abandoning what makes a Mustang look like a Mustang...

 

The great thing about the Mustang is that it is easy to add alternate grilles, trim and performance levels for various Mustang models...

Edited August 5, 2006 by Watchdevil

[Harley Lover]

As long as a model is selling reasonably well and the tooling isnt wore out, I never understood why the changes...I still think if they produced the current model for years it would still be selling...

 

Hey! They should try that on the Town Car and Crown Vic!

 

:P

[Watchdevil]

Hey! They should try that on the Town Car and Crown Vic!

 

:P

 

Problem is Ford didn't know what to change, when to change it or quit... So we end up with a full sized car that sticks out like a new Checker cab did in the 1980's...

[Watchdevil]

The Mustang came out in 2005, isn't it too soon to expect a complete redesign in '09? There's nothing wrong with the current car that can't be augmented with a revised face and interior.

 

Play with the grille designs on most models. Bring the GT-R nose to the Boss Mustang. Add wider sequential taillamps to the Shelby model. Tweak the interior trim just a little, get rid of the black rubbermaid console look and add some interior color and trim varaiations for those who don't want gray or beige interior... Some people like all black but that is too stark for me. I like the red and black coordinate but its limited to certain exterior colors and to the leather option. I wouldn't mind at least added red or blue solid for the base dashboard, seats, doorpanels and carpeting as well as coordinated with black. Offering only the red with black leather limits the exterior color choices to the point that you can't have a splash of color in the interior on some cars. I personally want a blue interior with white exterior and blue stripes... I can also imagine the My Color instrument lighting set to a cool blue with this combination..

[Traveler]

Since we've gone back to a retro 'Stang, I guess the next phase I guess would be a new pinto-like Mustang II styling. :P

 

Seriously, I think little changes need to be made to the Mustang for quite awhile. However, introducing newer limited-edition models will certainly help sell the Mustang to the enthusiasts...even for the V6 buyer. The grille enhancement they did on V6 models is a perfect example of a good afterthought as it really enhances the look of the base model. I would be concerned about moving the Mustang away from retro now that both Dodge and Chevy are embracing it. It could be risky and their cars will likely renew the public's interest in retro nich cars. I'd say perhaps consider making subtle changes to the Mustang such as the Mustang concept's taillights that run across the back of the car (similar to the way the old GT-500s looked), updating and refreshing the headlights, front fascia and grille and newer ideas with the wheels. Add some new color to the interior. How about a blue interior theme? Don't forget a moonroof option or a large scenic glass top as some sort of summer edition.

 

The Mustang will likely remain the public's ideal pony car so keep it sporty, yet practical with popular options down even into the base models and people will buy them. Appearance packages will help keep the V6 models appealing for several years to come. I don't even think I'd consider moving the Mustang back into a more modern styling theme until well into the next decade. What Ford really should consider is reskinning the Mustang platform and again selling a Mercury mechanical clone with more modern styling. If there is one car that probably threatens the V6 Mustang its the Pontaic G6 coupe and convertible with the predominant female buyers.

[Misteredog]

The Mustang is a rough-n-ready type of sports car. Things like "modern" and "V6" don't seem to pair well in the Mustang. I think the main reason the Mustang is so simple is to keep its price-point very low but still offer robust performance. The more you modernize the Mustang, the more you risk losing its punch and decreasing its profit margins (or increasing its price), especially in the V6 model where profit margins could shrink with the D35.

 

But a Duratec 35 or larger displacement derivative thereof should give the Mustang a smoother powertrain with equal or better emissions,greater ful economy, lower costs of manufacturing as production of the new generation Duratecs ramps up, and better weight distribution. I understand the F/R distribution is very close to 50/50 with a Duratec 35 under the hood. If you want something cheaper and rougher you could probably go with a 2.9 litre i5 derived from the Duratec 23, that might not be a bad idea especially if also displaces the Vulcan in the Ranger or whatever follows that...if anything.

[Edgey]

The vehicles carrying the Vulcan 3.0 (Taurus and Ranger) will be discontinued so we know that engine will be gone sooner or later. The 4.0L is here to stay thanks to the Explorer and Mustang. I'm not familiar with the hard stats on the 4.0 and 3.5 engines so I'm not sure how they stack up against each other.

 

Is the 2.3 in the Ranger the same as the 2.3 in the Fusion & Escape? I think the 2.3L made its debut in the Ranger back in 2001.

[Watchdevil]

I was reflecting on a few years ago way before the new Mustang came out and remembered I photochopped these pics which ended up looking remarkable like the current Mustang...

 

 

More recently I put the 3-bar grille on the Mustang to see how it would look. Perhaps it would be more acceptable in black grille bars. When i have more time I will see if I can do a black version of it... It may not be what people would want to see make production but it's interesting to experiment...

 

 

What Ford really should consider is reskinning the Mustang platform and again selling a Mercury mechanical clone with more modern styling. If there is one car that probably threatens the V6 Mustang its the Pontaic G6 coupe and convertible with the predominant female buyers.

 

Mercury needs something... And making a Lincoln out of the Mustang may miss the reach of many people who cannot afford luxury. A revived Cougar in the vein of affordable luxury just like the original may work to capture the female buyers as well as others looking for something different and upscale. I think it would be interesting to see a luxury variation of the Mustang with content and luxury cues that are not appropriate for a Mustang. However, if they don't see fit to do a Cougar then a Lincoln Mark IX would be a logical alternative.

 

Another experiment....

[retro-man]

Someone posted a photo of some guys in the styling dept. working on a very handsome clay mockup that they speculated might be a Lincoln variant of the Mustang. If so, I approve.

 

I agree that updating a retro exercise is a very delicate matter. I don't think either Volkswagen with the New Beetle, or Chrysler with the PT Cruiser, have handled their updates very well. But, speaking of well, the Mustang does have a deeper well to draw from - as mentioned, the more muscular look of the late 60s, the wider sequential taillights on the Shelby, etc. etc.

 

I would like to see it not go "modern" until circumstances force a radical change in the technology. Perhaps of things go in the direction of the Tesla, which really fascinates me, then we could see a new technology carrying forward the Mustang name (and high performance) with a radically modern body. But as long as it is what it is, the heritage should remain fiercely guarded.

 

The discussion of Camaro and the Challenger, and how they may breathe new life into the retro niche, makes me a bit melancholy about how Ford handled my T-Bird. If only they hadn't botched the launch. If only they had supported the car. If only they had offered potent powertrain options (like maybe the 390hp supercharged motor and 6-speed manual transmission that J Mays and Jacques Nasser had put in their own T-Birds - but which were evidently too good for the rest of us). If only.

[Ralph Greene]

I know most think the future of the Mustang requires it to remain a fairly basic somewhat crude reasonably low priced "sporty" machine. And granted the new versions are vastly improved over my 2003 Mach 1 in every way except engines.

 

But there is a fairly large (and growing) bunch of folks who would like it to be a bit more refined. But maybe this bunch is not as large as the bunch who needs it to remain affordable.

 

So....it will be interesting to see how Ford handles this situation in future years. I personally would like a little nicer version to be available for some of us folks who would like IRS ( I agree the current solid axle is good for a solid axle), a nicer interior with more gadgets, 6 speed manual in base car, etc....maybe a Mercury version as some of you have mentioned.

[Guest Sixcav]

You know this notion that the Mustang is "Affordable", I'm not sure on it anymore. I have an 06 GT and don't get me wrong I love the car, it's awesome. But I spent 27 thousand dollars on this car and the only two options I got were automatic tranny and leather seats. Yesterday I was at the dealer getting the 12K mile checkup and while they had my car I went out on the lot because I noticed they had some 07 Mustangs in. I looked at one and the only difference between it and mine was the 20 inch wheels, chrome dashboard interior upgrade thingy which frankly is a waste of money and the Shaker sound system. It was 31 thousand dollars. Now by the time you figure in tax and tags you're over 33 grand for the "affordable" Mustang. I'm just not sure that changing the color of the dash board, putting on 3 inch larger wheels and adding two speakers and a bass unit to the car is worth another 4 thousand dollars. I'm not sure that I would consider 27 thousand dollars affordable. Is it a good price for a car that performes this well. Sure. For any other car on the market that handles this well and goes as fast you have to spend a lot more than 27 grand. But lets be honest, most Mustang GT's on the lot average about 28 to 30 K, that's reality, before taxes., and that's not really what I would call "affordable". Affordable is something in the 18 to 22 K range and in the Mustang, that's a stripped down V6 model. Then you figure in that gas is $3.00 a gallon and you have a V8 powered car and while mine gets decent mileage if I don't get on it you know that when you do your gas mileage plummets.

 

With respect to this notion that the Mustang is "basic" and "crude" lets keep in mind that it features some pretty advanced late day technology. Things like computer controlled throttle, liquid filled engine mounts, an engine control module that is 10 times faster than the previous generation Mustang, a five speed auto (if equipped) which is a fairly new option in Ford vehicles, and the modular motor itself is by no means a throw back to 20 years ago. While it does have a live axle, keep in mind that it still pulls .89 on the skidpad which is pretty damned good for a stock car. Most people will never push their Mustang to anywhere near .89 because they get scared somewhere around .5 and back off. I've put my own into some pretty hard cornering at high speed and it stuck very well.

 

I tend to agree with respect to the interior. While it's not poorly done there are times when it just seems minimal. I know that to some this is part of the appeal of the car. It's supposed to be the "all go, no show" sort of mantality. I think they could have done a better job with the interior and the interior upgrade package isn't the answer. A chrome dashboard is just gaudy and unattractive. The ability to change the lights of your instrument cluster is a feature that soon loses it's uniqueness. After about a week 99% of owners pick the color they most like and stick with that. So yes an improvement in materials is possibly warranted, but then given that they already charge nearly 30K on average for a GT, if you improve the interior you're going to push the already expensive "affordable" car right out of sight. Or Ford could just admit that they are raking in the bucks on this car and drop the price some. Yesterday I looked at an 06 Mustang GT convertable, loaded that was orginally 33 thousand dollars. But because the 07's were out they had already dropped 3 grand off the price of the vert. So that tells me they have plenty of markup. I think they could improve the interior somewhat and not jack up the price as an end result. So there's the pros and cons, at least as I see them.

[wescoent]

I can think of a few ways to improve upon the Mustang:

 

-The chassis needs to be reworked into a modular design that can be stretched and widened into a sedan or larger coupe. The solid rear axle is nice enough, but with the Camaro on the way, an independent rear suspension is needed, if but to keep the rags satisfied.

 

-The engine line needs to be updated. Rumor has it that the 3.0L engine is getting a temporary update, getting bumped up to maybe 230-240hp to hold that motor over while 3.5L production ramps up. A 3.0L, 230hp base engine would be a good starting point at around $20,000, and make for a pretty sporty base Mustang. Next up would be the 4.6L motor, with maybe an additional 10 or 20hp to keep up with the Camaro. What it needs more than anything is a midlevel engine between the GT and Shelby. A 5.4L motor with 390hp as rumored is a good midlevel engine. Finally, keep the Shelby as the top-level Mustang.

 

-Transmissions are another area for improvement. 6-speed manuals and 6-speed automatics with manumatic paddle shifters would be a nice addition.

 

-Only one update for the interior would really be needed. All of the hard plastic should be immediately replaced by the soft-touch material used in the Fusion. There should be three ways to trim out a Mustang interior. One would be the current aluminum. Another would be the fake carbon fiber Ford uses in all of its other cars and trucks. Finally, there should be a color-keyed option to the exterior that would be a big hit among women. Another big upgrade could be to an LCD-screen gauge setup, where buyers can choose between different fonts. That would be way-cool.

 

-Otherwise, they just need to keep up the good work, and try cross-promoting other Ford cars with the Mustang.

[Anthony]

Make a true fastback.

[silvrsvt]

I know most think the future of the Mustang requires it to remain a fairly basic somewhat crude reasonably low priced "sporty" machine. And granted the new versions are vastly improved over my 2003 Mach 1 in every way except engines.

 

But there is a fairly large (and growing) bunch of folks who would like it to be a bit more refined. But maybe this bunch is not as large as the bunch who needs it to remain affordable.

 

Well Since a Mach1 isn't offered...you can say the GT has improved on the Mach1 since it offers a engine that runs just as well as Mach1 motor.

 

As for refinement...a very good base is there, the only thing IMO that needs to be improved is the quatily of plastics in the car, which aren't bad, but I wouldnt mind some matt/flat soft touch plastic instead of the semigloss/satin hard plastic my car has . Then again that leaves an opening for a mercury or lincoln

[calypsocoral]

Some are saying the reskin will go away from the retro look. It would be wrong to stay with the current style too long, but what can Ford do to top the current model?

 

 

I'll have to admit that I'm sort of sitting on the fence, as to whether or not the Mustang's styling is truely "retro".

 

The side profile, for example is distinctly modern, as is the car's stance, with the short overhangs and wheels pushed to the corners. This is no long-overhang, straight-line-only sled.

 

What Hau Tai-Tang and the S197 crew answered is the following question: "What makes a Mustang look like a Mustang?"

 

Unfortunately, like the Porsche 911, there really isn't that much to work with, in terms of exterior styling cues-- there really isn't much you can change before it stops looking like a Mustang. Thus, any major changes to the car should probably come in the forms of performance and refinement enhancements.

 

You know this notion that the Mustang is "Affordable", I'm not sure on it anymore. I have an 06 GT and don't get me wrong I love the car, it's awesome. But I spent 27 thousand dollars on this car and the only two options I got were automatic tranny and leather seats.

 

Let's review what you got for $27K...

 

300 horses.

 

320 lb/ft.

 

0-60 in <5.5 seconds.

 

Name another car that even comes CLOSE to that sort of bang for the buck.

 

...look at the 99-03 model...

 

I'd rather not. The Fox Mustangs made the 1974 Mustang II look like a beauty queen. At least it still looked like a Mustang!

 

At least the Foxes weren't as grotesque as the GM F-bodies of the 1980's... *cringe*

 

In terms of styling, the '80's and '90's need to be shot, buried, and forgotten.

[Guest Sixcav]

calypsocoral

 

 

That's called taking a quote out of context. You should be a journalist bud. Lets review everything that I wrote down shall we?

 

First I sure enough said what you quoted, which was.

 

You know this notion that the Mustang is "Affordable", I'm not sure on it anymore. I have an 06 GT and don't get me wrong I love the car, it's awesome. But I spent 27 thousand dollars on this car and the only two options I got were automatic tranny and leather seats.

And then I also said.

Is it a good price for a car that performes this well. Sure. For any other car on the market that handles this well and goes as fast you have to spend a lot more than 27 grand. But lets be honest, most Mustang GT's on the lot average about 28 to 30 K, that's reality, before taxes., and that's not really what I would call "affordable". Affordable is something in the 18 to 22 K range and in the Mustang, that's a stripped down V6 model. Then you figure in that gas is $3.00 a gallon and you have a V8 powered car and while mine gets decent mileage if I don't get on it you know that when you do your gas mileage plummets.

 

Please do not try to misrepresent what I was saying ok? If you're going to quote me don't take it out of context and only post some of what I said so you can make it sound like something it's not.

Edited August 6, 2006 by Sixcav

[Ralph Greene]

I mentioned it was/is a somewhat crude car, designed to be affordable as a muscle car. I have driven a 06 quite a bit and still think that. However, I'm not knocking this outstandingly popular, and even more important, successful muscle car. And yes....affordable is a relative term. For sure it costs a lot more than an economy car, but you do get a lot.

 

However....go drive an Infinity Coupe, BMW 3 series Coupe, and cars like that and you will understand why I said Mustangs are crude. And yes these cars cost more, so obviouly you have to pay even more for refinement. The Mustang crowd won't get what I mean, but I think it dangerous for Ford to continue building the car enthusiasts say they want. There just isn't enough of them buying cars. Example....the current model is appealing to people who aren't really traditional Mustang fans. They just like the car. Well....what will they like next?

 

My point is Ford will have to decide, if they haven't already done so, whether they want to keep this car "affordable" and retro to cater to it's traditional market, and risk losing this market, or make some drastic changes over time for a somewhat different market. You can't just continue making a retro car with powerful engine forever. A more modern car is more than a 300 HP V 8 engine in a retro themed body.

 

BTW....You don't even need a big bulky V 8 4.6 to make 300 HP much longer. The 3.5 with a little light pressure turbo can make more HP and TQ with better economy and packaging. Though not the way a traditional Mustang has been marketed, I imagine a turbo 3.5 with IRS could be lighter than current model, have better performance than Mustang GT, and also get better fuel economy. I hope that's where we're headed with at least one model.

Edited August 6, 2006 by Ralph Greene

[jrod]

But a Duratec 35 or larger displacement derivative thereof should give the Mustang a smoother powertrain with equal or better emissions,greater ful economy, lower costs of manufacturing as production of the new generation Duratecs ramps up, and better weight distribution. I understand the F/R distribution is very close to 50/50 with a Duratec 35 under the hood. If you want something cheaper and rougher you could probably go with a 2.9 litre i5 derived from the Duratec 23, that might not be a bad idea especially if also displaces the Vulcan in the Ranger or whatever follows that...if anything.

4.0 is dead, Cologne, Germany is to be closed as well as Essex. Lima and Cleveland Engine 1 and 2 will be Ford's only plants producing V-6's. Duratec 35 is to be the base engine in the Mustang probably for the reskin in MY2009. Cleveland Engine 1 will begin making 3.5 at the end of this year. It will be tooled to accomodate front and rear wheel applications. Lima is only tooled for front wheel drive. Cleveland Engine 2 will be retooling their block and head lines to increase HP in Duratec 3.0, which might include turbocharging.