Mach 4 Trademark Filing Suggests Four Door Ford Mustang Incoming

[atomcat68]

My daily driver for the past 20 years has been a Mustang. As much as some may say that a four door in heresy, I can say I would approve of them making one. If a four door and a two door were offered at the similar price I'd go with the four door. 

 

Many would argue that a true sports car wouldn't be a four door, but the Mustang was never a true sports car, it is a muscle car, and muscle cars have had four doors as well as two.

[jpd80]

12 minutes ago, atomcat68 said:

My daily driver for the past 20 years has been a Mustang. As much as some may say that a four door in heresy, I can say I would approve of them making one. If a four door and a two door were offered at the similar price I'd go with the four door. 

 

Many would argue that a true sports car wouldn't be a four door, but the Mustang was never a true sports car, it is a muscle car, and muscle cars have had four doors as well as two.

If Farley sees merit in doing it, the project will go ahead.

could make the four door different enough that both vehicles 

complement each other but curious to Dr this play out…

[Rick73]

6 hours ago, atomcat68 said:

My daily driver for the past 20 years has been a Mustang. As much as some may say that a four door in heresy, I can say I would approve of them making one. If a four door and a two door were offered at the similar price I'd go with the four door. 

 

Many would argue that a true sports car wouldn't be a four door, but the Mustang was never a true sports car, it is a muscle car, and muscle cars have had four doors as well as two.

Many think of Mustang as both Pony car and Muscle car, but what I loved best was the innovative Pony-car part of design; compact and affordable, with six cylinder and small-block V8s.  That’s what made it unique to me.  The original 65 and 66 were really not all that fast compared to muscle cars of that time.

 

Obviously by 1967 it got a 390 big block V8, and later even more powerful 428 and 429, but to me the original Mustang set the bar high.  If the 4-door is coming, I hope Ford designers can somehow incorporate some of the original’s incomparable appeal.

[rmc523]

On 2/28/2025 at 5:07 PM, DeluxeStang said:

I wonder if the higher end performance variants would run the predator motor. Imagine a sedan with 800 plus hp haha. 

 

It's possible, especially if coupe engineering is there, but i wouldn't say guaranteed......my pricing range did not include any special editions like GT500/350 etc - I topped out at Dark Horse.

 

On 2/28/2025 at 6:12 PM, jpd80 said:

The point of interest that nobody talks about is how the rear seating is set up.

In order to make this a practical four door, the rear seat position needs to be moved

from where it currently is, in between the rear wheel tubs to forward of this position

like a conventional sedan has……not changing that will be an utter waste of time.

 

There'd be no point in doing this if they didn't adjust the rear seats.

 

On 2/28/2025 at 6:45 PM, akirby said:

if you’re doing one you might as well do both.   Flat Rock certainly has the capacity.  I would think the Lincoln would use the Aviator 3.0LEB rather than the Coyote.

 

Eh, I'd be skeptical of Lincoln getting a version, even if a current styling MKR (L100 styling?) would be nice....

 

On 3/1/2025 at 2:10 AM, T-dubz said:

I don’t have anything against a mustang sedan, I just don’t get the point. Ford moved away from sedans for a reason. 
 

Most sport sedans seem to be souped up versions of “regular” sedans. They are also usually luxury vehicles because that’s really the only market that will pay big bucks for a sedan. More affordable sport sedans like the Kia stinger haven’t faired too well.
 

I think you guys are way off on price too. The focus RS would be nearly $50k in today’s dollars. Here are some other sport sedan prices:

 

Civic Type R - $46k

CT5-V black wing - $99k

CT4-V black wing - $64k

integra type s -$54k

tlx type s - $59k

m3 - $77k

Audi rs7 - $130k

Corolla GR - $40k

panamera - $105k

elantra N - $35k

 

I’m guessing starting price would be $50-55k and even higher with the v8. I don’t think there will be many buyers at those prices. 
 

I kinda hope Mach 4 doesn’t stand for 4 door. I hope it stands for 4wd and that this is the off road mustang we’ve heard rumors about. That one is even more pointless than the mustang sedan but it would be a lot cooler.

 

Stinger had no name recognition, not to mention it was a performance Kia at a time when Kia was still up and coming, whereas this would have Mustang's name/history to borrow from.

 

You're also using top end models for your pricing comparisons - I think the only way they offer this model is if they have a full range of base EcoBoost up to Dark Horse, otherwise volume will be too limited, which is why I said a mid 40s starting price seems likely, which accounts for a premium over the convertible starting price, which itself has a premium over the coupe.

 

On 3/1/2025 at 3:36 PM, jpd80 said:

It’s interesting that Farley is talking about this now after watching GM go

through the whole exercise with the Alpha platform, Camaro, CT4 and CT5.

 

Im just wondering if they waited too long and now the market has moved on.

Dont get me wrong, big fan of RWD sedan but the time to do that was 10 years ago.

 

I think they'll be fine if they don't overinflate sales targets.  This also is 2 models based off each other (short of a surprise Lincoln appearance), not 3 unique products like GM had, which will help with ROI.

 

On 3/1/2025 at 7:17 PM, 02MustangGT said:

…but sedans don’t sell and are not profitable for Ford.  

 

This has a better chance because 1) it's starting with an existing model, not a ground-up vehicle, and 2) they can charge higher prices because of the performance and name - 45-90, vs. 30-60.

 

17 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

The 4 door bronco also accounts for about 70% of bronco sales. I've seen some purists who think this will doom the mustang, when it will actually save it. 

 

Eh, I don't see sales percentage skewing anywhere near that high for this kind of product.  I see it being a closer inverse for this........2 door SUVs are completely impractical and a non-starter for most buyers.  Coupes are the same, but still accepted, and sporty/low-slung 4-doors like this aren't as successful as regular sedan silhouettes.

I could see it being 60%/40% coupe/sedan.

[The Handler]

On 3/1/2025 at 5:24 PM, twintornados said:

This mystery sedan should be built on CD6 chassis for amortization reasons. 

Ideally, so should the Mustang. 

 

Related: I saw an Aviator today and admired how nice it looked. It would be a real shame if they ditched CD6.

[Captainp4]

Just here to say both a 4 door mustang and a Lincoln version (continental I'd hope) sound really cool and I'd love to see it. Also seems like a good opportunity to introduce the v6 ecoboost (maybe even hybrid/phev if it transfers affordably from cd6) to both. As much as I'd like to own the continental it'd be very hard for me to justify that purchase. Makes sense for incremental volume for flat rock and maybe some pretty good margins if they sell enough. Who knows if the actual demand is there though, besides Ford I guess.

[akirby]

1 hour ago, Captainp4 said:

Just here to say both a 4 door mustang and a Lincoln version (continental I'd hope) sound really cool and I'd love to see it. Also seems like a good opportunity to introduce the v6 ecoboost (maybe even hybrid/phev if it transfers affordably from cd6) to both. As much as I'd like to own the continental it'd be very hard for me to justify that purchase. Makes sense for incremental volume for flat rock and maybe some pretty good margins if they sell enough. Who knows if the actual demand is there though, besides Ford I guess.

3.0 Nano is 418/450 which seems to have too much overlap with the Coyote for Mustang.  I think it makes sense for Lincoln instead of the Coyote especially considering the competition.

[bzcat]

It's very simple... Sales of coupe are headed to zero eventually but Ford needs to keep Mustang around because it is a sacred cow. These are the problems:

1. CAFE compliance for the Mustang nameplate is impossible without longer wheelbase
2. Flat Rock can only produce low profile vehicles
3. Can't move Mustang production elsewhere because not enough volume to justify new tooling/production site
4. Ford needs the Mustang name to be around because it is one of Farley's icons, along with Transit, F-Series, and Bronco. It is a lot more important to Ford than Camaro is to Chevy (for example)

So the obvious solution is the make a longer wheelbase Mustang (for CAFE) and build it in Flat Rock (because you have to keep the plant open).

 

How do you make a longer wheelbase Mustang? You make it a sedan. This is the only way the 2 door S650 lives beyond 2026 - as an alternate body style of the volume 4 door sedan.

 

Ford will need to flip the volume of Mustang to favor sedans and minimizes the CAFE penalty by controlling the number of coupe and convertible it will sell. You already see the early part of this plan to move the Mustang coupe upmarket with GTD and more special editions - this is how Ford will control volume on the CAFE killing coupe. Ford will keep reducing the availability of coupe but they need the sedan to provide the volume to keep the plant operating at minimal viable level. 

 

With only minimal plant investment, I think Ford can make the 4 door Mustang breakeven relatively easily. They didn't do it before because they didn't need to. But now they do... otherwise they cannot afford to keep the Mustang coupe around. 

Edited March 4 by bzcat

[T-dubz]

10 hours ago, rmc523 said:

You're also using top end models for your pricing comparisons - I think the only way they offer this model is if they have a full range of base EcoBoost up to Dark Horse, otherwise volume will be too limited, which is why I said a mid 40s starting price seems likely, which accounts for a premium over the convertible starting price, which itself has a premium over the coupe.

When I looked up other performance sedans, there wasn’t much out there besides top trims. I don’t think I could name one that isn’t a top trim. We’ve already seen articles where ford was benchmarking the Cadillac black wing, so that is who ford thinks the competition is. Now, they could come in drastically lower in price with a base model, but that’s a tough sell to shell out $45k on a sedan and not get all the bells and whistles. Especially with accord and Camry starting at 28k and fully loaded models are less than $40k. My guess is that ford won’t offer a base trim. I’m thinking the equivalent of the mustang coupe premium trim will be the lowest they go, but still offer both engines. With ford wanting to maximize profits and seeing what the competition is charging, I still don’t see this starting less than $50k. Hope I’m wrong!

[akirby]

27 minutes ago, T-dubz said:

When I looked up other performance sedans, there wasn’t much out there besides top trims. I don’t think I could name one that isn’t a top trim. We’ve already seen articles where ford was benchmarking the Cadillac black wing, so that is who ford thinks the competition is. Now, they could come in drastically lower in price with a base model, but that’s a tough sell to shell out $45k on a sedan and not get all the bells and whistles. Especially with accord and Camry starting at 28k and fully loaded models are less than $40k. My guess is that ford won’t offer a base trim. I’m thinking the equivalent of the mustang coupe premium trim will be the lowest they go, but still offer both engines. With ford wanting to maximize profits and seeing what the competition is charging, I still don’t see this starting less than $50k. Hope I’m wrong!

It all comes down to how many they want to sell.  CAFE may dictate slightly higher volumes.

[kach22i]

On 3/3/2025 at 2:26 AM, Rick73 said:

Many think of Mustang as both Pony car and Muscle car, but what I loved best was the innovative Pony-car part of design; compact and affordable, with six cylinder and small-block V8s.  That’s what made it unique to me.  The original 65 and 66 were really not all that fast compared to muscle cars of that time.

 

Obviously by 1967 it got a 390 big block V8, and later even more powerful 428 and 429, but to me the original Mustang set the bar high.  If the 4-door is coming, I hope Ford designers can somehow incorporate some of the original’s incomparable appeal.

When I was 5 years old I remember seeing Mustangs on the rail cars as we went up the overpass near the Rouge Plant.  When I turned 6 my father and I built a plastic model (red convertible) of a Mustang.  My fist car was a motorcycle, but then bought a 1966 Mustang for when it rained already 13 years old (bondo-stang).  Not a winter car, gotta admit snow tires were not in my college student budget.

 

My brother sold his Mustang last year after owning it for about six years, he bought it new.  His wife hated to sit in it (too low), and did not like putting grandchildren in the back seat.  He drove another car (SUV full sized) in the winter.  We talked about it, and had the Mustang had AWD and four doors, it would be his year around work car and not a turd brown EcoSport.

 

So, if the 2-door Mustang gets a 4-door sibling, AWD and a slightly higher seating position would help older folks get in and out. 

 

Guy I work with chose his current vehicle based on ease of getting in and out of pretty much exclusively. 

 

Older people (+50), and people with extended families still wanting a Mustang should have an opportunity to do so in my opinion.  The security of AWD and fuel economy of a hybrid wouldn't hurt either.

 

EDIT: When I was a boy the thing I liked about cars was the styling, and the Mustang made me stand up in the back seat of my parents car to get a better look at it on the overpass.  The Mach 4 should have the same affect on anyone, at any age - go for it as if it's the last car you will ever make.

 

EDIT-2: Another market that could expand with a 4-door (put the bad guys in the back seat).

 

https://fordauthority.com/2025/02/nc-highway-patrol-ford-mustang-cruisers-officially-roll-out/

 

 

Edited March 4 by kach22i

[danglin]

On 3/2/2025 at 1:32 PM, akirby said:

I don’t drive in snow but I’ve heard a good set of snow tires make almost any vehicle driveable year round.

 

 

 

Tires make a huge difference!  Back in the day I ordered a 2004 F250 4X4. I did not get the off road package. It came with Pirelli Scorpion All season tires. First Winter came, and the thing got stuck in my driveway! Did not waste any time and put All Terrain tires on, and no more getting stuck in the snow!!! 

[Sherminator98]

11 hours ago, bzcat said:

It's very simple... Sales of coupe are headed to zero eventually but Ford needs to keep Mustang around because it is a sacred cow. These are the problems:

1. CAFE compliance for the Mustang nameplate is impossible without longer wheelbase
2. Flat Rock can only produce low profile vehicles
3. Can't move Mustang production elsewhere because not enough volume to justify new tooling/production site
4. Ford needs the Mustang name to be around because it is one of Farley's icons, along with Transit, F-Series, and Bronco. It is a lot more important to Ford than Camaro is to Chevy (for example)

So the obvious solution is the make a longer wheelbase Mustang (for CAFE) and build it in Flat Rock (because you have to keep the plant open).

 

How do you make a longer wheelbase Mustang? You make it a sedan. This is the only way the 2 door S650 lives beyond 2026 - as an alternate body style of the volume 4 door sedan.

 

Ford will need to flip the volume of Mustang to favor sedans and minimizes the CAFE penalty by controlling the number of coupe and convertible it will sell. You already see the early part of this plan to move the Mustang coupe upmarket with GTD and more special editions - this is how Ford will control volume on the CAFE killing coupe. Ford will keep reducing the availability of coupe but they need the sedan to provide the volume to keep the plant operating at minimal viable level. 

 

With only minimal plant investment, I think Ford can make the 4 door Mustang breakeven relatively easily. They didn't do it before because they didn't need to. But now they do... otherwise they cannot afford to keep the Mustang coupe around. 

Depending on CAFE is affected over the next few years, the current Mustang will be production till early 2030 or so and I think post 2032 or so it will finally move to an EV platform. 
 

The next 10 years or so are going to be a shit show for most auto makers because of the changes in policy and pull back from EVs

[rmc523]

12 hours ago, T-dubz said:

When I looked up other performance sedans, there wasn’t much out there besides top trims. I don’t think I could name one that isn’t a top trim. We’ve already seen articles where ford was benchmarking the Cadillac black wing, so that is who ford thinks the competition is. Now, they could come in drastically lower in price with a base model, but that’s a tough sell to shell out $45k on a sedan and not get all the bells and whistles. Especially with accord and Camry starting at 28k and fully loaded models are less than $40k. My guess is that ford won’t offer a base trim. I’m thinking the equivalent of the mustang coupe premium trim will be the lowest they go, but still offer both engines. With ford wanting to maximize profits and seeing what the competition is charging, I still don’t see this starting less than $50k. Hope I’m wrong!

 

Yes, because they benchmark a Blackwing means that's all that will be offered...

 

I just think they'll have to get an ROI, so limiting it to premium and up shrinks the sales market even more.  Think about how many Chargers were out there just for people to have a "Charger"......not saying Ford wants to chase that market, but they may need to for reasons others have stated (CAFE, etc).

 

5 hours ago, kach22i said:

When I was 5 years old I remember seeing Mustangs on the rail cars as we went up the overpass near the Rouge Plant.  When I turned 6 my father and I built a plastic model (red convertible) of a Mustang.  My fist car was a motorcycle, but then bought a 1966 Mustang for when it rained already 13 years old (bondo-stang).  Not a winter car, gotta admit snow tires were not in my college student budget.

 

My brother sold his Mustang last year after owning it for about six years, he bought it new.  His wife hated to sit in it (too low), and did not like putting grandchildren in the back seat.  He drove another car (SUV full sized) in the winter.  We talked about it, and had the Mustang had AWD and four doors, it would be his year around work car and not a turd brown EcoSport.

 

So, if the 2-door Mustang gets a 4-door sibling, AWD and a slightly higher seating position would help older folks get in and out. 

 

Guy I work with chose his current vehicle based on ease of getting in and out of pretty much exclusively. 

 

Older people (+50), and people with extended families still wanting a Mustang should have an opportunity to do so in my opinion.  The security of AWD and fuel economy of a hybrid wouldn't hurt either.

 

EDIT: When I was a boy the thing I liked about cars was the styling, and the Mustang made me stand up in the back seat of my parents car to get a better look at it on the overpass.  The Mach 4 should have the same affect on anyone, at any age - go for it as if it's the last car you will ever make.

 

EDIT-2: Another market that could expand with a 4-door (put the bad guys in the back seat).

 

https://fordauthority.com/2025/02/nc-highway-patrol-ford-mustang-cruisers-officially-roll-out/

 

 

 

I doubt we'll see too much difference in ride height.

[kach22i]

1 hour ago, rmc523 said:

I doubt we'll see too much difference in ride height.

 

I just looked up ground clearance and vehicle height for the Mustang Vs Dodge Charger, they were much closer than I thought.  I stand corrected I guess.  Not much will keep my brother's wife from complaining (haha - poor guy).

 

Charger has a 13 inch longer wheelbase though. 

 

Goes to the point someone else made about other platforms more suited to the 4 door task.

 

 

[Sherminator98]

47 minutes ago, kach22i said:

 

I just looked up ground clearance and vehicle height for the Mustang Vs Dodge Charger, they were much closer than I thought.  I stand corrected I guess.  Not much will keep my brother's wife from complaining (haha - poor guy).

 

Charger has a 13 inch longer wheelbase though. 

 

Goes to the point someone else made about other platforms more suited to the 4 door task.

 

 

 

The S197 is very distantly similar to the Lincoln LS platform and keep in mind that same platform was found under the Thunderbird of that era. 
 

I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to make the current Mustang platform into a sedan and who knows, maybe future impact standards are going to require a redesign effort to the Mustang platform to meet those standards, so adding sedan will hopefully offset the costs of that. 

[rmc523]

1 hour ago, kach22i said:

 

I just looked up ground clearance and vehicle height for the Mustang Vs Dodge Charger, they were much closer than I thought.  I stand corrected I guess.  Not much will keep my brother's wife from complaining (haha - poor guy).

 

Charger has a 13 inch longer wheelbase though. 

 

Goes to the point someone else made about other platforms more suited to the 4 door task.

 

 

 

I'm sure wheelbase will grow.

[zgxtreme]

On 2/27/2025 at 8:21 PM, akirby said:

They already chose full size trucks and SUVs and PIUs over the cheaper Charger and no way Mach 4 is cheaper than a Charger.  

 

It is regional.  We just put the last of the Hemi Chargers we ordered into service and will invest in the four door "6 Packs" when released.  Municipality of 100,000 and 100 sq. miles.

 

So there would be a market, somewhere.

 

Personally... I would love an updated replacement to my Fusion at some point and I wish they'd done the Fusion Active but life is full of disappointments. 

Edited March 4 by zgxtreme

[DeluxeStang]

11 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

Depending on CAFE is affected over the next few years, the current Mustang will be production till early 2030 or so and I think post 2032 or so it will finally move to an EV platform. 
 

The next 10 years or so are going to be a shit show for most auto makers because of the changes in policy and pull back from EVs

We'll see how things unfold. I believe it's implied that the mustang will indeed get a new platform after the s650, which makes sense that Ford is basically all in on the mustang right now. But given consumer preferences, I believe this next gen mustang platform will be ICE powered still, likely with 2.3 and 5.0 hybrids. 

 

We've heard about hybrid mustangs for years, and know ford wants to offer them. We've also seen mustang mules with clues that they could be hybrids. 

 

So my guess is Ford brings in the 2.3 and 5.0 hybrids for the s650 refresh in a couple of years. Then the next gen mustang coupe and sedan utilize those same powertrains. That's just what I see happening, who knows how accurate that prediction will be. 

[DeluxeStang]

6 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

I'm sure wheelbase will grow.

Hopefully for the coupe as well as the sedan. 

[jpd80]

On 3/5/2025 at 3:23 AM, Sherminator98 said:

 

The S197 is very distantly similar to the Lincoln LS platform and keep in mind that same platform was found under the Thunderbird of that era. 
 

I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to make the current Mustang platform into a sedan and who knows, maybe future impact standards are going to require a redesign effort to the Mustang platform to meet those standards, so adding sedan will hopefully offset the costs of that. 

At the time of the Ford 2000 project, the head of large vehicle development, Ken Koors approached all vehicle teams for input regarding using DEW platform which was clearly developed by Jaguar. 
- Ford Australia rejected it because too expensive for their Falcon product range

- Mustang body shape and proportions were completely differnt but agreed to use part of the floo rpan

- Thunderbird ended up with MN12 because of similar cost concerns as FOA.

- Panther team rejected the idea because customers wanted /needed rugged BOF.

 

There’s no reason why Ford can’t build a four door vehicle using Mustang’s parts bin,

probably preferable given the high cost of CD6 torpedoed a similar car plan years ago.

 

With regards to CD6 Explorer, I am surprised that a Taurus replacement wasn’t twinned with that project for cost efficiency.

Pretty obvious that Ford was trying to push all those buyers into Explorer….

Edited March 5 by jpd80

[rmc523]

48 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

At the time of the Ford 2000 project, the head of large vehicle development, Ken Koors approached all vehicle teams for input regarding using DEW platform which was clearly developed by Jaguar. 
- Ford Australia rejected it because too expensive for their Falcon product range

- Mustang body shape and proportions were completely differnt but agreed to use part of the floo rpan

- Thunderbird ended up with MN12 because of similar cost concerns as FOA.

- Panther team rejected the idea because customers wanted /needed rugged BOF.

 

There’s no reason why Ford can’t build a four door vehicle using Mustang’s parts bin,

probably preferable given the high cost of CD6 torpedoed a similar car plan years ago.

 

With regards to CD6 Explorer, I am surprised that a Taurus replacement wasn’t twinned with that project for cost efficiency.

Pretty obvious that Ford was trying to push all those buyers into Explorer….

 

I thought CD6 WAS more thorough with additional products like Edge (presumably Nautilus too), and I thought there were Ford/Lincoln CD6 sedan rumors too until the plug got pulled?

[jpd80]

18 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

I thought CD6 WAS more thorough with additional products like Edge (presumably Nautilus too), and I thought there were Ford/Lincoln CD6 sedan rumors too until the plug got pulled?

Exactly so,
the Edge had issue with aesthetics not transferring to shorter wheelbase but from what I saw with the mules,

the whole thing looked a bit to “stumpy” where the CD4 Edge was a bit more of the sleek hatchback shape.

 

From what I heard, the sedans weren’t that advanced because the business case for cars was the weakest.

Fields had to wait until after Mulally retired to put RWD plans forward and by that time things were changing fast.

[rmc523]

3 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

Exactly so,
the Edge had issue with aesthetics not transferring to shorter wheelbase but from what I saw with the mules,

the whole thing looked a bit to “stumpy” where the CD4 Edge was a bit more of the sleek hatchback shape.

 

From what I heard, the sedans weren’t that advanced because the business case for cars was the weakest.

Fields had to wait until after Mulally retired to put RWD plans forward and by that time things were changing fast.

 

It's funny, because Mulally wanted to put the RWD Interceptor and MKR concepts into production only to be told there was no platform for it.  Obviously there were other priorities at the time that prevented a "CD6" back then.

[jpd80]

8 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

It's funny, because Mulally wanted to put the RWD Interceptor and MKR concepts into production only to be told there was no platform for it.  Obviously there were other priorities at the time that prevented a "CD6" back then.

Correct, the MKR actually had a near identical track and wheelbase as the Aussie Falcon.

Just imagine if they had built Interceptor on the Panther platform, there would  be no living

with panther fans (LOL).

 

There was a proposed global RWD platform where Aussie Falcon, Fairlane, Pickup/van and Territory utility were to be combined with Mustang platform, all would then develop a suite of suitable vehicles for North America and ROW markets.

 

Mulally’s response was no, just use the FW/AWD platforms that have already been developed to eliminate BOF Explorer and Panthers, the recurring savings doing that were massive.

Edited March 5 by jpd80