This is just a morphed photoshop....http://www.autobytel.com/content/sha...le_id_int/2385

 

that looks pretty mean. i read somewhere that fords going to redesign it to look more like the shelby. looks really nice and has an aggesive stance

 

That's missing the hips. But "lame"? Hardly.

I think that looks pretty good, actually.

That illustration is by famed and respected automobile spy photographer, Brenda Priddy & Co. Wonder if she knows something we don't?

 

Well let's just say she doesn't have the best track record....

This was her idea of the new MX-5 in 01



Then this in 2002.


This is the 2006 MX-5



She wasn't even close....

 

It appears either of her MX-5 renderings look better than the production MX-5.

 

Too bad. I quite like that new Mustang they've rendered. I'd buy that in a heartbeat.

 

in this renderring the car needs to be slimmed down. mustangs r a bit more practical with their wheels and tires...the same all around and the rear of the car looks too beefy. and since when does there need to be a seperate high beam???? look at the headlights

 

Wheels are too big and nothing changed except a slight redo on the front end.

 

Which is, I suspect, about what to expect on this interim spa-day refresh for the Stang. Basic greenhouse and other load bearing panels and pieces will stay the same with changes being limited to bold on panels and pieces (front and rear bumper caps, front fender, hood, trunklid, assorted trim pieces, etc.) Probably along the scale of the '87 refresh.

Probably a few more ponies under the hood with the adoption of the D35 V6 and tweaking of the GT's 4.6, suspension tweaking, perhaps some bigger brakes, but again, more day at the spa than full botox and plastic surgery treatment. Might plunk in a 5.4 motor, or at least a DOHC 4.6, to keep it within sight of the big-motored Camaro and Challenger.

I suspect Ford may try to find competitive refuge in the ponycar bargain-basement aisle against the more fully featured (6+ liter motors, six-cog trannies, IRS) but likely a bit more expensive (especially the Challenger) competitors hoping penny pinching and brand loyalty will carry the day rather than trying to go head-to-head with the new competitors on features and performance, which would require a more expensive development and retooling program. They might, finally, try to put in an Control-Blade IRS option in higher end models (Boss, Shelby 350 and/or 500) so the Stang won't be caught wearing old work boots to the Pony Car Ball against the Camaro/Challenger's shiny new dance'n shoes. Six speed might be another possibility to make the most of the smaller 4.6's powerband.

 

It's always about the IRS with you isn't it?

 

And a six speed, and better brakes, and 4V heads, and better interior materials and finishes ... basically just contempory technology, materials and equipment at an affordable price is all.

IRS, or the lack thereof, sticks in my craw as much for its iconic value as for the actual performance gains, i.e., the Mustang becoming more of a narrow focus, low-cost muscle car rather than a contempory, broadly capable, high-value pony car.

The lack of an IRS reeks of the reign of the miserly penny-pinching accountants and MBA corporate suits over the reign of the product-excellence engineers in blue jeans, a corporate focus which I feel has landed Ford in its current dismal state. Its the difference between low price and high value, the former, which Ford has been practicing lately -- basically offering less for less rather than offering more for less that defines high value.

Ford's already offering $1,000 year-end rebates on the Stang a mere two years into the new model with no present direct competition, which I see as an open acknowledgement that they don't have a superior product and now must rely on bribes to get people to buy their wares. Far better to invest that money in the design, development and engineering that people actually want to by than squandering it on short term, brand image killing rebates and other similar finacial ploys.

Sure, perhaps I could cut poor Ford a break out of sympathy and blind brand loyalty, but the competition certainly is not and, indeed, is only going to get much tougher than the relatively easy open field the Stang's been able to coast through in the past few years. Better we, the Ford and Stang enthusiasts, hold Fords feet to the fire now, because the ruthless and ever increasing competition and the ever-more-discerning general market certainly will, and has been to Ford's great demise of late. Ford's current miseries is ample evidence that they clearly have NOT been doing things right or well, that they simply must do beter, offer more for less and offer class leading products across the board.

As the saying goes, the opposite of love isn't hate, its indifference. So perhaps worse than all my hectoring on IRS or other things is the day I simply don't care any more.

 

That's the thing, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Ford had to cut a lot of corners to sell a 300 hp muscle car for under $30k brand new.

The 4.6L 4V V8 in naturally aspirated configuration was making only 300 hp and 302 ft-lb in the 03-04 Marauder. The 4.6L 3V V8 is a step up at 300 hp and 320 ft-lb of torque.

 

I agree. It would be darn near impossible to put IRS and the rest of the "modern" parts on a Mustang for under $30,000.

If you want the latest technology then you need to be willing to spend Corvette money.

 

that's gotta be the laziest photoshop i've ever seen

 

I agree, I wonder if that person gets paid a lot to make chops like that. I definitly could have done that in a fairly short period of time.

 

It's also a well known fact that those 16v heads are more $ to produce than the 12v heads. Why do it if it isn't bringing a whole lot to the table? People who drive the Mach 1s etc will contend that their engines put more on the ground, but I'm sure with the minimal difference and the increased cost savings it's a good trade off.

 

Mark this day on the calendar. I AGREE WITH BC!!

WOO HOO

 

Well, the Mustang's Ford stablemate RX-8 seems to be able to do so for around $27K. This includes a double A-arm front suspension of forged aluminum alloy, sophisticate IRS out back, again with many forged components, two extra doors, six speeds tranny, carbon fiber drive shaft rotary motor, electronic brake force distribution, side and curtain airbags, more widgets inside and out and certainly better interior materials (though neither car will shame Audi there).

Sure, there's an of apples and oranges quality in this comparison, but looked at broadly as two front engine, RWD sport coupes, Mazda seems so cram a lot more engineering content under the skin. All things are not equal and some companies ARE able to offer more for less than are others. Mazda is offering a suite of design and engineering features that would be quite respectable on a car twice its price, including the Vette, and belies that such features require a platinum price tag.

I'll stick by my proposition that it is quite possible to offer quite contemporary engineering and design features at well under $30K. The Sky/Soltice twins, even in turbo form, are further evidence of this, again in broad terms of engineering content and features (I don't want this discussion to devolve into a qualitative discussions of these very different cars).

Ford's problems in this area are hardly unique to the Stang but rather, reflect deep and indemic problems with Ford N.A. in general, which is readily seen in their pitiable economic plight these days. Given that I'm a car nut though, I'd rather see the Stang be Ford's sharp end of the spear in a renewed capacity to offer much more than is expected at a given price. Imagine combining the Mustang drivetrain, acceleration and style with an RX-8 chassis, handling and features for under $30K. Now THAT would indeed be "Bold" and truly push the Stang and Ford far ahead of the price expections curve.

 

new camaro looks WAY better, and so far is where my $$ is going!

 

You guys didn't listen to a thing Rhumb said, did you?