2015 Ford Mustang - General Discussion

[Slash]

I could go for a modernized Capri or Falcon. Or even a Torino.

 

[YSSMAN]

It all depends on what the Chevrolet SS turns out to be, and whether or not GM decides to proliferate the Alpha chassis between the brands. Assuming that the SS is indeed the Chevrolet Lumina that we've wanted for some time, Ford won't do a damn thing, mostly because of how the Taurus actually works out. Its a damn-good sedan in any guise. They'll let GM and Chrysler duke it out with full-size, rear-drive sedans.

If Ford wants to build a platform that can do quite a bit, they might give it a go. It depends on how much money they want to spend, and whether or not it'll work globally. They've got the engines and transmissions necessary to do it, but in some ways, I don't think they have the stones to do something truly daring when it comes to design and execution. Playing it safe makes money, and they're making a ton of it, but it doesn't win at the end of the day. Even then, its backfired on GM before. Well, twice actually. Poor Pontiac...

 

[Gil]

Yeah, I'm gonna pitch in my 2 cents again.
Hey Ford! Can we get a notch-back Mustang?
Or did all those years of offering nothing but a notch make you feel you needed to offer only a fastback in penance?

Also, the new Fusion, is gonna be pretty sexy. It looks a lot like a longer, more comfortable EVO.
And while I'm nearly 100 posts from the front of this thread. Having a 'stang that looks like a baby Aston Martin doesn't bother me at all. But it must come with a V-8, that performs and sounds the part.

 

[homeforsummer]

But it must come with a V-8, that performs and sounds the part.

That's the bit I've been trying to highlight. The Mustang is the legend it is for what it represents, rather than what it looks like. Obviously it needs to look good, but there's no harm in Ford dragging its ass out of the past now and then.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

It isn't about tradition. It's about the result and the feel.

A turbo v6 is not a V8. It might make similar "numbers" but it will never feel the same. A naturally aspirated V8 is a wonderful engine configuration for a performance car. There is a reason they have dominated large sports car engine bay's for the past 50 years. A naturally aspirated cross-plane V8 is smooth due to the counterbalances on the crankshaft. They make a good noise. They have an excellent, linear, crisp powerband.

Have you driven the current Mustang GT? Power and torque come on strong from 2,500rpm and build increasingly to the 7,000rpm redline. When I drove one, I kept banging it off the rev-limiter because it was still pulling so hard at redline. That is a proper sports car engine. Performance driving, to me, is all about the interaction of the driver and the car. No turbo engine can approach an n/a unit in this regard. The throttle response, the sound, and the power delivery are all top notch.

With turbo engines, no matter how good they are, you always compromise these things. The throttle response is never quite as good. The sound is never quite as good. And while you have a massive plateau of torque from practically idle to redline, the power always falls off towards the end. A turbo V6 simply cannot replace a normally aspirated V8. It just isn't the same. I will always maintain that turbos are for commercial and utility vehicles, not sports cars.

/opinion

 

[homeforsummer]

/opinion

Wait... where did I say anything about turbo engines?

 

[Slash]

The legend of the Mustang comes from this:




The sound, the power, the freedom. The new Mustang needs to meet all the requirements and still look like a Mustang for it to be a Mustang. Otherwise don't build one. Notice the other one at 35 seconds that drives by. I prefer that sound over the stroker but that's just me.

 

[Blackbird.]

It isn't about tradition. It's about the result and the feel.

A turbo v6 is not a V8. It might make similar "numbers" but it will never feel the same. A naturally aspirated V8 is a wonderful engine configuration for a performance car. There is a reason they have dominated large sports car engine bay's for the past 50 years. A naturally aspirated cross-plane V8 is smooth due to the counterbalances on the crankshaft. They make a good noise. They have an excellent, linear, crisp powerband.

Have you driven the current Mustang GT? Power and torque come on strong from 2,500rpm and build increasingly to the 7,000rpm redline. When I drove one, I kept banging it off the rev-limiter because it was still pulling so hard at redline. That is a proper sports car engine. Performance driving, to me, is all about the interaction of the driver and the car. No turbo engine can approach an n/a unit in this regard. The throttle response, the sound, and the power delivery are all top notch.

With turbo engines, no matter how good they are, you always compromise these things. The throttle response is never quite as good. The sound is never quite as good. And while you have a massive plateau of torque from practically idle to redline, the power always falls off towards the end. A turbo V6 simply cannot replace a normally aspirated V8. It just isn't the same. I will always maintain that turbos are for commercial and utility vehicles, not sports cars.

/opinion

I honestly didn't expect you to give the Mustang a thumbs up but that second paragraph is spot on. 👍

The sound, the power, the freedom.

And with the new ones with a bit of tweaking to the exhaust you can release the spirit of that V8:

 

[Slash]

I honestly didn't expect you to give the Mustang a thumbs up but that second paragraph is spot on. 👍



And with the new ones with a bit of tweaking to the exhaust you can release the spirit of that V8:

True, but when they came that way stock it was better. Still though, sounds epic.


THIS.



That's power baby. lol

 

[homeforsummer]

The sound, the power, the freedom. The new Mustang needs to meet all the requirements and still look like a Mustang for it to be a Mustang. Otherwise don't build one.

Great vid. And I was right with you... until the second part of the second sentence. Several Mustangs have offered the sound, the power, the freedom... but not looked like a 1964 original.

Like I was saying above, the ethos (i.e. V8 sound, power, freedom, low price I'd add too) is more important than the shape. Yes, we'd all like the Mustang to look nice, but why does it have to be a facsimile of Mustangs that have gone before?

The Mustang itself didn't look like any previous Ford, but it was a massive success because of what it was, not what it looked like.

The best comparison I can come up with as to changing the recipe but keeping the flavour is the new Volkswagen Scirocco - looks nothing like the first two generations (nor does it look anything like the Scirocco-in-all-but-name, the Corrado)...

...but it still looks brilliant despite being utterly modern and original, still has the quality beloved by Scirocco owners of old, still performs well, still fun to drive, it's still relatively practical just like older Sciroccos.

In other words, it encapsulates everything people loved about the original Scirocco, without shamelessly cribbing from history.

I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, but in my opinion I cannot see any reason why a new Mustang can't be 100% original, and yet still 100% a Mustang And don't get me wrong - I think the current model looks great, but retro is played-out now.

 

[Slash]

Great vid. And I was right with you... until the second part of the second sentence. Several Mustangs have offered the sound, the power, the freedom... but not looked like a 1964 original.

I might not have looked like it (que Fox Body) but it did take some ideas from it.

Like I was saying above, the ethos (i.e. V8 sound, power, freedom, low price I'd add too) is more important than the shape. Yes, we'd all like the Mustang to look nice, but why does it have to be a facsimile of Mustangs that have gone before?

Because they've been doing it for 50 years now and everyone gets an image in their head of what it's supposed to look like.

The Mustang itself didn't look like any previous Ford, but it was a massive success because of what it was, not what it looked like.

Maybe in 1964.
The best comparison I can come up with as to changing the recipe but keeping the flavour is the new Volkswagen Scirocco - looks nothing like the first two generations (nor does it look anything like the Scirocco-in-all-but-name, the Corrado)...

...but it still looks brilliant despite being utterly modern and original, still has the quality beloved by Scirocco owners of old, still performs well, still fun to drive, it's still relatively practical just like older Sciroccos.

In other words, it encapsulates everything people loved about the original Scirocco, without shamelessly cribbing from history.

I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, but in my opinion I cannot see any reason why a new Mustang can't be 100% original, and yet still 100% a Mustang And don't get me wrong - I think the current model looks great, but retro is played-out now.

.

 

[Gil]

The original 1964 1/2 Mustang was truly nothing more than a Falcon with a facelift, and a 260 cid V-8.
At that time it was like nothing else on the market. Remember the Camaro came 3 model years later, And the early Cuda was NOT easy on the eyes.

Lee Iacocca was a freaking genius to bring this car to market when he did.
Yeah the original 260 was no powerhouse, but in truth, neither was the 289 till it got "breathed on".
But man, add headers, Mercury tubes, and a 4bbl carb, and you had a little monster on your hands.

 

[Slash]

The original 1964 1/2 Mustang was truly nothing more than a Falcon with a facelift, and a 260 cid V-8.
At that time it was like nothing else on the market. Remember the Camaro came 3 model years later, And the early Cuda was NOT easy on the eyes.

Lee Iacocca was a freaking genius to bring this car to market when he did.
Yeah the original 260 was no powerhouse, but in truth, neither was the 289 till it got "breathed on".
But man, add headers, Mercury tubes, and a 4bbl carb, and you had a little monster on your hands.

It doesn't take much to get those old V8s to come to life. Believe me.

 

[homeforsummer]

You didn't really address my points. I'm not expecting you to agree, but the first point - re Fox body - is exactly what I've been saying. It didn't look like a previous Mustang, but it shared the previous Mustang's characteristics - presumably, exactly what an Evos-inspired version would do.

As for it being the same way for 50 years (and it hasn't, as we've already addressed), that's why - as I've already said (again) - nobody has confirmed the next 'Stang will look like the Evos in the first place - apart from one journalist, who we can assume doesn't have insider info. "Inspired by" doesn't mean "identical". My little crappy photoshop on the previous page or so showed how a new design could still have distinctive Mustang cues.

And again, "Maybe in 1964" doesn't really answer anything. Are you saying the image is now more important than the ethos?

And what about the Scirocco? Can you see my point? (Or does it not matter, because it's not a Mustang?)

 

[Slash]

You didn't really address my points. I'm not expecting you to agree, but the first point - re Fox body - is exactly what I've been saying. It didn't look like a previous Mustang, but it shared the previous Mustang's characteristics - presumably, exactly what an Evos-inspired version would do.

As for it being the same way for 50 years (and it hasn't, as we've already addressed), that's why - as I've already said (again) - nobody has confirmed the next 'Stang will look like the Evos in the first place - apart from one journalist, who we can assume doesn't have insider info. "Inspired by" doesn't mean "identical". My little crappy photoshop on the previous page or so showed how a new design could still have distinctive Mustang cues.

And again, "Maybe in 1964" doesn't really answer anything. Are you saying the image is now more important than the ethos?

And what about the Scirocco? Can you see my point? (Or does it not matter, because it's not a Mustang?)

I see where you're going with this. But the fox body actually looked good though. I just don't think this Evos looks good. But then again the Evos isn't the Mustang, so I really can't judge it.

 

[AJ11]

I think you have all seen the south park episode, when there making fun of Indiana Jones and the crystal skull! Nuff said. Except NO NO GOD NO STOP WHAT ARE YOU DOING LEAVE HIM ALONE JUST STOP!

 

[Omnis]

If they brought back the Escort Mk2, I'd have to take a hard look at one.

 

[Slash]

If they brought back the Escort Mk2, I'd have to take a hard look at one.

There are so many cars that should be revived and modernized.

 

[Omnis]

It would step on the Focus's toes though. So, yeah, they should probably make something between that and a euro Capri.

Mercury Capri is the devil.

 

[Joey D]

There are so many cars that should be revived and modernized.

Every time that happens people complain. Look at the Dart, it was revived and modernized yet people cry that it isn't like the original, which is actually is.

 

[Slash]

Every time that happens people complain. Look at the Dart, it was revived and modernized yet people cry that it isn't like the original, which is actually is.

The body really doesn't look that bad. What makes me mad is that it's FWD and doesn't have a V8 option.


I could go for this. This is georgeous for a revived Torino concept.

 

[Tornado]

Not to derail, but contrary to romanticized notions that every car in the 1960s was a Pontiac GTO, the original Dart was an economy car that had optional performance engines available. Debuting in the early 1960s as an economy car meant that it was RWD and the performance engines were V8s.


40 years later, neither of those things are true for economy cars, so it follows the principles for the second/third generation Dart to the letter.

 

[Joey D]

The Dart was an economy car back in the day, they've just revived it and modernized it. Modern economy cars are all FWD so it fits.

 

[Slash]

I guess that makes sense but I'd still like their to be those options along with leaving the economy part in for those who wish to have it.

 

[Joey D]

I guess that makes sense but I'd still like their to be those options along with leaving the economy part in for those who wish to have it.

The SRT version will be out next year with a rumored 300hp. So there you go, a performance Dart.

 

[Slash]

FWD still? Or AWD? I think if it has 300hp it should be at least AWD.

 

[Zenith]

40 years later, neither of those things are true for economy cars, so it follows the principles for the second/third generation Dart to the letter.

And if we apply this logic to the Mustang, a V8 is unnecessary.

The 5.0L V8 of today's Mustang is big compared to the 3 series and the 370Z, but in 1969 a 302 was a small engine.

If we apply engine displacement and configuration to modern times a la Dodge Dart, the performance Mustang should have a smallish engine, something like a V6 (perhaps with a turbo).

As said before, the Shelby could keep in tradition by having the 650hp 5.8L V8 that it does now. While a 5.8L is considerably smaller than a 427 (7.0L), adjusting engine displacement over time like you would for inflation would probably show that the 5.8L is where the 427 was.

People are using numbers and engine configurations to define a car. This will only lead to newly designed cars being outdated before they've even hit the streets. If you're going to design a Mustang, it needs to fit into the market the same way it did 48 years ago above all else, not try to force antiquated technologies to work in modern times.

 

[Tornado]

And if we apply this logic to the Mustang, a V8 is unnecessary.

The 5.0L V8 of today's Mustang is big compared to the 3 series and the 370Z, but in 1969 a 302 was a small engine.

If we apply engine displacement and configuration to modern times a la Dodge Dart, the performance Mustang should have a smallish engine, something like a V6 (perhaps with a turbo).

As said before, the Shelby could keep in tradition by having the 650hp 5.8L V8 that it does now. While a 5.8L is considerably smaller than a 427 (7.0L), adjusting engine displacement over time like you would for inflation would probably show that the 5.8L is where the 427 was.

People are using numbers and engine configurations to define a car. This will only lead to newly designed cars being outdated before they've even hit the streets. If you're going to design a Mustang, it needs to fit into the market the same way it did 48 years ago above all else, not try to force antiquated technologies to work in modern times.

Not even remotely the same situation. The Dodge Dart was out of production for 35 years before Dodge announced its return, during which time the marketplace that it was positioned in pretty much turned on its head. Dodge has no say in what the market dictates an economy car with the "Dart" nameplate will be, because that nameplate was gone long before the attributes those types of car tend to posses today became common place.





Not only has the Mustang been in continuous production since it came out in a marketplace that by and large hasn't changed anywhere near as much in the past 50 years (and in fact until the past couple of years had really barely changed at all), but it has actually played a deciding role in sculpting that market.

 

[Slash]

And if we apply this logic to the Mustang, a V8 is unnecessary.

The 5.0L V8 of today's Mustang is big compared to the 3 series and the 370Z, but in 1969 a 302 was a small engine.

If we apply engine displacement and configuration to modern times a la Dodge Dart, the performance Mustang should have a smallish engine, something like a V6 (perhaps with a turbo).

As said before, the Shelby could keep in tradition by having the 650hp 5.8L V8 that it does now. While a 5.8L is considerably smaller than a 427 (7.0L), adjusting engine displacement over time like you would for inflation would probably show that the 5.8L is where the 427 was.

People are using numbers and engine configurations to define a car. This will only lead to newly designed cars being outdated before they've even hit the streets. If you're going to design a Mustang, it needs to fit into the market the same way it did 48 years ago above all else, not try to force antiquated technologies to work in modern times.

Smaller than a 7.0L, and they got even bigger from there at 7.5l. It was crazy.

 

[Prosthetic]

FWD still? Or AWD? I think if it has 300hp it should be at least AWD.

Why the hell does everything have to be RWD? So you can spin out into a wall.. Small FWD cars are every bit as fun as a RWD smoke machine.. I love Muscle Cars... I can't think of an era that I like more then late 60's early 70's.

But out here in Northern California where we are spoiled with low traffic coastal mountain roads... Small FWD is infinitely more fun then any car with a big V8 and RWD.