Mustang Concepts

[mackinaw]

Ask 25 students from 22 art schools in China, Germany, etc. to create a Mustang concept, and this is what you get.

 

https://www.howtogeek.com/ford-goes-all-in-with-exciting-new-mustang-concepts/

[DeluxeStang]

Some of these aren't terrible, especially with some tweaks. The ideas of a mustang wagon and mid-engine exotic both make a ton of sense if Ford wants to offer more mustang body styles. 

 

I'd really love if ford did something like this, like revealed an entire range of mustang products, sedans, coupes, mid-engine, electric, etc, to gauge the public's reaction. How cool would that be?

[rmc523]

4 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

Some of these aren't terrible, especially with some tweaks. The ideas of a mustang wagon and mid-engine exotic both make a ton of sense if Ford wants to offer more mustang body styles. 

 

I'd really love if ford did something like this, like revealed an entire range of mustang products, sedans, coupes, mid-engine, electric, etc, to gauge the public's reaction. How cool would that be?

 

Eh, I don't know if I love the idea of slapping Mustang on everything.

[DeluxeStang]

2 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

Eh, I don't know if I love the idea of slapping Mustang on everything.

If it's what Ford has to do to make road going performance models in the future, it's what needs to be done. I'd rather live in a world with a mustang sedan and mustang supercar than in a world full of edges and escapes. 

[jpd80]

I guess a heritage name only means something to Ford if it can charge a lot for the vehicles carrying that name…

[rmc523]

13 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

If it's what Ford has to do to make road going performance models in the future, it's what needs to be done. I'd rather live in a world with a mustang sedan and mustang supercar than in a world full of edges and escapes. 

 

You're missing the point.  I'm not saying don't offer other models.  I'm saying slapping a Mustang badge on anything and everything is going to get old.

 

A sedan that's basically just the coupe with 2 extra doors, sure.  But throwing it onto an additional mid engine model, and 3-4 other models is excessive.

[DeluxeStang]

53 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

You're missing the point.  I'm not saying don't offer other models.  I'm saying slapping a Mustang badge on anything and everything is going to get old.

 

A sedan that's basically just the coupe with 2 extra doors, sure.  But throwing it onto an additional mid engine model, and 3-4 other models is excessive.

You're missing the point where I say we'll just have to agree to disagree lol. 

[mackinaw]

I think you're both missing the point. These are how 20-year olds, from outside the U.S., view a future Mustang.  And notice how this design exercise was run by Ford's operations in Shanghai, not Dearborn.  As the original Mustang-generation (me) fades into the sunset, the next generation will have their own ideas on how it should look.  Some interesting ideas here.

[jpd80]

22 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

If it's what Ford has to do to make road going performance models in the future, it's what needs to be done. I'd rather live in a world with a mustang sedan and mustang supercar than in a world full of edges and escapes. 

While I’m not against Ford using the Mustang name on more products, this type of design competition

is not helpful simply because the students doing the designing have  no idea of what buyers tastes are.

 

I understand that the intention is to broaden the appeal of Mustang branded vehicles but at what cost to the name..

[jpd80]

9 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

You're missing the point.  I'm not saying don't offer other models.  I'm saying slapping a Mustang badge on anything and everything is going to get old.

 

A sedan that's basically just the coupe with 2 extra doors, sure.  But throwing it onto an additional mid engine model, and 3-4 other models is excessive.

Couldn’t agree more, extension via a four door coupe is probably incremental production,

adding things like Mustang pickup or a two seater coupe like pre C8 coupe, maybe

but I get the feeling that when it comes to Mustang branded vehicles, less is more…
 

[jpd80]

Right now, I think Ford is heavily invested in keeping F Series profits coming in,

anything else  that would be “nice to have” sits in a separate bucket waiting

until markets get  back to some level of stability and normalcy.

[DeluxeStang]

57 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

Couldn’t agree more, extension via a four door coupe is probably incremental production,

adding things like Mustang pickup or a two seater coupe like pre C8 coupe, maybe

but I get the feeling that when it comes to Mustang branded vehicles, less is more…
 

It'll be curious to see if mustang gets a new platform post s650, or if they just modify the existing platform they have. I'd keep the rest seats to keep insurance costs down, and maybe to use for people who have toddlers or something. 

 

But what I'd really like to see is just for Ford to improve on what they already have. Lower the roof and beltline slightly, this was apparently considered for s650, but wasn't in the budget. Shorten the overhangs, especially the front overhang, stretch the wheelbase an inch or a couple of inches, give it a more prominent dash to axle ratio. 

 

This would not only make the mustang look more exotic, if would give them more space behind the front wheels to maybe develop a front-mid engine layout, which would obviously improve performance significantly. The Ecoboost s650 is apparently a front mid layout already, or so I've been told, so a front-mid 5.0 shouldn't be impossible if they had more roof to work with. 

[ausrutherford]

On 4/25/2025 at 8:50 AM, rmc523 said:

 

You're missing the point.  I'm not saying don't offer other models.  I'm saying slapping a Mustang badge on anything and everything is going to get old.

 

A sedan that's basically just the coupe with 2 extra doors, sure.  But throwing it onto an additional mid engine model, and 3-4 other models is excessive.

Mid-engine is wrong in a Mustang?

 

 

[DeluxeStang]

12 hours ago, ausrutherford said:

Mid-engine is wrong in a Mustang?

 

 

 

 

A mid engine mustang is more natural than a mid-engine Corvette. Not only have both nameplates had their fair share of mid-engine concepts, the mustang came into this world for the first time as a mid-engine car. 

 

 

I know some people aren't on board with this idea, and I get it, it's radical, it's expensive, it's a risk. But when I hear Ford wants to offer additional mustang body styles, a mid-engine mustang is one of the natural, and most captivating ideas. It seems like other young people agree, every time almost that Ford does these students competitions, there's at least one mid-engine proposal.

 

 

What if the GTD is Ford dipping their toe in the water, seeing how people react to the idea of a mustang supercar that's 6 figures? If people respond well, it could encourage Ford to move forward with a more radical mid-engine mustang on a new platform. A high profit margin, highly evocative vehicle that sits at the top of the mustang pyramid. The mach-e was the trial by fire for us mustang fans, it was basically the hardest pill we would have to swallow in terms of something being far removed from a traditional mustang. 

 

Now that we've accepted that, I don't want Ford to just give up on the idea when we've already had to stomach the hardest part of it. 

Edited April 27 by DeluxeStang

[rmc523]

On 4/25/2025 at 6:03 PM, jpd80 said:

Couldn’t agree more, extension via a four door coupe is probably incremental production,

adding things like Mustang pickup or a two seater coupe like pre C8 coupe, maybe

but I get the feeling that when it comes to Mustang branded vehicles, less is more…
 

 

And to be clear, I have the same opinion of any sub-brand, be it Mustang, Explorer, Bronco.....I had/have the same push back of the rumors of an Explorer sub-brand....slapping Explorer on 15 products only dilutes the name, IMO.

 

On 4/25/2025 at 6:56 PM, jpd80 said:

Right now, I think Ford is heavily invested in keeping F Series profits coming in,

anything else  that would be “nice to have” sits in a separate bucket waiting

until markets get  back to some level of stability and normalcy.

 

The problem with that, is that they've already delayed so many products.  Pushing new stuff out even further is a recipe for disaster, IMO.  This is exactly when they need to be developing new things so they have the fresh, new products arriving when the market does go back on the upswing.

 

On 4/26/2025 at 9:26 AM, ausrutherford said:

Mid-engine is wrong in a Mustang?

 

 

 

Sure, they've shown a few concepts, but there's never been an actual production model to see how the market reacts to it.

[jpd80]

4 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

And to be clear, I have the same opinion of any sub-brand, be it Mustang, Explorer, Bronco.....I had/have the same push back of the rumors of an Explorer sub-brand....slapping Explorer on 15 products only dilutes the name, IMO.

Agree 100%

 

 

4 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

The problem with that, is that they've already delayed so many products.  Pushing new stuff out even further is a recipe for disaster, IMO.  This is exactly when they need to be developing new things so they have the fresh, new products arriving when the market does go back on the upswing.

They really have a problem with products that don’t seem important at the time but help with wider sales.

Would RAV4 have pipped FSeries fo sales lead if say, Escape had performed better instead of just sucking it up.

[rmc523]

16 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Agree 100%

 

 

They really have a problem with products that don’t seem important at the time but help with wider sales.

Would RAV4 have pipped FSeries fo sales lead if say, Escape had performed better instead of just sucking it up.

 

Well Escape is about to go away too, so that's not likely to help.

 

Frankly, I don't know how they're selling so many Rav4's.

[akirby]

7 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

Well Escape is about to go away too, so that's not likely to help.

 

Frankly, I don't know how they're selling so many Rav4's.

Hybrids and it’s the new default first vehicle for Toyota fans.

[Rick73]

On 4/26/2025 at 8:49 PM, DeluxeStang said:

 

A mid engine mustang is more natural than a mid-engine Corvette. Not only have both nameplates had their fair share of mid-engine concepts, the mustang came into this world for the first time as a mid-engine car. 

De Tomaso Pantera came close to being a mid-engine Mustang in design, though much more expensive than the high-volume Mustang.  It had a Ford 351 Cleveland engine, and sales apparently where very low.

 

[mackinaw]

My brother owned a Pantera for a bit back in the 70's.  I drove it once.  Unfortunately, it'd overheat in traffic.  But it was a babe-magnet.

Edited April 29 by mackinaw

[rmc523]

First 2026 Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 Integrated Prototype Spotted Testing

 

"GT500" (if they keep that name) mules spotted.

[DeluxeStang]

1 hour ago, mackinaw said:

My brother owned a Pantera for a bit back in the 70's.  I drove it once.  Unfortunately, it'd overheat in traffic.  But it was a babe-magnet.

It seems like this was a common issue for a lot of cars back in the day. I know some car enthusiasts say cars in the 60s, 70s, 80s lasted longer and were more reliable than modern cars on average, but I passionately disagree. 

[Rick73]

33 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

It seems like this was a common issue for a lot of cars back in the day. I know some car enthusiasts say cars in the 60s, 70s, 80s lasted longer and were more reliable than modern cars on average, but I passionately disagree. 

Seems out of context given Pantera was a very rare and mid-engine car with limited engineering and testing compared to most vehicles from the Big Three.  Having said that, modern cars have better engineering and build quality in large part due to advances in science and technology.  Where I think cars from the past were better is that when things went wrong, and they did, it was much easier to troubleshoot problem and fix it quickly and cheaply by pretty much any competent mechanic.  The idea that a car would be out of service for a week or longer waiting to get fixed was unheard of unless it needed an entire engine rebuild, and even then a good  shop could often get a car back on road in a few days.

 

One example of difference is that when old cars overheated due to a radiator leak or whatever, the cast iron block and heads were rarely damaged.  Years later when aluminum heads and blocks became common, overheating an engine could lead to much more expensive repairs.  Not suggesting we go back in time, just that comparison is not simple and straight forward.  There are pros and cons to both old and new.

 

I've always leaned towards combining as much simplicity like in the past with modern engineering and technology, when possible and practical of course, to obtain the best of both periods.