bossed Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Love it Love it Love it. I think the ole girl is gonna be just fine. Bossed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted December 6, 2013 Share Posted December 6, 2013 What I found odd was they are showing the convertible with that stupid antenna in the back along with the pod on the trunk-any insight on that? Separate antennae for AM/FM and sat/nav would be my guess. I just don't think sticking a mast antenna in the middle of the decklid (or on the leading edge of the roof) would work on the Mustang style-wise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted December 6, 2013 Share Posted December 6, 2013 Separate antennae for AM/FM and sat/nav would be my guess. I just don't think sticking a mast antenna in the middle of the decklid (or on the leading edge of the roof) would work on the Mustang style-wise. Still not sure why they can't figure out how to put them both in one like everyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted December 6, 2013 Author Share Posted December 6, 2013 Still not sure why they can't figure out how to put them both in one like everyone else. Its kinda strange, but after reading this and watching the video, the Ecoboost I4 doesn't have a rear hip annenata, but the V8 infront of it did like the convertible. I don't understand why they can't just have one antenna on the car and move it to the deck lid if its a convertible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted December 6, 2013 Share Posted December 6, 2013 Still not sure why they can't figure out how to put them both in one like everyone else. Most convertibles (which are luxury cars for the most part), if I recall, that only have one external antenna have the AM/FM mast located in the glass, which simply costs more. They could put them both in the same mast like they do on all their sedans and SUV's, but like I said, I think it would just look odd on the Mustang. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probowler Posted December 6, 2013 Share Posted December 6, 2013 Just saw a video on Fox News with the chief engineer on the project and he is mentioning that they have one more surprise coming on the vehicle....wonder what that could be? http://video.foxnews.com/v/2897489942001/secrets-of-the-2015-ford-mustang/?intcmp=HPBucket&playlist_id=931078438001 I think the vehicle looks great and could be the answer to my mid life crisis! Think the details are excellent and it shows all around. What I found odd was they are showing the convertible with that stupid antenna in the back along with the pod on the trunk-any insight on that? Ridiculously high MPG? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackinaw Posted December 6, 2013 Share Posted December 6, 2013 Did they state there is a 200lb weight loss across the model range? Or does the 200lb weight loss come from there now being a 4 cylinder model that accounts for a good chunk of the 200lbs? I don't think the 200 pounds is an official number. I read one report that said the internal weight reduction goal Ford had set had been met. They didn't mention any numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 Still not sure why they can't figure out how to put them both in one like everyone else. Hemm, not sure what you mean but everyone uses 2 antenna. Some even have 3 antenna. AM/FM always uses a separate antenna from satellite radio or navigation system. Most convertibles (which are luxury cars for the most part), if I recall, that only have one external antenna have the AM/FM mast located in the glass, which simply costs more. They could put them both in the same mast like they do on all their sedans and SUV's, but like I said, I think it would just look odd on the Mustang. Can't embed in the rear window on a convertible... radio reception goes south when you lower the top Most convertibles have AM/FM antenna embedded in the A-pillar... like on my BMW. And the sat-nav/Sirius antenna is on the trunk lid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 Hemm, not sure what you mean but everyone uses 2 antenna. Some even have 3 antenna. AM/FM always uses a separate antenna from satellite radio or navigation system. Can't embed in the rear window on a convertible... radio reception goes south when you lower the top Most convertibles have AM/FM antenna embedded in the A-pillar... like on my BMW. And the sat-nav/Sirius antenna is on the trunk lid. I believe that's what nick meant (have it in the a pillar or something and then the shark fin type on the trunk lid). That's also what I was getting at. If there needs to be two antennas for the radio and nav, so be it, but find a better way to integrate the radio one. The MKZ has the same problem and it cheapens the look there too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 OTOH, I've never been happy with the mast antennas on any of my Fords (or, really, on newer Fords owned by family in friends). Don't want to see how bad it would be if they didn't use a mast antenna. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 (edited) I don't think the 200 pounds is an official number. I read one report that said the internal weight reduction goal Ford had set had been met. They didn't mention any numbers. The current V6 mustang is around 100 lbs lighter than a V8 and in FWD models like Edge, the 2.0 EB is around 100 lbs lighter than a V6. So even if the V8 Mustang remains around 3600 lbs, the that would mean the 2.3 EB Mustang is around 3400 lbs..... That sounds similar to the lightest version of ATS.... Edited December 7, 2013 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 The current V6 mustang is around 100 lbs lighter than a V8 and in FWD models like Edge, the 2.0 EB is around 100 lbs lighter than a V6. So even if the V8 Mustang remains around 3600 lbs, the that would mean the 2.3 EB Mustang is around 3400 lbs..... That sounds similar to the lightest version of ATS.... So JPD, what's the Aussie press saying about the 2015 Mustang? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 (edited) Since no motor in the new Mustang is rated under 300 HP...wouldn't that kinda drive away the younger crowd that may want a Mustang, but their insurance company will be saying "No no no...." I would think a 2.5L naturally aspirated 4 cylinder rated at 175 HP would be just the ticket (no pun intended) to a more sedate Mustang for the rest of the world.....remember, in 1982 when Ford brought back the 302 H.O. motor for Mustang...it was rated at 175 HP.....the 2.5L could be paired with either a 6 speed auto and a 6 speed manual for the DIY'ers in the group... Or, maybe a nice 3.0L Duratec rated at 240-250 HP...or for that matter, the 2.0L Ecoboost is rated at 240 HP....drop that in as another choice.... Edited December 7, 2013 by twintornados Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 Since no motor in the new Mustang is rated under 300 HP...wouldn't that kinda drive away the younger crowd that may want a Mustang, but their insurance company will be saying "No no no...." I would think a 2.5L naturally aspirated 4 cylinder rated at 175 HP would be just the ticket (no pun intended) to a more sedate Mustang for the rest of the world.....remember, in 1982 when Ford brought back the 302 H.O. motor for Mustang...it was rated at 175 HP.....the 2.5L could be paired with either a 6 speed auto and a 6 speed manual for the DIY'ers in the group... Or, maybe a nice 3.0L Duratec rated at 240-250 HP...or for that matter, the 2.0L Ecoboost is rated at 240 HP....drop that in as another choice.... I was but a fetus in 1982... But I don't think insurance companies would look so much at HP levels when determining their rates in this case. They'll see "Mustang" and jack it up. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
351cid Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 Since no motor in the new Mustang is rated under 300 HP...wouldn't that kinda drive away the younger crowd that may want a Mustang, but their insurance company will be saying "No no no...." I would think a 2.5L naturally aspirated 4 cylinder rated at 175 HP would be just the ticket (no pun intended) to a more sedate Mustang for the rest of the world.....remember, in 1982 when Ford brought back the 302 H.O. motor for Mustang...it was rated at 175 HP.....the 2.5L could be paired with either a 6 speed auto and a 6 speed manual for the DIY'ers in the group... The 1982 5.0L HO was rated at 157 hp with a 2V carb. Pretty sure the weight was some where in the 2900 lb area. The 1983-84 5.0L was 175 hp with a Holley 4V carb. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 Since no motor in the new Mustang is rated under 300 HP...wouldn't that kinda drive away the younger crowd that may want a Mustang, but their insurance company will be saying "No no no...." I would think a 2.5L naturally aspirated 4 cylinder rated at 175 HP would be just the ticket (no pun intended) to a more sedate Mustang for the rest of the world.....remember, in 1982 when Ford brought back the 302 H.O. motor for Mustang...it was rated at 175 HP.....the 2.5L could be paired with either a 6 speed auto and a 6 speed manual for the DIY'ers in the group... Or, maybe a nice 3.0L Duratec rated at 240-250 HP...or for that matter, the 2.0L Ecoboost is rated at 240 HP....drop that in as another choice.... How is that different than now where the Base V6 is 305 hp? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
92LX302 Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 Don't know how it works in the US, but here in Canada, when I called to get my '92 insured, they told me it didn't matter if it was a I4, V6 or V8. To them, a Mustang is a Mustang. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
351cid Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 When the wife & I were looking at Mustangs, the rate for a GT was the same as a V-6. Only difference was whether it was a convertible or not. Convertible was 25% more...of course we're 50 years old as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted December 8, 2013 Author Share Posted December 8, 2013 My insurance actually went down going from a SVT Focus to a 2006 Mustang GT by the tune of a couple hundred dollars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 The 1982 5.0L HO was rated at 157 hp with a 2V carb. Pretty sure the weight was some where in the 2900 lb area. The 1983-84 5.0L was 175 hp with a Holley 4V carb. Yup....thanks for the clarification....and, exactly my point... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted December 10, 2013 Share Posted December 10, 2013 Can't embed in the rear window on a convertible... radio reception goes south when you lower the top Can embed in the front windshield also. I recall that's where it was in our old 1980ish Caprice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted December 10, 2013 Share Posted December 10, 2013 Can embed in the front windshield also. I recall that's where it was in our old 1980ish Caprice. Yep, that's where it was in our '77 Olds Cutlass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted December 10, 2013 Share Posted December 10, 2013 Yep, that's where it was in our '77 Olds Cutlass. Not surprisingly my first car was a 75 cutlass (baby blue w/white vinyl top and blue velour interior). Was the 77 the old body style or the new smaller body style? My buddy had a 78 that was the new style but I couldn't remember if they changed in 77 or 78. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted December 10, 2013 Share Posted December 10, 2013 Not surprisingly my first car was a 75 cutlass (baby blue w/white vinyl top and blue velour interior). Was the 77 the old body style or the new smaller body style? My buddy had a 78 that was the new style but I couldn't remember if they changed in 77 or 78. The '77 was a boat! It was red with red vinyl top and red interior. I was born in '76, so about the only thing I remember of it is dad lifting up the back see and seeing the ground through the floor. He gave it to my sister to drive shortly after that when my mom got a T-Bird. My brother still hasn't let me live it down. "When you came along, we had to get rid of the Mustang (they had a gold early seventies model I think) to get the Cutlass so there was room for you!" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenCaylor Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 The '77 was a boat! It was red with red vinyl top and red interior. I was born in '76, so about the only thing I remember of it is dad lifting up the back see and seeing the ground through the floor. He gave it to my sister to drive shortly after that when my mom got a T-Bird. My brother still hasn't let me live it down. "When you came along, we had to get rid of the Mustang (they had a gold early seventies model I think) to get the Cutlass so there was room for you!" LOL, with our family, it was the opposite. My Mom was driving a 65 Mustang, my Dad, a 57 T-Bird. When my sister and I were larger, we sold the T-Bird, my Dad took over the Mustang and we bought my Mom a 2-door 69 LTD Brougham with a 429. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.