Critic's Corner 3
Cobra Member
Joined: April 7, 2004
Posts: 1,204
Likes: 0
Originally posted by ManEHawke@June 28, 2004, 9:50 PM
I chose weight. I want bigger engine and keeping it the same weight or less would be a big feat for Ford. 5.4 liter would be great
I chose weight. I want bigger engine and keeping it the same weight or less would be a big feat for Ford. 5.4 liter would be great
Weight: Less weight is so critical to so many of the Mustang's dynamic qualities that I would be least likely to sacrafice anything here.
Handling: Handling is what makes speed and acceleration actually usefull in the real world and contributes hugely to active safety. Few sacrafices here.
Acceleration: While good, strong acceleration is a key part of the Mustang's overall dynamic identity, I think too often too much focus, bordering on the myopic, gets paid to this one aspect. The Mustang already has very strong acceleration and is already one of its strong points. While I wouldn't sacrafice much if anything here, neither would I spend an inordinate amount of attention either, rather, focusing on bolstering the Mustangs weak points such as real world (vs smooth track) handling and the like.
Top Speed: Top speeds much over 120-140 really take on a academic quality, especially in the US. Numbers above the above, while making for good bar room bragging, really aren't usefull for the most part. However, some of the trickle down benefits of good high speed design such as superior aerodynamics, big brakes and stable, supple suspension designs are.
Materials Quality: Tis has been a weak point of Mustangs past and the corners that have been cut in this area I think illustrate the difference between price and value. While cheap, shoddy materials won't show up on the spec sheet nor track numbers, and will get the car out the dealer's door more readily, they will come back to bite you, not only in lack of aesthetic satisfaction, but also in the wallet in the long run due to plummeting resale values and ratty looking cars in a few years time. This, I think, is one of the bigger reasons the fast but flimsy F-Cars failed.
Physical Size: The unfortunate trend with Americans and their cars is towards inexorable bloating, though maybe the bulging proportions of the former to some degree dictate the same for the latter. But rather than a narrowminded, bigger is better mentality, a focus on smart and efficient space utilization, design efficiency and good ergonomics are more important than an obese physique. And increased size inevitably leads to increased weight (see aforementioned excessive weight consequences).
Looks/Sound: Good, intelligent engineering, well and fully integrated into the design and styling process, need not result in a zero-sum, either-or conundrum so often thought of as inevitable. Bad or compromised looks are almost always the result of a badly integrated design process where the engineers and designers are at war with each other rather than working shoulder to shoulder to come up with a solution that, rather than sacraficing one for the other, fully integrates the two.
As for sound, this is often the major sensory aspect most often neglected or addressed in passing. As important as comely lines are to the eye are mellifluous tones to the ear. Too often now, manufacturers simply equate good sound with little to no sound at all, a simple-minded quantitative approach. Rather, much more attention should be paid to the mechanical music of the machine, from the rich burbles, bellows and roars of the exhaust to the finely machined whirs and soft whines from the engine bay. Far too many cars sounds either like vacuum cleaners or have a flat, lifeless synthesized sound to them.
Room (passenger or trunk): See aforementioned discussion on good ergonomics and space utilization vs. simple big spec sheet numbers. I would rather spend 8 hours in a tight but very well designed cabin and seats than one hour in a poorly designed cabin and seats even if there's the volume of a small gymnasium surrounding me. Again, quality over quantity.
Price: Or value? There is a difference. A low price doesn't neccessarily mean high value and all to often, the sacrafices and compromises made to reach some low price point often result in very poor long-term value as evidenced by plummeting resale value, shyrocketing repair, replacement and service costs and the general dissatisfaction of a car disintegrating about you after a couple years. Low price is certainly fine as far as that goes, as that makes it easier to get into the seat in the first place. But I would prefer high value as the better long term measure, as that will keep you in said seat for far longer and far more enjoyably.
Handling: Handling is what makes speed and acceleration actually usefull in the real world and contributes hugely to active safety. Few sacrafices here.
Acceleration: While good, strong acceleration is a key part of the Mustang's overall dynamic identity, I think too often too much focus, bordering on the myopic, gets paid to this one aspect. The Mustang already has very strong acceleration and is already one of its strong points. While I wouldn't sacrafice much if anything here, neither would I spend an inordinate amount of attention either, rather, focusing on bolstering the Mustangs weak points such as real world (vs smooth track) handling and the like.
Top Speed: Top speeds much over 120-140 really take on a academic quality, especially in the US. Numbers above the above, while making for good bar room bragging, really aren't usefull for the most part. However, some of the trickle down benefits of good high speed design such as superior aerodynamics, big brakes and stable, supple suspension designs are.
Materials Quality: Tis has been a weak point of Mustangs past and the corners that have been cut in this area I think illustrate the difference between price and value. While cheap, shoddy materials won't show up on the spec sheet nor track numbers, and will get the car out the dealer's door more readily, they will come back to bite you, not only in lack of aesthetic satisfaction, but also in the wallet in the long run due to plummeting resale values and ratty looking cars in a few years time. This, I think, is one of the bigger reasons the fast but flimsy F-Cars failed.
Physical Size: The unfortunate trend with Americans and their cars is towards inexorable bloating, though maybe the bulging proportions of the former to some degree dictate the same for the latter. But rather than a narrowminded, bigger is better mentality, a focus on smart and efficient space utilization, design efficiency and good ergonomics are more important than an obese physique. And increased size inevitably leads to increased weight (see aforementioned excessive weight consequences).
Looks/Sound: Good, intelligent engineering, well and fully integrated into the design and styling process, need not result in a zero-sum, either-or conundrum so often thought of as inevitable. Bad or compromised looks are almost always the result of a badly integrated design process where the engineers and designers are at war with each other rather than working shoulder to shoulder to come up with a solution that, rather than sacraficing one for the other, fully integrates the two.
As for sound, this is often the major sensory aspect most often neglected or addressed in passing. As important as comely lines are to the eye are mellifluous tones to the ear. Too often now, manufacturers simply equate good sound with little to no sound at all, a simple-minded quantitative approach. Rather, much more attention should be paid to the mechanical music of the machine, from the rich burbles, bellows and roars of the exhaust to the finely machined whirs and soft whines from the engine bay. Far too many cars sounds either like vacuum cleaners or have a flat, lifeless synthesized sound to them.
Room (passenger or trunk): See aforementioned discussion on good ergonomics and space utilization vs. simple big spec sheet numbers. I would rather spend 8 hours in a tight but very well designed cabin and seats than one hour in a poorly designed cabin and seats even if there's the volume of a small gymnasium surrounding me. Again, quality over quantity.
Price: Or value? There is a difference. A low price doesn't neccessarily mean high value and all to often, the sacrafices and compromises made to reach some low price point often result in very poor long-term value as evidenced by plummeting resale value, shyrocketing repair, replacement and service costs and the general dissatisfaction of a car disintegrating about you after a couple years. Low price is certainly fine as far as that goes, as that makes it easier to get into the seat in the first place. But I would prefer high value as the better long term measure, as that will keep you in said seat for far longer and far more enjoyably.
GT Member
Joined: May 22, 2004
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
the price is pretty much a given...don't think we will see much of an increase over the 04 prices...this has been discussed to the extreme.
the quality of the product is the most critical aspect to the car. the outgoing model had payed for itself, in terms of the tooling cost, many years ago. the lack of quality was easier for ford to absorb since they were already making a tidy profit on their initial investment.
the 05 is a whole new animal...people on this board are diehard mustang fans (at one time or another) and on the outgoing model the crappy interior didn't mean that much. with the new car, there will be a new group of consumers hitting the floor to check out the stang and if the quality doesn't meet their expectations, then ford is in trouble...big time.
they have to sell LOTS of these things to recapture their investment and based on what we have seen it looks like ford will deliver on the improved quality of materials...let's just hope they deliver on the quality of building it too. jackg 90seville 94k
the quality of the product is the most critical aspect to the car. the outgoing model had payed for itself, in terms of the tooling cost, many years ago. the lack of quality was easier for ford to absorb since they were already making a tidy profit on their initial investment.
the 05 is a whole new animal...people on this board are diehard mustang fans (at one time or another) and on the outgoing model the crappy interior didn't mean that much. with the new car, there will be a new group of consumers hitting the floor to check out the stang and if the quality doesn't meet their expectations, then ford is in trouble...big time.
they have to sell LOTS of these things to recapture their investment and based on what we have seen it looks like ford will deliver on the improved quality of materials...let's just hope they deliver on the quality of building it too. jackg 90seville 94k
Bullitt Member
Joined: June 14, 2004
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Originally posted by rhumb@June 29, 2004, 2:31 PM
Weight: Less weight is so critical to so many of the Mustang's dynamic qualities that I would be least likely to sacrafice anything here.
Handling: Handling is what makes speed and acceleration actually usefull in the real world and contributes hugely to active safety. Few sacrafices here.
Acceleration: While good, strong acceleration is a key part of the Mustang's overall dynamic identity, I think too often too much focus, bordering on the myopic, gets paid to this one aspect. The Mustang already has very strong acceleration and is already one of its strong points. While I wouldn't sacrafice much if anything here, neither would I spend an inordinate amount of attention either, rather, focusing on bolstering the Mustangs weak points such as real world (vs smooth track) handling and the like.
Top Speed: Top speeds much over 120-140 really take on a academic quality, especially in the US. Numbers above the above, while making for good bar room bragging, really aren't usefull for the most part. However, some of the trickle down benefits of good high speed design such as superior aerodynamics, big brakes and stable, supple suspension designs are.
Materials Quality: Tis has been a weak point of Mustangs past and the corners that have been cut in this area I think illustrate the difference between price and value. While cheap, shoddy materials won't show up on the spec sheet nor track numbers, and will get the car out the dealer's door more readily, they will come back to bite you, not only in lack of aesthetic satisfaction, but also in the wallet in the long run due to plummeting resale values and ratty looking cars in a few years time. This, I think, is one of the bigger reasons the fast but flimsy F-Cars failed.
Physical Size: The unfortunate trend with Americans and their cars is towards inexorable bloating, though maybe the bulging proportions of the former to some degree dictate the same for the latter. But rather than a narrowminded, bigger is better mentality, a focus on smart and efficient space utilization, design efficiency and good ergonomics are more important than an obese physique. And increased size inevitably leads to increased weight (see aforementioned excessive weight consequences).
Looks/Sound: Good, intelligent engineering, well and fully integrated into the design and styling process, need not result in a zero-sum, either-or conundrum so often thought of as inevitable. Bad or compromised looks are almost always the result of a badly integrated design process where the engineers and designers are at war with each other rather than working shoulder to shoulder to come up with a solution that, rather than sacraficing one for the other, fully integrates the two.
As for sound, this is often the major sensory aspect most often neglected or addressed in passing. As important as comely lines are to the eye are mellifluous tones to the ear. Too often now, manufacturers simply equate good sound with little to no sound at all, a simple-minded quantitative approach. Rather, much more attention should be paid to the mechanical music of the machine, from the rich burbles, bellows and roars of the exhaust to the finely machined whirs and soft whines from the engine bay. Far too many cars sounds either like vacuum cleaners or have a flat, lifeless synthesized sound to them.
Room (passenger or trunk): See aforementioned discussion on good ergonomics and space utilization vs. simple big spec sheet numbers. I would rather spend 8 hours in a tight but very well designed cabin and seats than one hour in a poorly designed cabin and seats even if there's the volume of a small gymnasium surrounding me. Again, quality over quantity.
Price: Or value? There is a difference. A low price doesn't neccessarily mean high value and all to often, the sacrafices and compromises made to reach some low price point often result in very poor long-term value as evidenced by plummeting resale value, shyrocketing repair, replacement and service costs and the general dissatisfaction of a car disintegrating about you after a couple years. Low price is certainly fine as far as that goes, as that makes it easier to get into the seat in the first place. But I would prefer high value as the better long term measure, as that will keep you in said seat for far longer and far more enjoyably.
Weight: Less weight is so critical to so many of the Mustang's dynamic qualities that I would be least likely to sacrafice anything here.
Handling: Handling is what makes speed and acceleration actually usefull in the real world and contributes hugely to active safety. Few sacrafices here.
Acceleration: While good, strong acceleration is a key part of the Mustang's overall dynamic identity, I think too often too much focus, bordering on the myopic, gets paid to this one aspect. The Mustang already has very strong acceleration and is already one of its strong points. While I wouldn't sacrafice much if anything here, neither would I spend an inordinate amount of attention either, rather, focusing on bolstering the Mustangs weak points such as real world (vs smooth track) handling and the like.
Top Speed: Top speeds much over 120-140 really take on a academic quality, especially in the US. Numbers above the above, while making for good bar room bragging, really aren't usefull for the most part. However, some of the trickle down benefits of good high speed design such as superior aerodynamics, big brakes and stable, supple suspension designs are.
Materials Quality: Tis has been a weak point of Mustangs past and the corners that have been cut in this area I think illustrate the difference between price and value. While cheap, shoddy materials won't show up on the spec sheet nor track numbers, and will get the car out the dealer's door more readily, they will come back to bite you, not only in lack of aesthetic satisfaction, but also in the wallet in the long run due to plummeting resale values and ratty looking cars in a few years time. This, I think, is one of the bigger reasons the fast but flimsy F-Cars failed.
Physical Size: The unfortunate trend with Americans and their cars is towards inexorable bloating, though maybe the bulging proportions of the former to some degree dictate the same for the latter. But rather than a narrowminded, bigger is better mentality, a focus on smart and efficient space utilization, design efficiency and good ergonomics are more important than an obese physique. And increased size inevitably leads to increased weight (see aforementioned excessive weight consequences).
Looks/Sound: Good, intelligent engineering, well and fully integrated into the design and styling process, need not result in a zero-sum, either-or conundrum so often thought of as inevitable. Bad or compromised looks are almost always the result of a badly integrated design process where the engineers and designers are at war with each other rather than working shoulder to shoulder to come up with a solution that, rather than sacraficing one for the other, fully integrates the two.
As for sound, this is often the major sensory aspect most often neglected or addressed in passing. As important as comely lines are to the eye are mellifluous tones to the ear. Too often now, manufacturers simply equate good sound with little to no sound at all, a simple-minded quantitative approach. Rather, much more attention should be paid to the mechanical music of the machine, from the rich burbles, bellows and roars of the exhaust to the finely machined whirs and soft whines from the engine bay. Far too many cars sounds either like vacuum cleaners or have a flat, lifeless synthesized sound to them.
Room (passenger or trunk): See aforementioned discussion on good ergonomics and space utilization vs. simple big spec sheet numbers. I would rather spend 8 hours in a tight but very well designed cabin and seats than one hour in a poorly designed cabin and seats even if there's the volume of a small gymnasium surrounding me. Again, quality over quantity.
Price: Or value? There is a difference. A low price doesn't neccessarily mean high value and all to often, the sacrafices and compromises made to reach some low price point often result in very poor long-term value as evidenced by plummeting resale value, shyrocketing repair, replacement and service costs and the general dissatisfaction of a car disintegrating about you after a couple years. Low price is certainly fine as far as that goes, as that makes it easier to get into the seat in the first place. But I would prefer high value as the better long term measure, as that will keep you in said seat for far longer and far more enjoyably.
Bullitt Member
Joined: March 17, 2004
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Originally posted by kevinb120@June 29, 2004, 10:04 AM
The more you look at it, the more you can see Ford nailed it. We could be GM fans and be stuck with Cobalt, SSR, and GTO to choose from :bang:
The more you look at it, the more you can see Ford nailed it. We could be GM fans and be stuck with Cobalt, SSR, and GTO to choose from :bang:
, this coming from a once GM loyalist... 
Bullitt Member
Joined: March 28, 2004
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
I said top speed. The fastest I ever got my 2003 was 140, but I was told 94-04 speedometers can be off by as much as 15 when they get over 110, so no idea how fast it really was. Anyways, I almost said weight, but then remembered that high weight is what makes luxury cars so comfortable and accomodating, and I want a comfortable car. I suppose it could physically be smaller like the first generation, but it's nothing I'd change.
Anyways, I almost said weight, but then remembered that high weight is what makes luxury cars so comfortable and accomodating, and I want a comfortable car.
Too often, luxury in American cars becomes a simple-minded parts count utterly removed from any real qualitative approach to luxury -- just make everything soft and mushy with lots of highly visible ornaments, fluff and widgets and other gaudy bling-bling. Trouble is, in terms of engineering and material quality, all this stuff is hardly any better than a dray econocar, there's just a lot more of it all larding down the car.
On the good side, American luxury cars are finally taking a far more thoughtfull and nuanced approach to luxury rather than trying to replicate a Vegas lounge on a parade float chassis. The Lincoln LS is a good example of this and Cadillac in particular, is really putting some premium chassis and engineering into their cars rather than purveying pimped out versions of flacid, cheap Chevy chassis.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Evil_Capri
Mustang Motorsports
1
Sep 11, 2015 08:39 AM
robjh22
Suspension, Brakes, and Tire Tech
4
Sep 8, 2015 12:31 PM
tj@steeda
2015 - 2023 MUSTANG
0
Sep 8, 2015 10:45 AM
MRGTX
Suspension, Brakes, and Tire Tech
11
Aug 21, 2015 08:49 PM