Mach 4 Trademark Filing Suggests Four Door Ford Mustang Incoming

[Sherminator98]

4 hours 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.

 

No MN12 was dead and buried before the Retro T-Bird, it was built off the DEW98 platform

 

 

[kach22i]

I looked up some of the Ford concepts mentioned, one was Cadillac's Art and Science influenced, the other sort of Chrysler 300ish. Not in a bad way, but Ford certainly has enough history of it's own to draw upon.

 

Creating the future is tough, it hasn't happened yet.😁

 

Found an interesting website (see link below), use the "Swap" button to pan between the Rapide and the Mustang.  If anyone figures out if the "transparency" can be varied - please share the information.

 

https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/ford-mustang-2018-coupe-vs-aston-martin-rapide-2013-sedan/?&units=imperial

 

There is technical information on the bottom once you scroll down. There is a 10.6 inch wheelbase difference.

[jpd80]

18 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

No MN12 was dead and buried before the Retro T-Bird, it was built off the DEW98 platform

Yes,   I remembered that after I posted (sorry).

Ford chiefs willed it into existence only to cancel it after four years.

From memory, the LS production straddled a year before and after the T’bird.

 

 

[jpd80]

17 hours ago, kach22i said:

I looked up some of the Ford concepts mentioned, one was Cadillac's Art and Science influenced, the other sort of Chrysler 300ish. Not in a bad way, but Ford certainly has enough history of it's own to draw upon.

 

Creating the future is tough, it hasn't happened yet.😁

 

Found an interesting website (see link below), use the "Swap" button to pan between the Rapide and the Mustang.  If anyone figures out if the "transparency" can be varied - please share the information.

 

https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/ford-mustang-2018-coupe-vs-aston-martin-rapide-2013-sedan/?&units=imperial

 

There is technical information on the bottom once you scroll down. There is a 10.6 inch wheelbase difference.

The Rapide is also something like 400 lbs heavier than the 2025 Mustang GT.

Keeping weight down is one of the big challenges with increasing wheelbase.

Edited March 6, 2025 by jpd80

[DeluxeStang]

22 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

The Rapide is also something like 400 lbs heavier than the 2025 Mustang GT.

Keeping weight down is one of the big challenges with increasing wheelbase.

Isn't the core structure of the mustang made from steel? I could be wrong on that. I doubt they'll do it for an s650 based sedan, but moving forward, it seems like switching to all aluminum would save hundreds of lbs and wouldn't be as insanely expensive as something like using more carbon fiber. 

[jpd80]

19 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

Isn't the core structure of the mustang made from steel? I could be wrong on that. I doubt they'll do it for an s650 based sedan, but moving forward, it seems like switching to all aluminum would save hundreds of lbs and wouldn't be as insanely expensive as something like using more carbon fiber. 

Mustang is steel body but some of the bolt on panels are aluminium.

All I’m saying is that increasing wheelbase generally means an increase in weight.

 

F trucks went to aluminium bodies for weight reduction because it was justified 

and importantly, amortised across millions of builds over the past ten years.

Anything less than that scale of efficiency would be hard to justify aluminium,

it’s an engineer’s dream to get weight down but the costs are always up there

and probably 25% more now…..

 

Carbon fibre was also looked at by Mulally’s team but it was even more

expensive than Aluminium and magnesium light weighting.

Edited March 6, 2025 by jpd80

[DeluxeStang]

5 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Mustang is steel body but some of the bolt on panels are aluminium.

All I’m saying is that increasing wheelbase generally means an increase in weight.

 

F trucks went to aluminium bodies for weight reduction because it was justified 

and importantly, amortised across millions of builds over the past ten years.

Anything less than that scale of efficiency would be hard to justify aluminium,

it’s an engineer’s dream to get weight down but the costs are always up there

and probably 25% more now…..

 

Carbon fibre was also looked at by Mulally’s team but it was even more

expensive than Aluminium and magnesium light weighting.

It's a real challenge for sure. Kinda disappointing that even if they add sales volume to the mustang by offering a sedan, it's still gonna be an uphill battle to make any costly improvements to the platform. 

 

With Ford rolling back EV plans for now, and with this renewed emphasis on performance and aspirational products, it would be neat if Ford developed a new unibody performance platform, not just for the mustang coupe and sedan, but maybe for other products as well, like certain crossovers. Developing something where the development costs could be spread across a wide range of models.

 

But I doubt we'll see that, it's almost certainly too expensive to justify. It sounds somewhat similar with Ford's plans you were describing earlier, moving more vehicles to a modernized shared platform.

[2005Explorer]

I don't care what anyone says... Ford isn't Ford without a sedan. I'd love to see this added to the line-up.

[Sherminator98]

Found these renders on Facebook-it looks pretty good IMO

[Rick73]

Looks good though that alone doesn’t guarantee success.  Expect there are valid reasons a 4-door Mustang hasn’t been done in 60 years.  One risk is that if sufficient sales do not materialize it may do the Mustang brand and Ford’s image more harm than good.  I don’t consider Mach-E (Mustang in name alone) comparable to Mach-4 discussed above, so the stakes are higher IMO. On the other hand realize Ford can’t afford to let “Mustang” become a relic.  Either way they go, it’s a risk, which means possibility of failure and making matters worse.

[ice-capades]

27 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Looks good though that alone doesn’t guarantee success.  Expect there are valid reasons a 4-door Mustang hasn’t been done in 60 years.  One risk is that if sufficient sales do not materialize it may do the Mustang brand and Ford’s image more harm than good.  I don’t consider Mach-E (Mustang in name alone) comparable to Mach-4 discussed above, so the stakes are higher IMO. On the other hand realize Ford can’t afford to let “Mustang” become a relic.  Either way they go, it’s a risk, which means possibility of failure and making matters worse.

 

Such enthusiasm and support... not!

[Rick73]

11 minutes ago, ice-capades said:

 

Such enthusiasm and support... not!

Reality sucks.  Companies go bankrupt making bad decisions.  If you think being a cheerleader helps, good luck with that.

[92merc]

You know what, I'm going to buck the trend and say all the pundits are wrong on this assumption.

 

I think the Mach-4 isn't going to be based on the Mustang platform or be a sedan.  I think this will end up being a whole new vehicle based on C2.  Same dimensions as the Nautilus.  But it will have unmistakable Mustang influences.

 

My reasoning?  Ford has stated in the past they are going to leverage their "heritage" branding.  If they aren't going to use the Bronco name on a vehicle, they'll be using the Mustang branding, hence the Mach 4.  The 4 not only references the four doors, but the 4 wheel drive.  But it will be a CUV, not sedan.

[Sherminator98]

11 minutes ago, 92merc said:

You know what, I'm going to buck the trend and say all the pundits are wrong on this assumption.

 

I think the Mach-4 isn't going to be based on the Mustang platform or be a sedan.  I think this will end up being a whole new vehicle based on C2.  Same dimensions as the Nautilus.  But it will have unmistakable Mustang influences.

 

My reasoning?  Ford has stated in the past they are going to leverage their "heritage" branding.  If they aren't going to use the Bronco name on a vehicle, they'll be using the Mustang branding, hence the Mach 4.  The 4 not only references the four doors, but the 4 wheel drive.  But it will be a CUV, not sedan.

But the first CE1 product is apparently a smaller pickup then the T3

 

Not to mention Ford already has the Mach E to cover the Mustang name in the EV space. 

[Sherminator98]

28 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Reality sucks.  Companies go bankrupt making bad decisions.  If you think being a cheerleader helps, good luck with that.

Bitching to just bitch about something isn’t helpful either. 
 

A Mustang sedan is low lying cheap fruit, not a multibillion dollar gamble you make it out to be. 

[bzcat]

36 minutes ago, Sherminator98 said:

Bitching to just bitch about something isn’t helpful either. 
 

A Mustang sedan is low lying cheap fruit, not a multibillion dollar gamble you make it out to be. 

 

And really the only plausible way to keep the Mustang name alive. It ain't going to live on much longer without piling up massive product line loss if it is just a 2 door coupe and convertible. 

Edited March 7, 2025 by bzcat

[bzcat]

1 hour ago, 92merc said:

You know what, I'm going to buck the trend and say all the pundits are wrong on this assumption.

 

I think the Mach-4 isn't going to be based on the Mustang platform or be a sedan.  I think this will end up being a whole new vehicle based on C2.  Same dimensions as the Nautilus.  But it will have unmistakable Mustang influences.

 

My reasoning?  Ford has stated in the past they are going to leverage their "heritage" branding.  If they aren't going to use the Bronco name on a vehicle, they'll be using the Mustang branding, hence the Mach 4.  The 4 not only references the four doors, but the 4 wheel drive.  But it will be a CUV, not sedan.

 

I think something like what you described would be branded Explorer ____ or Bronco ____ under the current Farley plan. Ford already has Mach E for the Mustang CUV role. 

 

The main reason why people think this will be a sedan is because Ford showed it to the dealers. This is not a hypothetic idea... Ford told the dealers the sedan is a product coming in a few years.

 

Ford also showed a 4WD offroad Mustang coupe to the dealer. So it's possible the Mach 4 name may go to that car. But we know it ain't going to be a FWD CUV.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 7, 2025 by bzcat

[akirby]

1 hour ago, 92merc said:

You know what, I'm going to buck the trend and say all the pundits are wrong on this assumption.

I think the Mach-4 isn't going to be based on the Mustang platform or be a sedan.  I think this will end up being a whole new vehicle based on C2. 

You guys aren’t paying attention

[mackinaw]

Maybe look at a four-door Mustang as an easy (and relatively inexpensive) way to increase production at Flat Rock, which is grossly underutilized.  And I suspect this 4-door will also be sold overseas, again increasing production.  I don't know what the break-even number is at Flat Rock, but producing only a 2-door model there probably doesn't cut it.

[ice-capades]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

Reality sucks.  Companies go bankrupt making bad decisions.  If you think being a cheerleader helps, good luck with that.

 

It's not about being a cheerleader. Ford had the opportunity to launch a Mustang Sedan years ago, but this may be the time to do so, if only to better utilize the Flat Rock plant production.  

[rmc523]

5 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

Found these renders on Facebook-it looks pretty good IMO

 

I agree that they look pretty good.

 

3 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Looks good though that alone doesn’t guarantee success.  Expect there are valid reasons a 4-door Mustang hasn’t been done in 60 years.  One risk is that if sufficient sales do not materialize it may do the Mustang brand and Ford’s image more harm than good.  I don’t consider Mach-E (Mustang in name alone) comparable to Mach-4 discussed above, so the stakes are higher IMO. On the other hand realize Ford can’t afford to let “Mustang” become a relic.  Either way they go, it’s a risk, which means possibility of failure and making matters worse.

 

If you make the product right/true to the name, it'll be fine.

 

2 hours ago, 92merc said:

You know what, I'm going to buck the trend and say all the pundits are wrong on this assumption.

 

I think the Mach-4 isn't going to be based on the Mustang platform or be a sedan.  I think this will end up being a whole new vehicle based on C2.  Same dimensions as the Nautilus.  But it will have unmistakable Mustang influences.

 

My reasoning?  Ford has stated in the past they are going to leverage their "heritage" branding.  If they aren't going to use the Bronco name on a vehicle, they'll be using the Mustang branding, hence the Mach 4.  The 4 not only references the four doors, but the 4 wheel drive.  But it will be a CUV, not sedan.

 

Nah.

 

1) Ford showed dealers an early concept

2) Farley said they "could" do it

3) Insiders here have confirmed it

4) It's one of the lowest hanging fruit for additional product/volume at Flat Rock (only thing lower/equivalent would be bringing over Evos/Zephyr)

[DeluxeStang]

2 hours ago, 92merc said:

You know what, I'm going to buck the trend and say all the pundits are wrong on this assumption.

 

I think the Mach-4 isn't going to be based on the Mustang platform or be a sedan.  I think this will end up being a whole new vehicle based on C2.  Same dimensions as the Nautilus.  But it will have unmistakable Mustang influences.

 

My reasoning?  Ford has stated in the past they are going to leverage their "heritage" branding.  If they aren't going to use the Bronco name on a vehicle, they'll be using the Mustang branding, hence the Mach 4.  The 4 not only references the four doors, but the 4 wheel drive.  But it will be a CUV, not sedan.

My brother, this makes no sense. One, Ford already has an AWD mustang crossover. Two, and more importantly, people have seen the mach-4 and have confirmed that it is indeed a sedan.

[Deanh]

just saw this...warms my heart that the Mustang STILL elicits this type of interest and conversation..thats something not tyoo many manufacturers can brag about. Me...4 dr V8 6 speed manual...and none of this 80k Darkhorse BS....sheesh...

[DeluxeStang]

2 hours ago, akirby said:

You guys aren’t paying attention

You say you guys plural but he's the only one I've seen floating the idea that mach 4 is a crossover lol. Have no idea where he got that idea from. 

Edited March 7, 2025 by DeluxeStang

[Rick73]

2 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

Bitching to just bitch about something isn’t helpful either. 
 

A Mustang sedan is low lying cheap fruit, not a multibillion dollar gamble you make it out to be. 

That’s ridiculous.  Is this not a forum so that anyone can express opposing views.  How goddamn boring would this place be if everyone had to agree on everything?  We should all be thankful for diverse points of view as long as not written rudely.

 

The 4-door Mustang above has limited market potential.  It will likely not sell in large numbers, making profitability possible but limiting income.  Just because a few car guys want a 4-door Mustang doesn’t necessarily mean Ford should build it from a business perspective.  For all we know the required investment could be better used manufacturing a different sedan or different vehicle altogether with greater sales potential.  Common sense alone suggests that if it was a clear decision they would have done it a long time ago.  I stand by my point that looks alone isn’t enough, and that’s not bitching, it is disagreement.