And now... a completely hypothetical question...

calypsocoral302 · Jul 5, 2004

Note to mods-- I'm new to this forum, so I'm still trying to get a feel for what is considered an appropriate post under which forum, so I won't be offended if this topic gets moved.

Now for the question:

If you were in charge of developing the line-up for the 2006 Mustangs (let's assume the Mustang and Mustang GT launches go off without a hitch for the 2005 model year), what would you include in the lineup and why?

Please include any appropriate notes regarding powertrains, suspensions, handling characteristics, speed, exterior modifications, colors, etc.

I'll hold off on posting my perspective until the thread sees a few responses...

Have fun!

IWantMyNewGT · Jul 5, 2004

I would say right off the bat my wish list would be:

1. Optional IRS.
2. Do SOMETHING about the butt end--it looks too big and doesn't look like it belongs on the same car as the front and sides. Shave the sheetmetal and bumpers down a bit and make the taillamps smaller(??). I'd be willing to give up some trunk volume to make the tail end look as good as the front!
3. Offer a REAL black interior, not just charcoal!
4. Paint the outside mirrors body color.
5. Power (retractable) or windshield antenna option, not just a fixed-mast cheapo.

Just my $.02

scottie1113 · Jul 5, 2004

We've been over this a few hundred times. but I couldn't find anything under search related titles, so here goes.

My wish list includes IRS, a 5 speed slap shift tiptronic transmission, And Dark Highland Green.

calypsocoral302 · Jul 5, 2004

My line-up

scottie1113 said:
We've been over this a few hundred times. but I couldn't find anything under search related titles, so here goes.

My wish list includes IRS, a 5 speed slap shift tiptronic transmission, And Dark Highland Green.

Sorry about that. I scanned through the 31 pages of topics on this forum to see if there was another thread like this. I didn't see any, though I didn't check out every thread in detail, so my apologies on that.

What I would put out, assuming there was a logical demand for it:

1) I would keep the Mustang GT as-is. IRS will be available after-market anyway. I'd add Jaguar Racing Green (with a different name, of course) to the color selection.

2) An immediate overhaul of the basic Mustang's powertrain. The 4.0 SOHC taken from Ford's Ranger, Explorer, and Freestar will be scrapped in favor of a 6-banger (inline 6), as per the original '64.5 Mustang. Displacement would be something like 3.7L. Power output should be something like 260hp @ 5800 RPM, 270 lb/ft @ 3800 RPM, meaning this engine will sufficiently whip the V-6 in the 350Z. It will, however, retain the live axle setup. The only other changes would be any necessary engineering accomadations to the more powerful engine. Pricing will be as close to $20K as possible, though the increased power output would make this car a better value than the V-6 offering slated for 2005 anyway...

3) No, I couldn't resist. A BOSS Mustang production model, slotted above the GT, but below the SVT and Shelby offerings. The engine will be a 5.4L V-8 "LS1-killer" rated at 350+ hp and 370+ lb/ft. There will be no YUPpy silvers or greys in this car's paint schemes. Calypso Coral will be making a comeback. Black striping, as per the '69 BOSS 302, will be standard, with a deletion as a no-cost option. This will also feature a live-axle set-up. Nomenclature will still be metric for the sake of consistency (aka "BOSS 5.4"). The height would be lowered slightly and will feature subtle front lip, side-underbody, rear-underbody, and rear-wing spoilers. The Mustang grill emblem will be changed to that of the original BOSS Mustangs, including a similar off-set.

4) The SVT will no longer call itself the "Cobra"... this name will forever be reserved only for Carrol Shelby's roadster (I wholly believe it will be produced in limited quantities for 2006 or 2007). Instead, SVT will make the Mach 1, seeing that they have the know-how to make a functional hood scoop to best Pontiac's Ram-Air systems. The engine will be a 6.0L V-8 or V-10 "LS2-killer" sufficient to kick the 2005 Corvette. This will feature an IRS standard.

5) One last, final resurrection of the Mercury Cougar. Featuring a luxurious interior, a taut suspension featuring IRS, and a sleek exterior, this will be America's long-awaited answer to both the Nissan 350Z and Infiniti G35. It will feature the 6-banger I had in mind for my revised basic Mustang, though it can be fitted with a supercharger before or after purchase, as per Scion's tC. This will feature powerful BREMBO brakes and a suspension tuning similar to that of the G35- slightly softer than the 350Z's, if memory serves me correctly. Pricing will slot midway between the 350Z Touring and G35.

6) Whatever Carroll Shelby wants to do with the new Shelby GT's would be fine by me.

7) 6-speed Tremec manuals on all models, as per Pontiac's GTO. 29mpg highway without any fancy multi-displacement systems sounds fine to me.

351CJ · Jul 5, 2004

calypsocoral302 said:
2) An immediate overhaul of the basic Mustang's powertrain. The 4.0 SOHC taken from Ford's Ranger, Explorer, and Freestar will be scrapped in favor of a 6-banger (inline 6), as per the original '64.5 Mustang. Displacement would be something like 3.7L. Power output should be something like 260hp @ 5800 RPM, 270 lb/ft @ 3800 RPM, meaning this engine will sufficiently whip the V-6 in the 350Z. It will, however, retain the live axle setup. The only other changes would be any necessary engineering accomadations to the more powerful engine. Pricing will be as close to $20K as possible, though the increased power output would make this car a better value than the V-6 offering slated for 2005 anyway...

Are you on drugs?

Doing an all new inline 6 would probably cost more than the whole 05 Mustang development budget. No way would it fit inside the S197 stang either.

Have you compared the price of a V6 Mustang (under $20K) verses a 350Z ($30K)? They are not in the same market.

351CJ · Jul 5, 2004

calypsocoral302 said:
7) 6-speed Tremec manuals on all models, as per Pontiac's GTO. 29mpg highway without any fancy multi-displacement systems sounds fine to me.

Again are you on drugs?

The V6 Mustang starts under $20K, the GTO is $34K, they are not in the same market. The T6 is a very expensive gear box compared to the T5 that comes in the V6 Stang.

66Satellite · Jul 5, 2004

Dark Highland Green
Base V8 package
And I agree, the rear view mirrors need help

SVTdriver · Jul 5, 2004

calypsocoral302 said:
What I would put out, assuming there was a logical demand for it:

1) I would keep the Mustang GT as-is. IRS will be available after-market anyway. I'd add Jaguar Racing Green (with a different name, of course) to the color selection.

2) An immediate overhaul of the basic Mustang's powertrain. The 4.0 SOHC taken from Ford's Ranger, Explorer, and Freestar will be scrapped in favor of a 6-banger (inline 6), as per the original '64.5 Mustang. Displacement would be something like 3.7L. Power output should be something like 260hp @ 5800 RPM, 270 lb/ft @ 3800 RPM, meaning this engine will sufficiently whip the V-6 in the 350Z. It will, however, retain the live axle setup. The only other changes would be any necessary engineering accomadations to the more powerful engine. Pricing will be as close to $20K as possible, though the increased power output would make this car a better value than the V-6 offering slated for 2005 anyway...

3) No, I couldn't resist. A BOSS Mustang production model, slotted above the GT, but below the SVT and Shelby offerings. The engine will be a 5.4L V-8 "LS1-killer" rated at 350+ hp and 370+ lb/ft. There will be no YUPpy silvers or greys in this car's paint schemes. Calypso Coral will be making a comeback. Black striping, as per the '69 BOSS 302, will be standard, with a deletion as a no-cost option. This will also feature a live-axle set-up. Nomenclature will still be metric for the sake of consistency (aka "BOSS 5.4"). The height would be lowered slightly and will feature subtle front lip, side-underbody, rear-underbody, and rear-wing spoilers. The Mustang grill emblem will be changed to that of the original BOSS Mustangs, including a similar off-set.

4) The SVT will no longer call itself the "Cobra"... this name will forever be reserved only for Carrol Shelby's roadster (I wholly believe it will be produced in limited quantities for 2006 or 2007). Instead, SVT will make the Mach 1, seeing that they have the know-how to make a functional hood scoop to best Pontiac's Ram-Air systems. The engine will be a 6.0L V-8 or V-10 "LS2-killer" sufficient to kick the 2005 Corvette. This will feature an IRS standard.

5) One last, final resurrection of the Mercury Cougar. Featuring a luxurious interior, a taut suspension featuring IRS, and a sleek exterior, this will be America's long-awaited answer to both the Nissan 350Z and Infiniti G35. It will feature the 6-banger I had in mind for my revised basic Mustang, though it can be fitted with a supercharger before or after purchase, as per Scion's tC. This will feature powerful BREMBO brakes and a suspension tuning similar to that of the G35- slightly softer than the 350Z's, if memory serves me correctly. Pricing will slot midway between the 350Z Touring and G35.

6) Whatever Carroll Shelby wants to do with the new Shelby GT's would be fine by me.

7) 6-speed Tremec manuals on all models, as per Pontiac's GTO. 29mpg highway without any fancy multi-displacement systems sounds fine to me.

There are a few problems with creating those dream cars. And this is why threads like this don't last too long. Mainly it's because we can all dream up cars without having to deal with the reality of what the real costs are for them. I could say I think the mustang should have carbon fiber body panels to lighten it's weight. But the reality is it would cost too much. It would be nice to be able to have these types of cars.
The I-6 to be that powerful and compete with the 350Z. Would likely push the price of the V6 to the price of the Z (minimum was around $26k). Don't think there would be a logical demand for a $26k basic mustang.
Why take away the Cobra name from SVT? They have been making it for over ten years now. Which is longer than shelby made any mustangs and original cobra's. I think people who buy the SVT cobra won't be confused by the cobra name in either model. Maybe people who aren't into mustangs.
Do you honestly think there would be a market for that cougar. The 350Z touring last I priced them were about $36k depending on options.
Lastly and I understand you couldn't find this in any thread titles. But the difference between final gears in the 5 and 6 speed is .01 (.62 to .63 I believe). So you aren't going to get any real savings in mpg.

351CJ · Jul 5, 2004

SVTdriver said:
Lastly and I understand you couldn't find this in any thread titles. But the difference between final gears in the 5 and 6 speed is .01 (.62 to .63 I believe). So you aren't going to get any real savings in mpg.

Don't forget that the T6 is a close ratio trannie that is designed for high HP cars. It would be totally inappropriate for a V6 Mustang.

Also, the vast majority of V6 Mustang customers not only could care less if the Stang has a V6 verses and I6 but they also don't have a clue as to how they are different.

The 350Z & G35 need a high HP V6 because they don't have V8's. There is no need for a high HP 6 in the stang because the GT has a 300 HP V8 and there will be SEs with a lot more HP, probably close to 500HP for the SVT Cobra.

calypsocoral302 · Jul 5, 2004

SVTdriver said:
There are a few problems with creating those dream cars. And this is why threads like this don't last too long. Mainly it's because we can all dream up cars without having to deal with the reality of what the real costs are for them. I could say I think the mustang should have carbon fiber body panels to lighten it's weight. But the reality is it would cost too much. It would be nice to be able to have these types of cars.

Point taken. I'll use a little more discretion in the future.

SVTdriver said:
The I-6 to be that powerful and compete with the 350Z. Would likely push the price of the V6 to the price of the Z (minimum was around $26k). Don't think there would be a logical demand for a $26k basic mustang.

Good points, but, I reasoned, there's more to the 350Z's pricetag than just the powertrain. I'm willing to bet its ultra-stiff suspension added quite a bit to that price as well. Make no mistake, what I had in mind was not direct competition for the 350Z... at least not in any other area than 0-60's and quarter-miles. Even though I love the idea of an inline-6, even giving the basic 'stang the Duratech35 would be adequate power for an inexpensive musclecar. While I like the torque figure (on paper) delivered by the 4.0L SOHC, I have to question whether or not Ford made that choice simply to get rid of excess Ford Ranger engines, which also get worse gas mileage than many V-8's. It reminds me of Hyundai using the 2.7L V-6 from their SUV in the V-6 Tiburon, with a similarly less-than-desirable result.

SVTdriver said:
Do you honestly think there would be a market for that cougar. The 350Z touring last I priced them were about $36k depending on options.

Taking in the number of G35's M3's, and CLK's I've seen driving around here, I think I can safely say there is a market, at least in my locale, for an upscale performance coupe. Seeing as how the modified DEW 98 platform devised for the Mustang allows for a sane amount of room in the back seats, this Cougar would also be more practical as well as powerful.

numenor27 · Jul 5, 2004

I dont like the body color painted outside mirrors, they just look weird

SVTdriver · Jul 5, 2004

calypsocoral302 said:
Point taken. I'll use a little more discretion in the future.

Good points, but, I reasoned, there's more to the 350Z's pricetag than just the powertrain. I'm willing to bet its ultra-stiff suspension added quite a bit to that price as well. Make no mistake, what I had in mind was not direct competition for the 350Z... at least not in any other area than 0-60's and quarter-miles. Even though I love the idea of an inline-6, even giving the basic 'stang the Duratech35 would be adequate power for an inexpensive musclecar. While I like the torque figure (on paper) delivered by the 4.0L SOHC, I have to question whether or not Ford made that choice simply to get rid of excess Ford Ranger engines, which also get worse gas mileage than many V-8's. It reminds me of Hyundai using the 2.7L V-6 from their SUV in the V-6 Tiburon, with a similarly less-than-desirable result.

Taking in the number of G35's M3's, and CLK's I've seen driving around here, I think I can safely say there is a market, at least in my locale, for an upscale performance coupe. Seeing as how the modified DEW 98 platform devised for the Mustang allows for a sane amount of room in the back seats, this Cougar would also be more practical as well as powerful.

Here's the thing about the engine. We don't know what is coming in the next few years. I have heard rumor that the 4.0 is going away. If that is the case. Why not blow them out in mustangs as well for a few years until the supply is used up. That way noone has to pay for storing those motors. And while it may be the same motor. I would be relatively certain that the tune is not the same. And I think it is a little much to expect Ford to develope passenger and truck motors seperately. And not to have them crossover. If you think about it. It actually make more sense to share motors as they can then put more into developement of one motor. And put out a better motor.

The thing is that the cougar has a lot of history for people to forget. Before it could ever compete with those cars. For many years the cougar has not been thought of as competition for those cars (Not sure it ever was). Those other cars didn't have the history to get past.

CA Lightfoot · Jul 6, 2004

Ford, if you're listening, the Wish List is simple:
More power for '06. More power for '07. More power for '08...

Don't care how you do it. Just make more power available at a reasonable price.

And a "Drag Pak" with 4.10s, beefed-up rear, rear-seat delete, drag radials, 6-sp... did I miss anything?

calypsocoral302 · Jul 6, 2004

SVTdriver said:
Here's the thing about the engine. We don't know what is coming in the next few years. I have heard rumor that the 4.0 is going away. If that is the case. Why not blow them out in mustangs as well for a few years until the supply is used up. That way noone has to pay for storing those motors. And while it may be the same motor. I would be relatively certain that the tune is not the same. And I think it is a little much to expect Ford to develope passenger and truck motors seperately. And not to have them crossover. If you think about it. It actually make more sense to share motors as they can then put more into developement of one motor. And put out a better motor.

That does make some sense, especially now that car-based-SUV "crossovers" are coming out as well. Though the new Freestyle will be powered by the Duratech 30 (200hp), I think it would actually make more sense to put the 4.0 SOHC in that... unless, of course, it wouldn't fit...

And yeah, the tuning is different for the Mustang than the Explorer and Ranger.

Actually, I think that there will be a more substantial difference in Ford Car engines versus Ford Truck/SUV engines over the next model year. Keep in mind that the Duratech line of engines used in the 2005 cars are developed from Mazda, while the Triton line is still developed by Ford for pickup/SUV applications. Though, to Ford's credit, the only other company under the FoMoCo umbrella that develops V-8's is Jaguar, who already donated their engine (or, rather, down-tuned version thereof) to the Lincoln LS (though Aston-Martin will soon be making V-8's again, I doubt they would work with a mainstream Ford model).

SVTdriver said:
The thing is that the cougar has a lot of history for people to forget. Before it could ever compete with those cars. For many years the cougar has not been thought of as competition for those cars (Not sure it ever was). Those other cars didn't have the history to get past.

I guess that one depends on how old you are. Most kids my age (I'm 23) think of the 2000 Cougar, which actually has gained a fairly-decent (though not stellar) reputation with the 4-banger crowd (among the Celica and others). Some folks older than me will remember the Thunderbird clones of the 80's and 90's, ultimately forgettable. Those old enough to remember the '60's will tell you that the Cougar was Mercury's Mustang (they shared the same platform and similar powertrains). That was why I chose the "Cougar" name, though you are correct that the Cougar has 3 bad decades to forget. Still, Cougar is much better than the names Mercury is picking nowadays. C'mon; Montego? Mariner? Montclaire? This whole "our entire lineup will start with the letter 'M'" thing isn't cute... it's just plain stupid. Ford should learn the same thing for the letter "F"-- it's most sought-after car, the Mustang, doesn't start with an "F"... and those that do are usually forgettable.

Sorry about the rant...

TomServo92 · Jul 6, 2004

calypsocoral302 said:
Keep in mind that the Duratech line of engines used in the 2005 cars are developed from Mazda, while the Triton line is still developed by Ford for pickup/SUV applications.

I don't believe that is correct. I currently drive a 2004 Mazda 6 with the 3.0 V6. Everything I've read about this engine states it's developed from the Ford Duratech block with the intake and heads being Mazda designed pieces. To the best of my knowledge there is no relationship between the old Mazda V6s (like the ones that powered the Probe GT, Millenium, and 929) and the current Ford Duratech family.

SVTdriver · Jul 6, 2004

calypsocoral302 said:
I guess that one depends on how old you are. Most kids my age (I'm 23) think of the 2000 Cougar, which actually has gained a fairly-decent (though not stellar) reputation with the 4-banger crowd (among the Celica and others). Some folks older than me will remember the Thunderbird clones of the 80's and 90's, ultimately forgettable. Those old enough to remember the '60's will tell you that the Cougar was Mercury's Mustang (they shared the same platform and similar powertrains). That was why I chose the "Cougar" name, though you are correct that the Cougar has 3 bad decades to forget. Still, Cougar is much better than the names Mercury is picking nowadays. C'mon; Montego? Mariner? Montclaire? This whole "our entire lineup will start with the letter 'M'" thing isn't cute... it's just plain stupid. Ford should learn the same thing for the letter "F"-- it's most sought-after car, the Mustang, doesn't start with an "F"... and those that do are usually forgettable.

The problem is the most recent cougar has not had the sales to push it. This is why they have been threatening to kill it for a few years now. I almost bought one. But I got the cobra for the same price as what I wanted in the cougar. And you only need to read this forum to see other peoples attitudes towards the cougar. Several would likely call the recent cougar a failure. Yes cougar is a good name for the car. But maybe they need to come up with something else.

Z28x · Jul 6, 2004

SVTdriver said:
The problem is the most recent cougar has not had the sales to push it. This is why they have been threatening to kill it for a few years now. I almost bought one. But I got the cobra for the same price as what I wanted in the cougar. And you only need to read this forum to see other peoples attitudes towards the cougar. Several would likely call the recent cougar a failure. Yes cougar is a good name for the car. But maybe they need to come up with something else.

I blame the poor cougar sales of lack of support by Ford and a weak powertrain lineup. This car sould have owned the sport compact segment. unfortunatly a lot of 4 cyls put out more HP than the couger V6 . SVT should have done a cougar instead of a Focus. Ford could have made the SVT cougar the modern ledged that the SRT-4 is today. Cougar is far better looking than the SRT-4, WRX, and just about all the import pocket rockets.

SVTdriver · Jul 6, 2004

I refer you to this thread where Cougar bashing is showing up. Then do a search for the photoshop os a cougar concept. There are more than 1. And there is cougar bashing going on in those as well.
http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=479856
Ford could not have done a cougar SVT. As they have stayed within the the Ford model lineup. Not the mercury line. It also had 170 hp in the V6 trim. Which is still not bad for a FWD import competitor.

TomServo92 · Jul 6, 2004

Z28x said:
I blame the poor cougar sales of lack of support by Ford and a weak powertrain lineup. This car sould have owned the sport compact segment. unfortunatly a lot of 4 cyls put out more HP than the couger V6 . SVT should have done a cougar instead of a Focus. Ford could have made the SVT cougar the modern ledged that the SRT-4 is today. Cougar is far better looking than the SRT-4, WRX, and just about all the import pocket rockets.

I'd agree with that. The 200HP V6 from the SVT Contour would have been a good match with the Cougar or better yet, the 200HP 3.0L from the Taurus (better torque). Combine the more powerful engine with the AWD Cougar S show car and you'd have had a very nice little performance car.

szer0 · Jul 6, 2004

calypsocoral302 said:
2) An immediate overhaul of the basic Mustang's powertrain. The 4.0 SOHC taken from Ford's Ranger, Explorer, and Freestar will be scrapped in favor of a 6-banger (inline 6), as per the original '64.5 Mustang. Displacement would be something like 3.7L. Power output should be something like 260hp @ 5800 RPM, 270 lb/ft @ 3800 RPM, meaning this engine will sufficiently whip the V-6 in the 350Z. It will, however, retain the live axle setup. The only other changes would be any necessary engineering accomadations to the more powerful engine. Pricing will be as close to $20K as possible, though the increased power output would make this car a better value than the V-6 offering slated for 2005 anyway...

With a 260hp engine the V6 would be too close to the V8 and probably cost just as much if not more. It just wouldn't work out I don't think.

And now... a completely hypothetical question...

calypsocoral302

New Member

IWantMyNewGT

Member

scottie1113

calypsocoral302

New Member

351CJ

New Member

351CJ

New Member

66Satellite

Banned

SVTdriver

351CJ

New Member

calypsocoral302

New Member

numenor27

New Member

SVTdriver

CA Lightfoot

Member

calypsocoral302

New Member

TomServo92

New Member

SVTdriver

Z28x

New Member

SVTdriver

TomServo92

New Member

szer0

New Member

Similar threads

And now... a completely hypothetical question...

New Member

Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Banned

New Member

New Member

New Member

Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency