Comments on: TTAC Photochop: New Ford Mustang

By: The Luigiian

The Luigiian — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:05:11 +0000

I’ve seen other Photochops of the new Mustang; I can only hope it looks like this one, because I don’t like any of the others. I agree, they need to switch out that 4.0 liter 6. Checking fueleconomy.gov, it says that the engine gets only 19 mpg with automatic, which is less than the heavier (and more powerful) Charger with 3.5 liter. Good luck to Ford, I hope they can make the ‘Stang more fuel-efficient; just a couple more mpg out of the base and I would seriously consider it.

By: rudiger

rudiger — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 17:14:25 +0000

MS6: “I have always though that one key design feature missing from the new design was the ‘hip’ that started just aft of the door, giving the car’s rear quarter a more muscular appearance. In fact, its this feature, and only this feature, that makes the new Camaro look good. The original Mustang had it, and the ‘69 car actually accentuated it, and even the Guigaro car has it. I wonder why Ford would choose to leave this very important feature out.“

I have been similiarly baffled as to why Ford would leave the quarter panel ‘kick’ off of the S197. It really was an integral styling feature of the original Mustang until it was dropped when the Bunkie Knudson-inspired, horizontal rear-window ‘71-’73 behemoth arrived (had to have an engine bay large enough for the Lincoln engine block). The quarter panel ‘kick’ has been noticably absent from all Mustangs ever since.

By: MS6

MS6 — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 13:18:36 +0000

I have always though that one key design feature missing from the new design was the ‘hip’ that started just aft of the door, giving the car’s rear quarter a more muscular appearance. In fact, its this feature, and only this feature, that makes the new Camaro look good. The original Mustang had it, and the ‘69 car actually accentuated it, and even the Guigaro car has it. I wonder why Ford would choose to leave this very important feature out. I used to own a 2005 GT and I was very much pleased with the way the car rode, handled and accelerated, especially after a few adders. I’m very excited to see the Ecoboost motors end up in a Mustang soon, and I think the real key to the success of the Mustang is going to be a more aggressive design, class leading power and lowest price. And the special edition cars need to be fewer and further between, with a greater difference to the base car, and far more exclusive.

By: timoted

timoted — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 00:47:18 +0000

I think part of the weight distribution balance comes from the fact that the 5-speed in the V6 is a Tremec T-5. The 5-speed manual in the V8 is the
Tremec 3650. I’m not sure what the weight difference is between the two but I do know that they are different. I’m guessing the 3650 can handle the additional torque.I would also imagine that the rear end is a little beefier than the V6 unit.

By: geeber

geeber — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 22:10:21 +0000

The latest Mustang spyshots show 1970-style vents located between the headlights and the grille, along with a more curvaceous front end.

By: SherbornSean

SherbornSean — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 21:49:17 +0000

Personally, I like Guigiaro’s take, but then I like everything he does.

By: Qusus

Qusus — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 21:20:15 +0000

Isn’t the GT Deluxe for go-fasters on a budget? They have the same stereo as the base V6, plastic steering wheel, no leather, no power seats etc…

Plus I’ve seen them sell for less than 23K REAL world. That’s just killer.

By: blautens

blautens — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 21:09:26 +0000

Leave the outside alone. Perhaps upgrade the interior. Absolutely upgrade the brakes (and the brakes on almost EVERY Ford). Ditch the 4.0 V6 and use the 3.5 V6 they’re selling in every other car to realize economies of scale.

Also, make one for the hard core go-fasters on a budget – a V8 based one like the old Mustang 5.0 LX – but leave off fancy trim and costly (and heavy) options that you’re just going to remove anyway.

By: Redbarchetta

Redbarchetta — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 21:05:45 +0000

55/45 for the 4.0 alumminum V6 and 54/46 for the aluminum V8. Not bad for a v8 rwd.

I thought you said the V8 was 100 lbs. heavier, how do they get a better balance when they add more weight in the front? In that case I would definately take any weight out of it because it would most likely come out of the interior and trunk.

By: Qusus

Qusus — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 20:28:46 +0000

A new entry level V6 with just a lil more grunt and efficiency would be nice. Keep the V8 though, where else are you gonna get a new 300 HP 8 cylinder RWD car that looks good to boot?

No way Ford’s gonna update the interior though… they’re pinching pennies on keepin the car at the price it’s at.

As for the Altima, I actually drove one and it was pretty rockin’ the FWD didn’t detract from the steering/handling feel nearly as much as you would think. I think it looks awful though, just my opinion. Plus, real world prices for the Altima seem like they’re gonna be quite a bit higher than the GT.

By: Wagonphile

Wagonphile — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 20:27:02 +0000

Weak, but Ford’s not going to do anything radical. After creating a modern mixture of the ‘67-’68 and ‘69 ponycars, it’s not surprising that someone might speculate they’d do a 1970 restyle. I’d prefer something more original this time, despite finding the current model attractive (on the outside).

Suggestion: keep the exterior as it is and revamp the interior. It’s retro in the cheap-plastics sense.

As for someone comparing the 3.5 Altima as a possible alternative, most people aren’t going to cross-shop front-drivers. Torque steer is a major problem when hp gets above 225 or so, and when it is dampened, steering feel is terrible. FWD is inherently a flawed setup.

By: Willie Dynamite

Willie Dynamite — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 19:46:40 +0000

"Heck just the styling, interior and engine upgrades discussed here are enough to make me want it over any other coupe in its class." – Sajeev Mehta

Huh? Is this the same guy that wrote the scathing Mustang review last January? What changed from "blunt force trauma facade" and "retro design isn't a warm reminder of past greatness; it's de-evolution."?

By: timoted

timoted — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 19:36:48 +0000

55/45 for the 4.0 alumminum V6 and 54/46 for the aluminum V8. Not bad for a v8 rwd.

By: Redbarchetta

Redbarchetta — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 19:30:59 +0000

100 lbs. doesn’t mean much in the grand scheme of things with the overall weight of the car when you add in 400 lbs for driver, passenger and fuel.

What’s the weight balance on that thing?

By: carlisimo

carlisimo — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 19:30:17 +0000

Is a minor facelift like this really enough? I mean… no big deal if the 2010 Mustang looks a lot like the 2005 Mustang, but if it hasn’t changed significantly by 2015 it’ll be the usual domestic story…

By: Redbarchetta

Redbarchetta — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 19:25:13 +0000

Something must be wrong with me but the more I look at that picture the more I see a late 80’s BMW 6-series. I actually saw one that was missing the kidneys in the middle and looked exactly like that except thsi has much better paint.

I would like to see something more radical and a more substantial evolution than this. I like pulling retro cues but not these almost copies, you kind of pain yourself in a corner doing it without much room move forward with the design and shape.

By: timoted

timoted — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 19:22:16 +0000

What’s the phobia with the V8?? Duratec V6 265 hp and 250 lb-ft of torque vs 300 hp and 320 lb-ft of torque with the V8. Only 100 lbs difference in weight. Give me any car and I can pull 100 lbs of useless crap out of it.

By: shabatski

shabatski — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 19:15:55 +0000

Yes, get that crappy 4.0 outta there and put in the modern 3.5 Duratec!! If I lived in a warm climate I’d actually consider one.

By: timoted

timoted — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 19:15:17 +0000

Next to the headlights. On the front of the fenders. If you want portholes you gotta buy a T-bird.

By: BlueBrat

BlueBrat — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 19:12:34 +0000

I can’t swallow this, there’s no fake air intakes on the hood or sides! This is wrong! Where’s the portholes?

By: timoted

timoted — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 19:05:26 +0000

Actually with the 4.6 V8 you’d be able to squeeze more HP out of it and still not affect the weight distribution too much. I think there is only around 100 lbs difference between it and the V6. You start bolting on turbos/superchargers on a V6 you’re weight is gonna be the same as the V-8.

By: Sajeev Mehta

Sajeev Mehta — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 18:53:40 +0000

Looks less bulky and massive. (yay!) If they upgrade the interior a la 2009 F150, give it the 3.5L Duratec, put the FRPP suspension on it and we’ll have a strong entry level player in the coupe market.

Heck just the styling, interior and engine upgrades discussed here are enough to make me want it over any other coupe in its class.

By: timoted

timoted — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 18:29:47 +0000

I guess as long as you liked the front end of the 1970 model year, you’ll like this one too. I’m not much of a fan of the faux air intakes on the side but, they could have made it alot worse. I hope they upgrade that interior, it’s one of the biggest things that kill the GT version.

By: 210delray

210delray — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 18:23:14 +0000

Suddenly, it’s 1970!

By: HEATHROI

HEATHROI — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 18:18:07 +0000

The outsides fine. Its the handling that needs sorting.