SVTdriver said:huh? So if you want a more agressive 05 wait for 07?
Z28x said:The '05 will have a Ram Air hood, quad exhust, and more HP. Same body as the '04 just with a more Muscle car/less BMW look.
THe '07 will be a complete redesign on GMs new RWD car platform
SVTdriver said:Again though how can you be disappointed in something nobdy has tested yet. What if the newly redesign suspension is better than IRS? I'm not saying it will be. But your jumping the gun a little.
First off Road and Track drivers suck. And its alot easier to launch a 4 wheel drive car. From a standing start. A Mustang Cobra is a mid twelve second car. The other cars you mentioned are mid to low thirteens. Its just the driver doesn't have to have a brain to launch a car with AWD. The Mach 1 is a low thirteen second car (with 75hp less than a cobra).fly2low said:Okay, so someone is actually gonna buy a car just for the look. Design first and mechanical follows?
I am not a big fan of the Subbie, but one thing I know for sure for the Evo: the design follows function. The fender flares are needed to provide a bigger track. The hood vent is functional to release hot air. The big air dam is used to add down force, cool the brakes and intercooler. The wing really adds downforce.
I am not saying anything bad about the new Stang. I am just crossing my fingers that they gonna perform as well as they look. Otherwise, there could be a whole new generation of "ricers": people who buy the car based on the look and don't really care about performance (the very definition of "rice cars").
I mean, I open the road test summary of Road & Track now and I am upset on how these 2 rally cars can have a comparable performance to the current SVT Cobra. The 0-60mph and 1/4 mile time of the Subbie is the same with the Cobra, while the Evo is only a tenth behind. These two cars beat the Cobra on the other categories like braking, slalom, mpg (and insurance). How could cars with about a half of displacement can do as well as the Cobra? However, the most bitter part is that the Cobra cost MORE. Isn't Mustang supposed to be an affordable performance car? If you bring down the price a bit, you'd get a Mach 1. However, the Mach is not even a comparisson to these 2 cars. Well, my point is, not that I am bragging how these 2 cars do better, but Ford needs to re-engineer the car better to fight its competitors.
I want them to get the Mustang right; the bang for the buck performance car; not just a straight line car.
That's why I am so upset about the lack of independent rear suspension.
63_Fairlane said:Well there was a chance that the Mustang would have ended up being a Turbo allwheel drive car. Take the SVO and crossbread it with a Probe and an Escape and Viola! you get a turbo-allwheel-drive-fourbanger Mustang....
Makes you wonder sometimes...
fly2low said:Competition is the very heart of America. Without free enterprise, this country will not be in this condition right now. The winner takes it all. Camaro/Trans Am died, Mustang lives. The 60's cars are good; I love them. However, modern cars perform better than them (accelates, brakes, corners, better ergonomics, better emissions, etc).
Sure some of us are hardcore Mustang fans. However, we must also realize that the competition continues. In making Mustang, Ford doesn't compete with GM anymore. In reality, there are other auto makers that offer performer cars for Mustang's price range. I just took Evo and STi as an example. Omitting personal sentiments, these competitions, give buyers purchase options.
Be honest, are you or all of your household only use American brands. Are all of your electronics RCAs? Would you buy a better electronic foreign made product for a better price? Wouldn't you be happy if the domestic makers will then be able to offer a better and cheaper products to fight these competitions? Regardless, the customers win.
The same thing will happen with Mustang. The market will tell by the sales number. Ford must improves Mustang to be better and cheaper in order to make Mustang survives in the future. Isn't the very heart of Mustang an affordable performance i.e. bang for the bucks?
Now, let me take the Evo as an example again. This car undercuts the Cobra by about $6k. Yet, it performs better in some categories tested and even finished a bit better in the final summary (see my attachment). For the sake of simplicity, let's forget the modification capabilities since both cars have tons of potentials. Please also let styling to be a subjective matter (this is a Mustang board. Of course, everyone loves Mustang). This is a real competition.
Don't despise the competitors. If people buy them, let them do that. Ford will then be forced to improve the Mustang further. At the end of the day, you'll get a better and cheaper Mustang.
PS: And for a personal note, I don't only read crappy magazines. I have the February issue of Hemming Muscle Machines right next to me now. Know yourself and know your competitions.
BTW, I don't mean to insult anyone by this crappy Strategic Management 101 materials. I just want to elaborate my points. Peace .
http://www.motortrend.com/features/scenes/112_0306_spdint/
JimF65 said:Remember? The Probe was originally going to be a front-drive putt-putt "next edition" Mustang. Until we Mustangers shouted long and loud that we wanted to keep performance in the Mustang!! So Ford put the "Probe" name on the Mazda that was originally slated to be a Mustang. And we all see what happened to the Probe........
63_Fairlane said:Hey Jim,
This is just speculation. I wonder if Ford and Mazda actually swapped the body work on the two cars after Ford decided to keep the rear wheel drive Mustang. The MX6 or whatever it was called looks a lot ike and SN94 Stang. It even had little indentations in the quarter panels where the side scoup should be and three bar tail lights.
The Probe wasn't a bad car, but it wasn't good enough to survive the backlash by the Mustang faithful. It definately was not a Mustang!!! Then again, the new Cougar was essentially the same car and it failed miserably as well.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?