2015 Ford Mustang - General Discussion

[YSSMAN]

Mercury Capri is the devil.

Say what?


Otherwise, yes, I try to forget about that Australian one.

 

[Omnis]

I knew a jewish household down the street that had 4 dirtbikes and 3, yes three, Capri convertibles.

 

[niky]

A V8 Dart would be epic. Epically bad. Kugel Komponents did it with the Focus, and the result is good for producing smoke, but is too nose-heavy and unbalanced to handle nearly half-as-well as a regular Focus RS.

-

Mustangs, through the years:

Off the bat, the first Mustang didn't look anything like the Corvette-like sleek concept.

First three generations (within the Mustang I chassis), follow an evolutionary path... but they follow the styling of the time.

Big diversion in style. Here the Mustang is starting to look fat, and very, very long, thanks to the aero-inspired styles of the time. Cover up the grille within that hooded recess and it looks nothing like previous Mustangs. They even dump the silly cosmetic side-scoop.

The Mustang II brought size back down with the Pinto chassis. Personally, I feel that they could have simply NOT disclosed the chassis donor, and they would have been fine, except for the cruddy mid-70's engines. Style evolves, and Mustang undergoes its second radical change in looks, with a slimmer rear end and a Camaro-ish front. Side scoop comes back as a scalloped panel that becomes a full scoop on high-end models.

Fox-body. Fully au fait with the styles of the time. In other words, looks absolutely nothing like any Mustang before it. Instead, it looks just like any boxy sports coupe of the time. No side scoop, either, except as a plastic tack-on.

The second one is funny. The front-end looks lifted from the Chevrolet Monza that came out before that Fox body update.

(I like Fox bodies, mind you, but they don't look like any other Mustang... ever.)

Again, style keeps pace with the times. Looks nothing like the Fox. Looks longer. The grille is restored, and the shape is a bit evocative of old Mustangs, but it's a streeetch. Only the long snout/short rear tells you this is something else... oh, and the return of the side-scoop.

For the first time, the Mustang becomes panderingly retro. Roofline is still similar to the previous generation, but front end more 60's. Looks great, but the compromises are great. The bluff front end limits top end speed, and the huge maw and tall hood mean that hood-flapping is a real problem on racing Mustangs.

Nice, evolutionary take on the previous car. Looks more modern and less cartoonish. Sleeker hood line echoes that of the concept that came out a few years earlier... one that was panned by some commenters here for "looking too much like a BMW 6-series" Far as I know, nobody dislikes the styling on this model. Front-end looks more similar to later Mustang I's than the previous car.

Forget the rear roofline. That doesn't matter, since the Mustang will not be a four-door scissors-mobile. What matters is the front end. Notice how the lights and grill have evolved somewhat from the current Mustang. Nobody says the Mustang has to have hooded headlights... Mustang IIs, Fox-bodies and the mid-90's Mustangs all had separate headlights. The cut-line, in fact, seems angled to prove that this is still a Mustang.

Despite the Evos being a one-off, look for these styling cues to make it to the next-generation car... which, again, will not be a four-scissors door coupe.

 

[Slash]

You forgot 1968 and 1970 models lol.

 

[niky]

Was going to include the wiki graphics for the grille changes per year for the Mustang I, but that's just overboard.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I always liked the Guigiaro Mustang:

A sort of hybrid between the new edge Mustang and the current Mustang.

It's very obviously a Mustang, but it doesn't look old fashion. It looks contemporary and you could park it beside a 370z or something like that, and it wouldn't look like an oddball.

 

[Blackbird.]

The SN95('00-'04) and the S197s(2010+) are in my opinion the best looking ones. I understand the new mustang will take design cues from the EVOS concept but i'm curious as to which ones.

 

[peter_vod69]

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.

Only if you are a crap driver, or you're driving cars with crap handling. What kind of ham-fisted moron spins a car just because it's RWD?

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.

Infinitely? Again - you obviously haven't driven a RWD V8 with decent handling. Note: Live axle + sloppy front suspension does not equal decent handling.

 

[boomee]

I do agree people that are hating on RWD ususally dont know how to drive rwd or are universally scared of RWD. I am not saying you cant have fun in a FWD or AWD car but bashing rwd is pretty pointless

 

[Zenith]

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.

I agree that the Dart's marketplace has changed far than the Mustang's, that's why I only suggested a change to the engine, and not a huge one at that.

My point was that we should not make the defining characteristic of the Mustang a V8 engine in particular, but rather how the engine that uses stacks up against the competition.

Recent changes in the sports coupe market seem to be reducing displacement and cylinders and often adding forced induction. I don't have a comprehensive list, but BMW is a good example.

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.

I'm going to completely disagree with you on this.

I've driven MINI Coopers, BMW's, Camry's and more up and down hilly and coastline roads countless times. In addition to what you mentioned, they tend to be tight and low speed. This makes them perfect for the torque from my "big" V8 and RWD to lead to some good, but relatively safe fun.

 

[Exorcet]

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.

For weight balance, tire grip, and because oversteer >>>>> understeer. Last one is opinion though.

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.

I'd take RWD even there, or perhaps especially there. RWD is never really at a disadvantage to FWD when it comes to performance. I wish more small cars came with RWD.

 

[cgg]

That mustang looks remarkable like the ford mondeo we are getting here in ebgland

 

[Zenith]

Did you even read the OP before you posted?

 

[niky]

For weight balance, tire grip, and because oversteer >>>>> understeer. Last one is opinion though.

Weight balance doesn't come out positive if you've got a big V8 stuffed into a tiny car like some of the commenters are asking for.

Not unless that V8 is in the back seat. There's a reason why Renault put the V6 in the back of the Clio when they turned it into a hot hatch.

When driving front-engined rear-drivers, I've always felt more involved with the lower-displacement variants than the bigger-engined ones on track.

 

[homeforsummer]

RWD is never really at a disadvantage to FWD when it comes to performance. I wish more small cars came with RWD.

The dominance of FWD in touring car racing would disagree with you there. As for RWD small cars, it depends on their purpose. Make, I dunno, a Civic RWD, and watch it not sell, thanks to higher pricing, poorer packaging, less interior space and all the fun being dialled out of it anyway to make sure people don't fly off the road backwards.

As a general rule, small cars are better off FWD, and large cars and sports cars RWD. Though to be honest, fullsize sedans in the US have been going FWD and it's hardly harming them in their target market. A soft, floppy FWD car doesn't really have any disadvantages over a soft, floppy RWD car, but it does make for a more spacious and cheaper to produce car.

 

[Exorcet]

Weight balance doesn't come out positive if you've got a big V8 stuffed into a tiny car like some of the commenters are asking for.

Well, it certainly does become more difficult to do as the car gets smaller, but I think the practical limit is set by cost more than anything. This is where MR comes into play, as you mentioned, but that usually costs more (though there was the MR-2). I didn't mention engine location on purpose, but I guess you've got to consider it if you're going to look at the FWD vs RWD issue in the real world, and not in your head.

When driving front-engined rear-drivers, I've always felt more involved with the lower-displacement variants than the bigger-engined ones on track.

I would consider drivetrain layout more important than engine displacement, though displacement and size/weight are different things. If the engine needs to get smaller to provide optimum weight balance, I'm for it. I'd be willing to trade lots and lots of power for some negative pounds.

The dominance of FWD in touring car racing would disagree with you there.

I'll admit that I'm not too familiar with touring car series that feature FWD cars. Do you think that FWD dominance comes purely or mainly from the benefits of FF, or is it a combination of factors? From what I know MR doesn't really show up in those kinds of races. FR has a disadvantage in weight and power losses compared to FF when power is relatively low, but MR combines the best of the both.

As for RWD small cars, it depends on their purpose. Make, I dunno, a Civic RWD, and watch it not sell, thanks to higher pricing, poorer packaging, less interior space and all the fun being dialled out of it anyway to make sure people don't fly off the road backwards.

I really wouldn't consider a Civic a candidate for RWD, I was mostly talking about small sporty cars that are built more for fun than utility. Basically, it would be nice if everyone had their own Miata or S2000. Dumbing the car down could be fixed by accomplishing that through driver aids or by providing ways around it via aftermarket.

As a general rule, small cars are better off FWD, and large cars and sports cars RWD. Though to be honest, fullsize sedans in the US have been going FWD and it's hardly harming them in their target market. A soft, floppy FWD car doesn't really have any disadvantages over a soft, floppy RWD car, but it does make for a more spacious and cheaper to produce car.

I agree with most of that, and this is why I wasn't really talking about cars other than sports cars, and perhaps sporty sedans (I'm still upset over the 200C which I think should have been a Chrysler M3, not just through RWD but by performance and driving character).

Where I don't agree completely is that it's a matter of size. I think it's mainly cost, and that these smaller, cheaper cars are designed to have some everyday practicality (though there are plenty of dedicated FWD track machines too). FWD is more compact and it's cheap. Its performance advantage over FR comes from the close proximity of the engine to the driven wheels reducing power lost and reducing the amount of material needed to connect the engine to the driven wheels. This advantage is lost vs MR, but MR is bit more complex to design, so manufacturers tend to stay away from it unless they're making a more expensive car. FF's weight balance also becomes harder to deal with as total weight goes down, heavy road cars don't really mind putting all that weight in the front because they have enough mass to keep the weight balance in check.

When you look at dedicated track cars, FWD becomes rare.

This would never work with FWD.

With no real need to be practical, I don't see a reason why the Atom would ever go FWD.

Same as above

Somewhere between those cars and sporty FWD's, you reach a point where you don't care about FWD's road car practicality and low cost, and you throw the engine in the back. However, I'm probably not part of majority in favoring track cars over road cars.

 

[homeforsummer]

I'll admit that I'm not too familiar with touring car series that feature FWD cars. Do you think that FWD dominance comes purely or mainly from the benefits of FF, or is it a combination of factors? From what I know MR doesn't really show up in those kinds of races. FR has a disadvantage in weight and power losses compared to FF when power is relatively low, but MR combines the best of the both.

I wouldn't say FWD dominance as such... I maybe over-exaggerated before... but my point was to suggest that RWD isn't always the choice layout, and that FWD can be equally competitive in some series.

MR doesn't appear in touring cars because the concept is designed to test cars based on standard road cars - BMW 3-Series, Chevy Cruzes, Seats, Hondas and so-on. Victories have been split between FWD and RWD in recent years, but at around 300bhp neither one drivetrain has a particular advantage. With more power, RWD would no doubt start to come back into play.

Worth noting at this point that AWD was banned from touring car racing as it had a few years of total domination - so correctly tuned for touring car racing, AWD is really the optimal layout...

Basically, it would be nice if everyone had their own Miata or S2000.

I agree, but I'm sure you understand that developing small RWD platforms is an incredibly expensive thing for a manufacturer to do, when used on a relatively specialist market vehicle.

Somewhere between those cars and sporty FWD's, you reach a point where you don't care about FWD's road car practicality and low cost, and you throw the engine in the back.

While I agree, I think we're wandering a bit far off-topic here. I think the original FWD/RWD comment was made regarding the new Dodge Dart, and in such a car RWD is largely pointless these days - the disadvantages outweigh the advantages for the majority of customers.

Even something like a BMW 3-Series doesn't really need to be RWD, though I do applaud BMW for still making it that way, considering most of its customers buy the car for the badge and not the drivetrain layout.

Going further back into the discussion... I do partly agree with Prosthetic's earlier point. On balance I probably prefer RWD, but he's not wrong in saying that there are plenty of FWD cars out there that are whole heaps of fun to drive - and far more so than all but the most specialist of RWD machines, the majority of the time.

Not that anyone was really questioning that the Mustang should be RWD though. It definitely should, and they don't even sell the things over here. Likewise, the next Mustang should have a V8. I'm just not arsed about it looking like a retro re-hash again...

 

[Slash]

When driving front-engined rear-drivers, I've always felt more involved with the lower-displacement variants than the bigger-engined ones on track.

You don't need a big block to make big block power, you can easiliy get 800+ hp out of a small block, if not more if you have the equipment to do so. I've seen small blocks up near 2,000hp when done right, yet they are extremely expensive to build this way.

 

[niky]

Big and small are relative.

For a car under 1,000 kilograms, having 200 or so of those right over the front axle is a big issue. If we're making this car as a dedicated sports car, then there's no problem, move the engine back in the chassis and balance is restored.

If this is meant to be a daily driver that must seat four, then you're stuck with the weight compromise or making the car much bigger. That's why "hot" versions of small cars nowadays typically use turbocharged versions of the four-pots in there. Technically, you can fit a six or an eight or any number of mills under the hood. I've seen those monsters, and while they're amusingly quick, the dynamic compromises are obvious from the first turn of the wheel.

And yeah, this is way off-topic.

Bringing it slightly on-topic, I've driven several cars that come with multiple engine variants and sizes, in front-wheel drive, rear-wheel drive and four-wheel drive. And the smaller engine variants always drive better. Better bite at turn-in, less inertia, less understeer.

A Mustang with a smaller V8... say... a 4 liter V8... that's higher revving... would be fantastic. One with a smaller 2.5 liter V6 (if you've something against four-pots) would be great, too. Use turbo-boost to bring power up... and if you really must have a five liter or a 6.2 liter car, then those engines can be reserved for "BOSS" and "Shelby" variants.

But building a Mustang for a smaller set of engines makes it better in several ways. The package will be more compact and more balanced... the current Mustang is relatively well-balanced, at 54:45 or so (depending on the variant)... but the V6 is closer to 50:50... a future downsized variant with the same power (300 or so) from a smaller 2.5 liter turbo-six or turbo-four could make that balance an ideal 50:50 or even 48:52... which would make the Mustang much better driving... giving it better balance under braking and in cornering.

-

Of course, there's the pesky throttle-tip-in thing for turbos... but given that everything uses electronic throttles nowadays, that's not a turbo-exclusive problem, anymore.

 

[Slash]

They did have a 4.6L V8 from the modular series, that wasn't too bad. I could go for a smaller displacement but the power just has to be there.

 

[niky]

The 4.6 wasn't as good as the 5.0.

It's possible to make a good 4.0 V8 with direct injection. BMW did it. And BMW manages to get the "feel" right, even with turbos.

 

[YSSMAN]

The 4.6 wasn't as good as the 5.0.

And neither were as good as the GM LT and LS series V8s. Sure, they were of larger displacements, but they were smaller in actual size and weighed less, consistently producing more power.

There is an interesting split emerging between Ford and GM in that regard. Whereas Ford's design of their V8s has become downright European, GM is clinging to older American technology because it is cheaper, but no less effective. The Gen V small-blocks are going to be very interesting to put head-to-head against the Coyote and Hurricane V8s. Although GM is reportedly going smaller in displacement, they're keeping OHVs, and matching it with variable-valve timing, direct-injection, and other lightweight construction bits.

My money is still on GM in the V8 wars, but we won't know much until next year.

 

[Omnis]

Whichever one weighs the least, has the lowest center of gravity, and fits in the GT86 will be the winner.

 

[Slash]

And neither were as good as the GM LT and LS series V8s. Sure, they were of larger displacements, but they were smaller in actual size and weighed less, consistently producing more power.

There is an interesting split emerging between Ford and GM in that regard. Whereas Ford's design of their V8s has become downright European, GM is clinging to older American technology because it is cheaper, but no less effective. The Gen V small-blocks are going to be very interesting to put head-to-head against the Coyote and Hurricane V8s. Although GM is reportedly going smaller in displacement, they're keeping OHVs, and matching it with variable-valve timing, direct-injection, and other lightweight construction bits.

My money is still on GM in the V8 wars, but we won't know much until next year.

I always prefered Ford over GM for looks, sound, superior design and performance.

 

[Slash]

Then again, which 5.0 are we talking about?

 

[boomee]

4.6 5.0 which is better hmmm I think that is kinda a personal opinion and what you are looking for out of the engine. L S engines are great but Personal preference for me is the 4.6 maybe the 5.0 after its been out for a couple more years. I have to agree for sound and performance I unfortunatly usually side with ford except on vettes and the pontiac GT GXP

 

[Keef]

Physics dictates that front-drive will never be able to perform as well as a rear-drive platform. At the limit a tire can handle a certain amount of force in any direction. In a front-drive platform, the vast majority of these forces including 100% of acceleration will be constrained to working within the front tires' limit. If you take acceleration duties away from the front tires you suddenly free up quite a lot of available grip on corner exit especially. Rear-drive also comes with more even weight balance, freeing up even more grip for the front tires to handle a bit more turning and braking force separately or simultaneously. Make the car mid-engined and rear-drive and the front end becomes capable of high braking and turning forces simultaneously while the rear tackles all acceleration and still only a small amount of braking force.

Grip circle son. You can't use what is effectively a glorified spec series in Touring Car racing to justify one being better than the other. There are rules designed to level the playing field. On top of that there's the fact that traffic often makes passing impossible with closely matched cars. Where one car has a slight advantage the one in front will be hugging the line because guess what, they're racing, and race car drivers don't give up position unless they have to.

 

[boomee]

Keef just one question wouldnt making the car nid engine wouldnt that up the cost even more especially with the updated technology that is supposed to be in the mustang just guessing everything to gether with a mid engine unit would put the stang around what hypothetically 45 grand that probably is too steep considering Ford wants to cater to every one i thin the current mustang starts at 22 or 23 grand. I hear what your saying about mid engine ( I love the new boxter by the way and love the caymen in general) but I think Ford may price the mustang out of its normal crowd. and the crowed they are trying to get which is generation Y

 

[homeforsummer]

Physics dictates that front-drive will never be able to perform as well as a rear-drive platform. At the limit a tire can handle a certain amount of force in any direction. In a front-drive platform, the vast majority of these forces including 100% of acceleration will be constrained to working within the front tires' limit. If you take acceleration duties away from the front tires you suddenly free up quite a lot of available grip on corner exit especially. Rear-drive also comes with more even weight balance, freeing up even more grip for the front tires to handle a bit more turning and braking force separately or simultaneously. Make the car mid-engined and rear-drive and the front end becomes capable of high braking and turning forces simultaneously while the rear tackles all acceleration and still only a small amount of braking force.

Grip circle son. You can't use what is effectively a glorified spec series in Touring Car racing to justify one being better than the other. There are rules designed to level the playing field. On top of that there's the fact that traffic often makes passing impossible with closely matched cars. Where one car has a slight advantage the one in front will be hugging the line because guess what, they're racing, and race car drivers don't give up position unless they have to.

While I agree with all this, you're missing one thing:

With an average driver on an average road, the difference is much smaller, if not swaying the other way. If you're not using 100% of the grip in that grip circle, then the advantage of different drivetrains dissipates.

Then there's the confidence factor, something often covered in magazines when they do oddball comparisons - like putting a hot hatch against a supercar on a twisty road and finding that the hatch is faster because you can exploit 100% of its performance, where the supercar needs balls of steel to exploit more than 50% of what it can do.

The same applies to front versus rear-drive - FWD is easier to exploit (the confidence factor is higher). The RWD car may ultimately be able to go faster, but only for someone able to exploit the difference.

That's road more than track, obviously. The predictability of a circuit means it's much easier to safely reach the limit in a RWD car than it is on the road.

Though once again, we're heading off topic here...

 

[Sanji Himura]

Or I can sum it up like Jeremy Clarkson did...

Front wheel drive cars have two problems going against it. One is that the front tires pull double duty while the car is in motion, as Keef mentioned, and two, while the car is accelerating, the steering wheel tends to automatically "lean", for lack of a better word, in one direction causing the car to go off center.

Both present serious problems for any car that has Front wheel drive, and in some instances, it is best to not even drive one. AWD is the best choice for any shopper that wants a car, but hasn't Ford swapped out the Mustang's RWD for an AWD system years ago? If they did, then that makes this whole conversation mute.