Not looking good for 2010

You know, i read an article about how in 1974 when ford introduce the Mustang II they didnt offer a V8, mustang fans from all over the country sent in letters about not offering a V8. Ford got them and scrambled up a V8 motor for it in 1975. That is what i read, so maybe we could all sign a partition or send in emails or letters stating we want more power/more displacement. Just an idea...

Yep. For how many years is GM gunna kill us with pushrod power before Ford realizes it's rediculous. I don't want to spend tons of money for an Special Edition Mustang to beable to JUST compete with the base GMs. Since the LT1 came out, Ford has really dropped the ball.

PoopDawg said:

Yep. For how many years is GM gunna kill us with pushrod power before Ford realizes it's rediculous. I don't want to spend tons of money for an Special Edition Mustang to beable to JUST compete with the base GMs. Since the LT1 came out, Ford has really dropped the ball.

Click to expand...

Yet the Mustang is the only car in it's class again. GM doesn't know how to build an affordable muscle car. Camaro's and GTO's always had the better motor and were faster but were too expensive to compete with the Mustang.

Ford will continue to add HP while keeping similar engine specs and keep it under $30K while the new Camaro will be in the $35K+ range too close to Corvette territory and will it will be dead in a few years.

The new CAFE regulations may already be playing a role as well.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the new regulations require manufacturers to have a 35 mpg average for total fleet sales by 2020. That may be tougher to do when you keep upping engine size and horsepower on certain vehicles.

Hybrids will help to get the average up but increasing displacement in other areas doesn't.

I don't really know how all this is going to pan out for muscle cars.

Have you checked the price of gas lately? I'm sure they want to keep the fuel cost to a minimum so a bigger engine would mean new tooling and mo money and mo gas. imo

A Corvette with a 6.0 can get 18 city and 28 highway that is plenty good enough. Ford could make more power and still have good gas mileage. What about that displacement on demand stuff chrysler does? Why cant they have an optional third engine like the trucks do? I think the petition idea is good. I did the survey from ford last year and Im sure others did as well, ford should know that we want more power at least 350 from the GT and we want another Mach or Boss, not a bullit with only 25 more hp. I can afford a new mustang and wanted to wait and see what the 2010's looked like and what kind of power they have. Now I think I'd rather just Supercharge my 03, even though when sc'd I'll still wont have the power of the new camaro's. I love mustangs, Ive owned three and my parents always had one while I was growing up, its tradition, which is the only reason I dont just get a new camaro.

All you guy are missing the obvious, Ford doesn't need to increase power in the Mustang. Why would they spend money in R&D when the Mustang sells itself no matter how fast the competition is. Even from 94-98 when it butt slow it outsold the F-body 2:1. It will be I bet $3-4K less then the base camaro, so Mustang owner can make more power and still be cheaper and as for the aftermarket like somebody siad there are tons of specialty stangs to keep everybody happy...look at the GT-500, to me it's a piece of garbage and yet it still sells like its going out of style.

05MGT said:

The Z28s were prices right there with the GTs. They were never the "expensive buy."

The real scary thing is the new Camry V6 with 268hp runs 0-60 in 5.8 and the 1/4 mile in 14.3. That dangerously close and thats with an automatic. If Toyota can do it witht the everyman car, why can't Ford do it with the iconic Mustang?? Close is the day where we have to be wary of grandma in her 4 door automatic Camry.

Oh and I know Ford can do it. I want to slap the guy that said "hey, lets build a great 5.0L V8 dub it the "cammer" and not put it in any cars. Lets also develop a high horseppwer 6.2L V8, call it the Hurricane, and then not put it in any cars." WTF?

Click to expand...

No offense, but your claim of the Z28 being priced right there with the Mustang GT. is absolute In fact. the main reason why GM killed off the Camaro, was due to it's inability of keeping up with the Mustang. In which directly resulted in poor sales.

Although there's no denying the fact. that both the Z-28 and Trans-Am's were able to easily out perform the Mustang.

However when it comes down to offering the best affordable, bang for the buck value.

It's always been the Mustang, time and time again. Hands down !

blacksheep06 said:

The new CAFE regulations may already be playing a role as well.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the new regulations require manufacturers to have a 35 mpg average for total fleet sales by 2020. That may be tougher to do when you keep upping engine size and horsepower on certain vehicles.

Hybrids will help to get the average up but increasing displacement in other areas doesn't.

I don't really know how all this is going to pan out for muscle cars.

Click to expand...

And that's were the new Direct Injection engine from Ford comes in.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think Ford did pretty well with the Mustang even in the performance area against the Camaro. In 96 I would put my money on a 96 Cobra over a LT1 Camaro in a race. When the LS1 came out in 97 or 98 then it beat the Mustang Cobra, but in 99 those Cobras are good for mid 13's, right? The LS1 Camaro ran low 13's, thats only really a few tenths. Then in 03 When the Terminators came out they cost less then a base Corvette and would win in a 1/4 race, Terminators would give a Z06 a run for their money in a drag race. So to me I think Ford has done pretty well with their 4.6l.

If I have posted anything thats not accurate someone correct me so I don't look dumb in the future.

the prices on the z28's were competitive with the gt's and cobra's...now when you started looking at the ss camaro you were starting to get into vette territory as far as price...performance i think was pretty similar the z28's and cobra's were comparable but the ss was closer to the vette...i think the problem with the camaro was not so much they were expensive but they were cheap.the two that i had the whole car was a cheap shell and interior around a really great motor,tranny(6 spd),and suspension..the cars were fast and responded very well to mods but were absolutely cheap,cheap,cheap...the whole time i had them i dreamed of having a cobra..they just looked better and the fit and finish was much better although a little slower

sorry i got off task..i agree you hear the wards redesign and new model and you hope for more than just what looks to me like the put a gt500 front and rear on a gt and call it new...but why not they have been putting an axle-back and suspension on gt,s and calling them shelby's or barret-jackson edition's..maybe it is just me but i expect a little more out of se's or new model than that

Cory281 said:

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think Ford did pretty well with the Mustang even in the performance area against the Camaro. In 96 I would put my money on a 96 Cobra over a LT1 Camaro in a race. When the LS1 came out in 97 or 98 then it beat the Mustang Cobra, but in 99 those Cobras are good for mid 13's, right? The LS1 Camaro ran low 13's, thats only really a few tenths. Then in 03 When the Terminators came out they cost less then a base Corvette and would win in a 1/4 race, Terminators would give a Z06 a run for their money in a drag race. So to me I think Ford has done pretty well with their 4.6l.

If I have posted anything thats not accurate someone correct me so I don't look dumb in the future.

Click to expand...

This is the way it works. Car sales are generated by having your new car as the hot ticket and keeping it desirable by introducing new models and special editions.

The 4.6 is cheap to make and GM are indexing the Camaro against the Mustang directly - check the development mules running with Mustangs. It makes perfect sense for Ford to carry over the stock 4.6 and sell the car on the new design alone. It will wait to see what the Camaro is packing and a year later can then introduce a new engine to revitalise the Mustang and create new headlines and more sales. GM will already have decided what engines are in the car. Ultimately they have a 620hp supercharged LS9 if things get tough. Plus Ford won't fit a more expensive engine if the Mustang is selling with a cheaper engine.

Let's just put one myth to bed here. the Mustang ran the GM twins out of town based principally on V6 sales, nothing to do with performance at all. All the road tests of the time put the LT1 in front of the Mustang Cobra, handling and performance - both were 14 second cars. GM stomped on Ford with the LS1 because no matter how much they protested that it only had 305hp, it put out nearly 300hp at the back wheels and the SS put out 320 at the back wheels - conclusion: it was basically a Corvette engine. But be under no illusion the Mustang smothered the Camaro based on V6 sales not on performance - oh and the Terminator wasn't a 4.6 and a Corvette would outhandle it forever and a day. there's more to a fast car than a straight line. Besides, the Terminator came along too late to affect anything.

My own view on the F-Body demise, having owned one myself, is that the V6 was too long and cigar-shaped to appeal to women and you sat really low in the car. The Mustang was far more like a normal car and was easy to park. Design-wise, the F-Body was like a starship next to the SN95. Be in no doubt that this time GM have spent an awful lot of money to come to the party and can't afford to walk away again. This time, the car has a broader appeal. This time GM know they are targetting a harder audience so have made it a Transformer.

To you and I these cars are icons and competitors. To Ford and GM they are units to be sold to be kept in the public eye. So i wouldn't worry about the engines just yet. If you book them, they will come....eventually. Ford knows performance also makes headlines (it was often apologised for in the past) so will be ready to respond when they have to and not before IMHO.

Incidentally, it would seem a retrograde step to offer 325hp in the Shelby and not carry that one over to the new model rather than sticking to the 300 but that may be down to the cost of a CAI too.

LV51FER said:

oh and the Terminator wasn't a 4.6

Click to expand...

it was a 4.6 supercharged...

I don't see what all the hubub is about.

Only a small percentage of buyers give a &#@* as to quarter mile times and whether their car can "beat" another car.

I know the people on this forum are performance nuts (which is why they are here) but the VAST majority of buyers are looking for a "sporty" car (certainly the Mustang is no pure sports car, much too heavy and too many seats) that is nice to drive, is reliable, gets decent mileage, etc.

I know it's hard to hear this, but 300 horspower is plenty for this car (again, for 95%+ people). Most people who buy the GT don't even have the skills for that kind of power.

And it is so easily upgradeable (meaning the engine can easily handle more) that the performance buffs can be made happy for only a few thousand more.

I say, keep the engines the same, keep the cost down, and "beat" the other cars (and not just Chevy and Dodge) where it really, really counts: In the showroom.

05MGT said:

I hate to do this to you but shut up and put down your BS flag:

For 2002, The base coupe lists for $18,080, the convertible for $26,075. Z28 models retail for $22,495 for the coupe, and $29,590 for the Z28 convertible.
- Autotrader.com
http://www.autotrader.com/research/...e=CHEV&model=&refpage=&restype=used&year=2002

For 2002, Mustang buyers can now choose among the base V6 coupe ($17,305) or V6 convertible ($22,745), the V8 GT coupe ($22,965) or GT convertible ($27,220), the SVT Cobra coupe ($34,995) or SVT Cobra convertible ($36,995).
-autobuyguide.com
http://www.autobuyguide.com/2002/12-aut/ford/mustang/reviews/index.html

So, in fact, the Z28 is actually CHEAPER than the Mustang GT of the same year.
:Zip2:

Click to expand...

One of the big things those numbers miss are the cost of the vehicles with options. I'm only speaking from memory, but as I recall, the Mustang was much better equipped than the Camaro, and the Camaro required around $1000 in options to be on the same playing field (not counting horsepower - which isn't an appeal to the masses). Out of curiosity, were all years like that as well or was 2002 an anomoly? I couldn't really find the info anywhere. I always believed the Z28 was ~$1-2k more than the GT, so I was surprised when I saw that.

Either way, the big price difference is the base price of the V6, especially the convertible. Even that $700 is a lot when you are talking about $18,000 cars - thats nearly 5%. When you have an extra $3300 for the Convert, thats an extra 15%. Thats the main reason why the Camaro died out. Remember back then, V6's made up approximated 70% of Mustangs sold. I believe from 2005 til very recently, 50%+ were GTs.

PoopDawg said:

Yep. For how many years is GM gunna kill us with pushrod power before Ford realizes it's rediculous. I don't want to spend tons of money for an Special Edition Mustang to beable to JUST compete with the base GMs. Since the LT1 came out, Ford has really dropped the ball.

Click to expand...

Agreed. The 3V is a great engine, responds really well to Forced induction or even just straight up bolt-ons but let's face it, a stock 5th Gen Camaro will likely give a bolt-on GT an ass-whooping.