how many of you are excited?

JohnnyGMachine · Dec 15, 2008

Well I'm pretty stoked about the car. I always liked the 1969-1970 Mustangs the best. The 1969 Mustang in particular is a car I've always wanted to build a g-Machine out of. The new Mustang styling is inspired by the 69-70 Stangs and looks aggressive. I think the bottom of the front and rear fascias need to be cleaned up a little but other than that I really like 'em.
I will be working with a company in the next couple weeks designing for them a proposal concept for SEMA 2009 based off of the 2010 Mustang that will be submitted to Ford. I designed and developed 2 Dodge Challenger concepts last year, A Dodge truck before that, FINALLY - a Mustang!

The rear tail lights have grown on me, I like how the shape and theme of the tail lights are carried over in the interior and into dashboard shape. Nice touch.
As for the slight lack of power, If I were buying one I would personally wait until I could get a 2011 to get the 400 hp. 5.0. But I'd be willing to bet that the base price for the GT will go up and be about the same as the Camaro and Chally.

J

DukeOfValencia · Dec 15, 2008

I don't plan to buy the new Mustang, but I think Ford is going a great job with the changes. My personal opinion is that between the mid 1970s and 2004 the Mustang was really unattractive. I didn't like a single one. However, in April 2005 I bought my 2005 GT because Ford finally got it right, and the 2010 looks like they are continuing that trend.

I don't know why, but every single thread in the 2010 section ends up with people complaining about something. If you are going to complain, do it big. Let me show you how to complain properly:
If Ford wanted to do the Mustang right, they would have used an aluminum space frame and a carbon fiber body to cut down weight. Really, less weight = more speed, so it should weight around 1,000 to 1,200 pounds (with the driver and a full tank of gas). They should ditch the V8 platform and just move ahead with the 10 liter V12 hooked up to an 8 speed manual, but be sure that it gets 40 mpg on the street and 50 on the highway. A nice option engine would be a blown alcohol burning 1600 hp funnycar engine. They should stop using the cheap materials in the interior and have imported Italian leather with the optional baby sea lion inserts. I want a built in electric razor, and a coffee maker for my commute into work. I want a nav system and satellite radio standard, and I want to be able to speak with the astronauts with it. I don't see why Ford would need to charge more than $15,000 for a fully optioned convertible.
That is how you complain properly!

cliff88145 · Dec 15, 2008

RetiredGeneral said:
I don't plan to buy the new Mustang, but I think Ford is going a great job with the changes. My personal opinion is that between the mid 1970s and 2004 the Mustang was really unattractive. I didn't like a single one. However, in April 2005 I bought my 2005 GT because Ford finally got it right, and the 2010 looks like they are continuing that trend.

I don't know why, but every single thread in the 2010 section ends up with people complaining about something. If you are going to complain, do it big. Let me show you how to complain properly:
If Ford wanted to do the Mustang right, they would have used an aluminum space frame and a carbon fiber body to cut down weight. Really, less weight = more speed, so it should weight around 1,000 to 1,200 pounds (with the driver and a full tank of gas). They should ditch the V8 platform and just move ahead with the 10 liter V12 hooked up to an 8 speed manual, but be sure that it gets 40 mpg on the street and 50 on the highway. A nice option engine would be a blown alcohol burning 1600 hp funnycar engine. They should stop using the cheap materials in the interior and have imported Italian leather with the optional baby sea lion inserts. I want a built in electric razor, and a coffee maker for my commute into work. I want a nav system and satellite radio standard, and I want to be able to speak with the astronauts with it. I don't see why Ford would need to charge more than $15,000 for a fully optioned convertible.
That is how you complain properly!

:SNSign:

Stangninjak · Dec 15, 2008

Lol

Well The new mustangs are very nice. I like the new aggressive front styling, the rear ..well I can live with it. Its not totally bad.

From different reports I have been reading, it seems they have really adjusted the handling of the mustangs, which is a good thing. People are bitching about the power, but lets not forget, as long as you have a decent block(bottom end) you can ADD power. Power is the easiest thing to get..having a good looking car that can handle the road and feels fun to drive is the point to achieve.

I'll be holding on to my 08, I have it looking just how I want, and the Turbo will be going in soon. But for my tastes, the new 2010 would not be a bad buy. I would buy it if I was not already in love with my two babies

Steel Horse · Dec 15, 2008

RetiredGeneral said:
I don't plan to buy the new Mustang, but I think Ford is going a great job with the changes. My personal opinion is that between the mid 1970s and 2004 the Mustang was really unattractive. I didn't like a single one. However, in April 2005 I bought my 2005 GT because Ford finally got it right, and the 2010 looks like they are continuing that trend.

I don't know why, but every single thread in the 2010 section ends up with people complaining about something. If you are going to complain, do it big. Let me show you how to complain properly:
If Ford wanted to do the Mustang right, they would have used an aluminum space frame and a carbon fiber body to cut down weight. Really, less weight = more speed, so it should weight around 1,000 to 1,200 pounds (with the driver and a full tank of gas). They should ditch the V8 platform and just move ahead with the 10 liter V12 hooked up to an 8 speed manual, but be sure that it gets 40 mpg on the street and 50 on the highway. A nice option engine would be a blown alcohol burning 1600 hp funnycar engine. They should stop using the cheap materials in the interior and have imported Italian leather with the optional baby sea lion inserts. I want a built in electric razor, and a coffee maker for my commute into work. I want a nav system and satellite radio standard, and I want to be able to speak with the astronauts with it. I don't see why Ford would need to charge more than $15,000 for a fully optioned convertible.
That is how you complain properly!

Sad thing is someone would still complain about the power and handling.

jcp123 · Jan 2, 2009

Not that excited. Not that I would be, I generally don't go for modern cars. The new Challenger and upcoming Camaro caught my eye despite retro styling though...

walter · Jan 3, 2009

Sorry Doug but uglier car + weight + no new motor + no IRS = business as usual and that isn't very exciting.

The new GT500 has potential though.

AvalancheSVT · Jan 3, 2009

F that noise. better car with the suspension most mustang owners prefer and a power plant that keeps it from costing a million dollars.

if ford coudl build an IRS that didn't weigh like 400lbs vs the weight of a normal axle i'd totally be for it.

walter · Jan 3, 2009

Ford's IRS setup was never the heavy part in the old Cobras, the engine + supercharger combo was.

I recall the rear suspension components in the new edge cobras removed something in the order of 125lbs from the GT's live axle setup.

At the very least they could slap on a watts link!

AvalancheSVT · Jan 3, 2009

more like 200lbs. they could learn a thing or two from nissan when it comes to that.

walter · Jan 4, 2009

For years hot rodders and race teams have been using Ford factory hardware the beef up drivetrains for severe duty, so I'll take a Ford halfshaft or any drivetrain component over a Nissan equivalent as they tend to break past 400HP. Just ask the driftboys.

Anyways 125lbs were measured unsprung weight figures I believe the IRS assembly removed more weight total.

AvalancheSVT · Jan 4, 2009

walter said:
For years hot rodders and race teams have been using Ford factory hardware the beef up drivetrains for severe duty, so I'll take a Ford halfshaft or any drivetrain component over a Nissan equivalent as they tend to break past 400HP. Just ask the driftboys.

Anyways 125lbs were measured unsprung weight figures I believe the IRS assembly removed more weight total.

unfortunately the laws of physics care more about the 200lbs that require more energy to push the car around than the fact that the "unsprung weight" has decreased because the pumpkin is now attached to the car (along with about 200lbs of other crap).

i LOVE IRS's, it just weighs more with the way ford thinks it needs to be done and thats what i have a problem with. and that 8.8" rear has been kickin the crap out of IRS equipped cars on race tracks so i think it has a lot less to do with handling than ride quality.

meh, tomato tomato.

walter · Jan 4, 2009

The Ford Sierra RS500 had at first an 8.8 and then a 9 inch Ford diff in IRS configuration I dont' see where the problem is in terms of durability. In addition if you look at the stats and the weight of the 01 cobra vs gt (i.e.) (cobras had the N/A DOHC motor) it was a lighter car then the GT on all 4 corners.

AvalancheSVT · Jan 5, 2009

walter said:
The Ford Sierra RS500 had at first an 8.8 and then a 9 inch Ford diff in IRS configuration I dont' see where the problem is in terms of durability. In addition if you look at the stats and the weight of the 01 cobra vs gt (i.e.) (cobras had the N/A DOHC motor) it was a lighter car then the GT on all 4 corners.

uhm, look up the weight of the IRS compared to the GT rear. literally 200lbs more.

walter · Jan 6, 2009

True I swapped the weight figures when I was looking them up but that's for the whole car, which included different engine, exhaust, brakes, shocks, springs, sway bars, chassis stiffening, body panels etc. etc. The IRS alone measured 125lb lighter on the scale then the live axle setup. This was an in house Ford test which at the time was put out (and rather enthusiastically about it) to the increasingly hostile media that fell for the performance of the latest GM F-bodies and was still sour from the 1999 Cobra horsepower recall fiasco.

At 3400lb the car is actually over 100 pounds lighter then the current Z car.
With the current GT being close to 200 pounds lighter then the Z even if you had to increase weight (which shouldn't) you'd still be ahead in the class weight wise, certainly leaps and bounds better then the other domestic entries.

Let's face it there's heavier cars then the GT but they feel more solid, controlled and most of all lighter on their tires and that's because the handling/braking department wasn't designed as an afterthought. I see no reason why this shouldn't be addressed this time around.

AvalancheSVT · Jan 6, 2009

walter said:
True I swapped the weight figures when I was looking them up but that's for the whole car, which included different engine, exhaust, brakes, shocks, springs, sway bars, chassis stiffening, body panels etc. etc. The IRS alone measured 125lb lighter on the scale then the live axle setup. This was an in house Ford test which at the time was put out (and rather enthusiastically about it) to the increasingly hostile media that fell for the performance of the latest GM F-bodies and was still sour from the 1999 Cobra horsepower recall fiasco.

dude... they said "125lbs less UNSPRUNG WEIGHT" look up the definition for unsprung and sprung weight and all will become clear.

the ford IRS is WAY heavier than the 8.8" GT rear. google it. hell, i think that information is right here on the forum...

http://forums.stangnet.com/659661-irs-vs-live-axle-weight-diff.html

walter · Jan 7, 2009

It still translates to crisper handling and better weight distribution. What's not to like? Why not have the option? The S197 was designed with the provision for that upgrade why not take advantage of it as an option.

It would still be nowhere near as heavy as GM and Chrysler products.

AvalancheSVT · Jan 7, 2009

walter said:
It still translates to crisper handling and better weight distribution. What's not to like? Why not have the option? The S197 was designed with the provision for that upgrade why not take advantage of it as an option.

It would still be nowhere near as heavy as GM and Chrysler products.

2 reasons:

1. the car would be slower in a straight line for multiple reasons
2. it would cost more

"its just a little more weight" has made this car a porker. i dont want to see it get fatter.

walter · Jan 8, 2009

That's why it would have to be an option. Not everyone likes going fast only in a straight line. Some of us would justify the expense for one if that was available.

BADDAZBLUE · Jan 8, 2009

I think it's about time the Mustang comes with an IRS. Tons of other cars come with IRS (all other cars) and many are able to perform in a straight line just fine.

Personally I'd think it should at least come with an IRS as an Option.

how many of you are excited?

JohnnyGMachine

Member

DukeOfValencia

Member

cliff88145

Member

Stangninjak

Member

Steel Horse

Member

jcp123

New Member

walter

AvalancheSVT

walter

AvalancheSVT

walter

AvalancheSVT

walter

AvalancheSVT

walter

AvalancheSVT

walter

AvalancheSVT

walter

BADDAZBLUE

Am I really SKIP?

Similar threads

how many of you are excited?

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

New Member

Am I really SKIP?

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency