Say it with me, dke... "$25,000..."

None of those cars mentioned start out at $25,000. The base R32, which I'm sure doesn't come standard with AWD but maybe it does, starts at $29,100. And which is the faster, better-looking car? In the same price range as the cars you mentioned, the Cobra will destroy all those cars performance-wise, and you'll still have change left. AWD isn't practical in a sports coupe. It's costly, heavy, and the masses don't need it.

 

I'm with Dr Iven on his comments and his political choice, but anyway, the Mustang is a bargin for $25k and the price and performance offered per $ has almost always been one of its strong points. It isn't the best at anything, but comes close when you consider the whole package.

 

Who needs 300+ horsepower on a normal daily driver Ford? This will do nicely, especially as a bump up from my 193 hp 1999 V6

 

You mean in all cases EXCEPT the Mustang B)

 

Just one thing to note. The product spread for a Mustang is from like $20K - 35K. I specifically did not ask for those features on a stock GT ($25K). But people need room to grow up the line, and Ford should want to be competitive in the $35K range, and get people over from the Euro cars. They can't do that if the mantra is "cheap and old technology". The Stang shouldn't be a "poor mans 3 series", or a "low end sports car", it needs to have enough options to make it the American answer to a sports-coupe (without that being looked down on).

 

Oh, she means the one that costs nearly $10k more than the GT, is a few tenths slower, has a much slower slalom speed, and also looks like a big Sunfire. [/b][/quote]
Looks like a big Sunfire........EXACTLY!!!

 

Why do you keep comparing the mustang to high-end Euro sports coupes? The mustang doesn't even fall into the same category as those cars. Last time I checked, it was classified as a muscle car/pony car. If I wanted a car that had all the expensively priced tidbits such as a targa top/sunroof, seat warmers, AWD, etc., etc. I would pay to get a BMW or Lexus or Benz. I don't really want to sound like a purist or anything, but these options that you have listed are not what the mustang is about. From day one of the mustang, it has always been about practicality and affordability. I'm sure all those things would be nice to have as options on a high-end mustang, but still, it would defeat the mustang's sole purpose (let me reiterate: practicality and affordability), however, options such as these would drive up the cost of even lesser models and might even be way too pricey compared to other competitor cars with the same featues.

As far as your comment on IRS....I am not against IRS at all. In fact, I look forward to seeing it on the 06/07 cobra and I do plan on buying one after I get out of college. In case you have forgotten, as stated in previous threads on this site, the live axle is further improved and its handling surpasses that of the current stang, so I would even be content to live with the 05's live axle.

As for your comment on the mustang being a "low-end sports car" and "poor mans 3 series" that is being "looked down," it is totally incorrect. Again, you compare the mustang to something that is totally in another class. It's like you are comparing apples and oranges. Oh...one last thing...last time I heard, the MUSTANG was an AMERICAN ICON, same as a CORVETTE, so I don't get where you the notion that you thought it was being looked down on.

 

Look, my point was that Ford said (in a few things I read) that they wanted be able to travel up scale and take on cars like the 3 series, and Euro coupes (esp. wrt the SVT). Which makes sense. They want to broaden the appeal of the product line. I think they're going to get that for free just with the style -- many boomers wanting to relive their childhood, etc. But they'll get/keep more, if they are a little broader thinking.

The 3 series starts in the mid 20's and scales up into the 50's, it also has coupe, wagon, sedan, vert and SUV variants. Which is a nice way to preserve brand identity. Ford will have variants on their same platform, but each brand will be separated. (BMW gets better bang for the marketing buck). But even in the platform, they could broaden the appeal with more options.

I don't see the Mustang according to it's narrow history, I'm looking at it compared to its competitors and the current market. I know that it was a practical, simple and affordable pony car. Lots of muscle with mediocre (stock) handling was it's original mantra. (Great in the 1/4, but not really known as a curves car compared to the Euro's, but a reasonable handler compared to many bigger American ones). It shook that a bit over time, but except for the 70s, it was known for muscle more than tight handling, and simple more than having ammenities.

But the field is changing. There are Euros (Engineering and Luxury) and Japanese (Reliability and tight, but weaker power). The Mustang not only needs to attract the purists, but it would be even better if it could bring in Euro or Japese buyers as well. I don't mind simple. It lets people get in the platform cheap, and so on. And this one has a lot of style and personality. But if you want to bring back the boomers and the Euro and Rice drivers, then you have to have what they want to, don't ya think? The Japanese want reliable, fit & finish, and gadgets. The Euro drivers like solid, luxury items, engineering, something that makes them stand out. (Even though they are now all standing out together). The Mustang has the style. It has the power. If they can add some luxury features to the brand, and think more upscale, they can bring more people into the brand, which means more investment, R&D, and better things for the platform. The more the merrier.

 

Ok, enough on the BMWs. The 3's series are babies cars. I just got rid of my 540. Had it dina, both transmission and engine. Pulled about 325 horsepower. Great car, loved to drive it. But I got rid of it for one reason. I want my mustang back!!!!!!!! I am now getting rid of the 540 and going to my 05 GT. Yes it is one third the cost of the 540, but mark my words, for me there is nothing like the stang V8. Keep your 3 series........................................

 

<sigh> I guess asking for such exotic things as heated seats or sunroof/targa somehow violates the sanctity of the brand to some, and demands name calling and insults. And liking one car somehow prevents some from seeing what any other brand does well. And how I dare I want Ford to spread the brand, offer more options, and draw in new and more customers so they could do even more. <gasp> Burn the heathen.

 

In 1964 the 289 HI-PO put out 271 H.P.
That was the top powered stang. The GT for this year is the top power stang,but I would actually call it the comfortable middle. The comparison to the HI-PO would be the COBRA nowdays.

So the midlevel stang nowdays puts out 30h.p. more than the top performer of 64.

Is 300 h.p. enough??

Id say yes,since 300h.p. was even respectable power in the heyday of the muscle car.

Is 300 h.p. enough??

Where do you people come up with this stuff? :bang: :bang:

How many of you that constantly ask this have ever even driven a 300+ h.p. car??

 

here's the thing,

Ford can make 190,000 Mustangs a year maximum, it can't be everything to everyone. Its market base is already pretty stretched out IMO. It is both an entry level car and nipping at the Corvette's heels. Plus with the GT and special editions it will cover much of that inbetween.

While I agree, pehaps the option of heated seats and a few creature comforts would be nice, as the amount of possible combinations in the build of a car increase, so does price. This is still a relatively low-volume car compared to some of the big sellers where the volume of cars offsets the increase in combinations.

I think you cannot compare the 3-series to the Mustang, it is a global car. With the price of fuel eslewhere in the world, the Mustang does not have the potential to be a global car.

dke, I agree that to bring back import owners, the american car industry has to do an about face and meet/exceed what the competition is offering, but they need to concentrate on their bread and butter cars. (Compare the amount of re-designs of the taurus to the Accord and Camry). The Mustang is only part of the equation, you need to build a solid car lineup to catch people right at the entry-level.

Ranting too much... sorry

 

How can you compare the current 4.6L Cobra to the 289 HIPO when it is supercharged and makes an underated 390+hp. Also, if you were to do a comparison of a 289 HIPO mustang to even a NEW Mach 1, the 289 wouldn't even be close in a race.

BTW....I used to have a 87 5.0LX with a 325hp GT-40 crate motor....and no, 300hp is not enough.

 

I think the point was that the 289 HIPO was the top of the heap back then, and the Cobra is top of the heap now. I don't believe anybody would argue that there is any other comparison than that.

My Cobra puts down 415 to the wheels... 300 is not enough for me. I think it's appropriate for a GT though.

Dave

 

"BTW....I used to have a 87 5.0LX with a 325hp GT-40 crate motor....and no, 300hp is not enough. "


Muzzy- Then why do you have a V6 on order?

 

But it's 271 HP was gross HP. In today's SAE net rating, it would be around 235 HP. The HI-PO also required premium gas and was somewhat limited production.

Plus we know that the '05 GT really puts out close to 320 HP. So the '05 has around 85 more HP (36% more) than the top Mustang model for 1965.

The more widely available 289 4bbl for 1965 only put out 225 HP gross HP and also required premium gas. It would have had about 190 SAE net HP. The '05 GT has 130 more HP (70% more) than the typical 1965 Mustang GT.

 

If you have even bothered to look at my profile it is an 03 v6, not an 05. Had to sell the 5.0 cuz it was worn down and needed a new car for college, which is why I had to part ways with her. Rather than spend lumps of money to have her fixed up, I just decided to get a new car.

 

But it's 271 HP was gross HP. In today's SAE net rating, it would be around 235 HP. The HI-PO also required premium gas and was somewhat limited production.

Plus we know that the '05 GT really puts out close to 320 HP. So the '05 has around 85 more HP (36% more) than the top Mustang model for 1965.

The more widely available 289 4bbl for 1965 only put out 225 HP gross HP and also required premium gas. It would have had about 190 SAE net HP. The '05 GT has 130 more HP (70% more) than the typical 1965 Mustang GT. [/b][/quote]
320hp V10 That's music to my ears! :drive: