Ford should bring back the Torino
10/3/04, 11:27 PM
#1
Bullitt Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: April 10, 2004
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe not necessarily that name, but a mid-size couple like the Torino. It was a true muscle car..
Why should they bring it back? The current Mustang has grown again. The car ways too much! The new 05 Mustang has now grown to a true midsize, and is basically the same size as the GTO.
If Ford brought back the Torino, they cold make it more "modern styling" for the people who don't like the "retro" styling. They could give it the straight axle, and it would be not too much larger than the current Mustang. I think it would sell like crazy.
Then they could turn the Mustang back to what it TRULY is or should be. That is a pony car, which I define as, a sports car with a back seat. Mustangs were small, and they could handle. They didn't have IRS back in the day, but thats because MOST cars did not have IRS...
The next Mustang should be smaller, should weigh around 3100lbs, and it should have IRS standard...
Whadaya think?
BTW, I wrote a 3 page paper on this for school, I can post it if you would like.
Why should they bring it back? The current Mustang has grown again. The car ways too much! The new 05 Mustang has now grown to a true midsize, and is basically the same size as the GTO.
If Ford brought back the Torino, they cold make it more "modern styling" for the people who don't like the "retro" styling. They could give it the straight axle, and it would be not too much larger than the current Mustang. I think it would sell like crazy.
Then they could turn the Mustang back to what it TRULY is or should be. That is a pony car, which I define as, a sports car with a back seat. Mustangs were small, and they could handle. They didn't have IRS back in the day, but thats because MOST cars did not have IRS...
The next Mustang should be smaller, should weigh around 3100lbs, and it should have IRS standard...
Whadaya think?
BTW, I wrote a 3 page paper on this for school, I can post it if you would like.
10/3/04, 11:35 PM
#2
Bullitt Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: April 10, 2004
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My take on the 'stang and why we should bring back the Torino...
The problem is I think the Mustang, although looking like an original,
is a totally different car than the original! This new car is a
muclecar, not a true pony car like the originals from 1964 through
1970. Of course you might argue, that a musclecar is what a Mustang
truly is, and that is what it came to be. In 67 the Mustang was
widened, to fit larger engines. Mustangs in the following years were
fitted with big block V8's and were made for the drag strip. This
brings up a few questions. First, does this mean the 67-70 Mustangs
are different than the 64-66 model years? Did they become different
cars? Was that the year that the Mustang switched from pony car, to
musclecar? If so, which Mustang truly represents what a Mustang is?
The 67-70. or the 64-66? This brings us to our next question, should a
Mustang be defined as a musclecar, or a pony car? And the last
question, how do you define a musclecar?
First a brief history. We are all Mustang fans, so I don't need to get
in depth. The bottom line is the Mustang was introduced in 1964 1/2 as
the perfect personal car. It seated 4, yet it was small and had the
beautiful looks of a sports car. Of course the nation loved it. No car
has had even close the impact that the orignal Mustang did. The
Mustang then got the name "pony car" because it was like no other
car of it's time. It wasn't a 2 seat sports car. It wasn't a GT car. It
was basically a sports car with a backseat. It was perfect. There is
no doubt, that the original Mustang was made to be fast and fun, and
was also to handle well. However, in 1967 when the Muscle car era
was just beginning to heat up, the pony car was not only enlarged, it
also received a big block. This gives enthusiasts again, the idea that
the Mustang had become a musclecar its self. Wrong!
Now, back to my original question. Was the 64-66 Mustang different
than the 67-70? I would answer with an emphatic NO! This Mustang was
the same as it had always been. It was still a true pony car that
could handle, despite the now popular opinion. In fact, did you know
the 1967 Mustang actually had superior handling to the previous model
years? This car was still the same car it had always been! Now I will
admit, the Mustang was everybit apart of the musclecar era as any
other car. But that doesn't make it one it's self! This car was made
to be fun, light, small, compact, and fast! The '67 was all of those
just like the first! Yes, thats right, the '67 was in fact a very
small car! This car is dwarfed by the Muscle cars of the day, and dare
I say, dwarfed by this years 2005 Mustang?
Notice how I described the 67 'stang in the above paragraph, I said,
this car was "fun, light, small, compact and fast." Sound familiar?
I wonder what other car of today that describes? I'll give you a hint,
it's built by a Japanese automaker. Still don't know what I'm talking
about? The Suburu WRX sti. Before you condemn me to heck, think about
it. How would you describe a sti? Fun? Yes. Light? Yes. compact? Yes.
Fast? Definatly. Now lets use those same terms for the '05. Fun? There
is littld doubt that it won't be. Light? Well, no it's not, it weighs
3400lbs. Compact? Well no, it's actually one of the biggest 2 doors
made in America. Fast? definatly! What am I getting at? I'm not saying
the Mustang should be powered by a turbo I-4, or it should be a four
door, but I do think the sti does a better job of being a pony car
than the new '05 "pony car." (awaites death threats) Again, I think
the Mustang is an excellent car.
I don't even need to answer to answer my last questions. The Mustang
can be defined as a true pony car. One that should be, as I said
before, "fun, light, compact, and fast." It should be able to take a
turn with the best of them, that includes the sti, that includes the
Mitsubishi Evo, and that includes the Nissan 350Z.
So what is the solution to this problem? It's quite simple: make the
Mustang lighter, make it smaller, make it sit low to the ground, and
at the risk of starting another IRS vs live rear axle debate, it
should have IRS. Now you might argue that the original Mustangs did
not have IRS. This is true, but I say back to you, not many other cars
had IRS either! Atleast not to my knowledge. I do believe an
interpretation of a true pony car should have IRS. IRS is now on the
majority of cars produced, and it should be on the Mustang. I have no
problem with a true musclecar having a solid rear axle. Maybe Ford
could take the Mustang platform, enlarge it a bit and build a true
musclecar. Maybe call it, oh I don't know, a Torino?
I'd like to point out real quick, that I do not fault Ford for not
putting IRS on the new 'stang. Most would argue that they put it on
because of cost cutting, and we would not have the Mustang as cheap as
it is, if it had IRS. That maybe partly true, but I think a big reason
is Ford honestly believed that a solid rear axle is what a true
Mustang should have.
With all of that said, I still think this '05 Mustang is a great car!
It has already gotten a number of glowing reviews from testers. It
appears to have high quality parts, it has excellent performance, as
MT tested an automatic '05 which did a 13.6 quartermile! This car is
no slouch, and it looks incredible. With that said, I don't know if I would get one. Would it be as small, and as nimble as I would want it to be? I have never driven one, but I do know that I want it to be quick and low to the ground, and have that V8 power. I love the sports car look. I want that back! The '05 has a muscle car
look, with it's powerful stance (not a bad thing) and generally larger
profile. Let's get it back to what it should be, a pony car.
The problem is I think the Mustang, although looking like an original,
is a totally different car than the original! This new car is a
muclecar, not a true pony car like the originals from 1964 through
1970. Of course you might argue, that a musclecar is what a Mustang
truly is, and that is what it came to be. In 67 the Mustang was
widened, to fit larger engines. Mustangs in the following years were
fitted with big block V8's and were made for the drag strip. This
brings up a few questions. First, does this mean the 67-70 Mustangs
are different than the 64-66 model years? Did they become different
cars? Was that the year that the Mustang switched from pony car, to
musclecar? If so, which Mustang truly represents what a Mustang is?
The 67-70. or the 64-66? This brings us to our next question, should a
Mustang be defined as a musclecar, or a pony car? And the last
question, how do you define a musclecar?
First a brief history. We are all Mustang fans, so I don't need to get
in depth. The bottom line is the Mustang was introduced in 1964 1/2 as
the perfect personal car. It seated 4, yet it was small and had the
beautiful looks of a sports car. Of course the nation loved it. No car
has had even close the impact that the orignal Mustang did. The
Mustang then got the name "pony car" because it was like no other
car of it's time. It wasn't a 2 seat sports car. It wasn't a GT car. It
was basically a sports car with a backseat. It was perfect. There is
no doubt, that the original Mustang was made to be fast and fun, and
was also to handle well. However, in 1967 when the Muscle car era
was just beginning to heat up, the pony car was not only enlarged, it
also received a big block. This gives enthusiasts again, the idea that
the Mustang had become a musclecar its self. Wrong!
Now, back to my original question. Was the 64-66 Mustang different
than the 67-70? I would answer with an emphatic NO! This Mustang was
the same as it had always been. It was still a true pony car that
could handle, despite the now popular opinion. In fact, did you know
the 1967 Mustang actually had superior handling to the previous model
years? This car was still the same car it had always been! Now I will
admit, the Mustang was everybit apart of the musclecar era as any
other car. But that doesn't make it one it's self! This car was made
to be fun, light, small, compact, and fast! The '67 was all of those
just like the first! Yes, thats right, the '67 was in fact a very
small car! This car is dwarfed by the Muscle cars of the day, and dare
I say, dwarfed by this years 2005 Mustang?
Notice how I described the 67 'stang in the above paragraph, I said,
this car was "fun, light, small, compact and fast." Sound familiar?
I wonder what other car of today that describes? I'll give you a hint,
it's built by a Japanese automaker. Still don't know what I'm talking
about? The Suburu WRX sti. Before you condemn me to heck, think about
it. How would you describe a sti? Fun? Yes. Light? Yes. compact? Yes.
Fast? Definatly. Now lets use those same terms for the '05. Fun? There
is littld doubt that it won't be. Light? Well, no it's not, it weighs
3400lbs. Compact? Well no, it's actually one of the biggest 2 doors
made in America. Fast? definatly! What am I getting at? I'm not saying
the Mustang should be powered by a turbo I-4, or it should be a four
door, but I do think the sti does a better job of being a pony car
than the new '05 "pony car." (awaites death threats) Again, I think
the Mustang is an excellent car.
I don't even need to answer to answer my last questions. The Mustang
can be defined as a true pony car. One that should be, as I said
before, "fun, light, compact, and fast." It should be able to take a
turn with the best of them, that includes the sti, that includes the
Mitsubishi Evo, and that includes the Nissan 350Z.
So what is the solution to this problem? It's quite simple: make the
Mustang lighter, make it smaller, make it sit low to the ground, and
at the risk of starting another IRS vs live rear axle debate, it
should have IRS. Now you might argue that the original Mustangs did
not have IRS. This is true, but I say back to you, not many other cars
had IRS either! Atleast not to my knowledge. I do believe an
interpretation of a true pony car should have IRS. IRS is now on the
majority of cars produced, and it should be on the Mustang. I have no
problem with a true musclecar having a solid rear axle. Maybe Ford
could take the Mustang platform, enlarge it a bit and build a true
musclecar. Maybe call it, oh I don't know, a Torino?
I'd like to point out real quick, that I do not fault Ford for not
putting IRS on the new 'stang. Most would argue that they put it on
because of cost cutting, and we would not have the Mustang as cheap as
it is, if it had IRS. That maybe partly true, but I think a big reason
is Ford honestly believed that a solid rear axle is what a true
Mustang should have.
With all of that said, I still think this '05 Mustang is a great car!
It has already gotten a number of glowing reviews from testers. It
appears to have high quality parts, it has excellent performance, as
MT tested an automatic '05 which did a 13.6 quartermile! This car is
no slouch, and it looks incredible. With that said, I don't know if I would get one. Would it be as small, and as nimble as I would want it to be? I have never driven one, but I do know that I want it to be quick and low to the ground, and have that V8 power. I love the sports car look. I want that back! The '05 has a muscle car
look, with it's powerful stance (not a bad thing) and generally larger
profile. Let's get it back to what it should be, a pony car.
10/4/04, 12:18 AM
#4
ummm the Torino was a BIG car, built durring the worst times in domestic automotive history, I do not think the name would exactly be a great marketing idea. Theres a reason that the 300m is not called the Cordoba either. :scratch: The stang is not really heavy at all either. 3100 lbs is lighter then a Vette.
10/4/04, 12:22 AM
#5
Bullitt Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: April 10, 2004
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah it was..and I'm saying Torino not necesarrly so they will make a replica Torino, but basically a GTO/M3 competitor..and appeal to the Ford drag racing guys...
I love the Mustang to death of course, but have you ever sat in a cockpit of an old 64-70 Mustang?
Let me tellya, I did not have the urge to pull up to a stop light next to a Chevelle...I wanted to just drive and drive and drive... I don't believe Mustangs are muscle cars....
I love the Mustang to death of course, but have you ever sat in a cockpit of an old 64-70 Mustang?
Let me tellya, I did not have the urge to pull up to a stop light next to a Chevelle...I wanted to just drive and drive and drive... I don't believe Mustangs are muscle cars....
10/4/04, 12:25 AM
#7
Originally posted by 428CJ@October 4, 2004, 1:25 AM
Yeah it was..and I'm saying Torino not necesarrly so they will make a replica Torino, but basically a GTO/M3 competitor..and appeal to the Ford drag racing guys...
Yeah it was..and I'm saying Torino not necesarrly so they will make a replica Torino, but basically a GTO/M3 competitor..and appeal to the Ford drag racing guys...
10/4/04, 12:29 AM
#8
Bullitt Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: April 10, 2004
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by kevinb120+October 4, 2004, 1:28 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (kevinb120 @ October 4, 2004, 1:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-428CJ@October 4, 2004, 1:25 AM
Yeah it was..and I'm saying Torino not necesarrly so they will make a replica Torino, but basically a GTO/M3 competitor..and appeal to the Ford drag racing guys...
Yeah it was..and I'm saying Torino not necesarrly so they will make a replica Torino, but basically a GTO/M3 competitor..and appeal to the Ford drag racing guys...
Ya mean the SVT Cobra? But I don't think the Cobra should be competition with those cars...Should be smaller, handle better, and yeah..
THe GT should as well.
Those who don't want a car that is more performance oriented, could opt for the "Torino"
Do you see what I'm getting at?
I'm just saying I think there is a place for 2 Ford 2+2 coupes. B)
The SVT will be exactly that car.
10/4/04, 12:45 AM
#13
Cobra Member
Join Date: January 31, 2004
Posts: 1,260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3400 lbs is by no means whatsoever heavy. Even the Mitsubishi Lancer EVO and Subaru WRX STi weigh in at 3300 lbs. And they are definitely compact cars. (all-wheel drive, though)
The GTO weighs in at 3725 lbs. The 350Z tips the scales at 3210 lbs.
The Lamborghini Murcielago weighs over 4000 lbs. The Aston Martin Vanquish weighs 4045 lbs.
And on and on and on...
Who cares how much a car weighs if it can go 0-60 in under 5 seconds for less than $25,000? The Cobra weighs between 3600 and 3700, but look a Cobra owner in the eye and tell him his car can't compete with a 350Z.
Where else can you find a car cheaper than all the above listed cars, weighing in at a respectable weight, and as fast and good-looking as the new Mustang? Nowhere.
And, as a comment for the essay itself... Is the teacher (audience) a Mustang fan? You typed the article as if you were talking to friends here in the forums. How do you know the reader knows what IRS is? I seriously hope it's a completely informal essay assigment, because if not, you may need to revise it. Purely on a student to student level. Just trying to help out.
The GTO weighs in at 3725 lbs. The 350Z tips the scales at 3210 lbs.
The Lamborghini Murcielago weighs over 4000 lbs. The Aston Martin Vanquish weighs 4045 lbs.
And on and on and on...
Who cares how much a car weighs if it can go 0-60 in under 5 seconds for less than $25,000? The Cobra weighs between 3600 and 3700, but look a Cobra owner in the eye and tell him his car can't compete with a 350Z.
Where else can you find a car cheaper than all the above listed cars, weighing in at a respectable weight, and as fast and good-looking as the new Mustang? Nowhere.
And, as a comment for the essay itself... Is the teacher (audience) a Mustang fan? You typed the article as if you were talking to friends here in the forums. How do you know the reader knows what IRS is? I seriously hope it's a completely informal essay assigment, because if not, you may need to revise it. Purely on a student to student level. Just trying to help out.
10/4/04, 12:47 AM
#14
Bullitt Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: April 10, 2004
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh that is not my essay, since my essay had a different point too it, I added a bunch of stuff, and there are SEVERAL paragraphs missing! thats not my essay!
but thanks!
but thanks!
10/4/04, 12:50 AM
#16
Bullitt Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: April 10, 2004
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTW, my main argument isn't really with the weight necessarily, but really with the size, and how it sits... For instance, comparing an 99-04 GT to a 64-70 Stang is totally different. Even though both may technically have the same length, the 99-04 Stang feels massive in comparison to the older Mustangs...
I
I
10/4/04, 12:53 AM
#17
Bullitt Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: April 10, 2004
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Dr Iven@October 4, 2004, 1:52 AM
OK, good... it just looked that way since you said "I can post if you would like," and in the next post posted a big essay-style article.
I just got confused.
OK, good... it just looked that way since you said "I can post if you would like," and in the next post posted a big essay-style article.
I just got confused.
basically I added the last half...
I was going to add the essay, but it's actually an essay on the new Mustang, and doesn't mention the Torino or why I think Ford should bring back the Torino...
10/4/04, 12:57 AM
#18
Cobra Member
Join Date: January 31, 2004
Posts: 1,260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Using your logic, let's compare a new Corvette with the old. The new Corvette looks absolutely massive compared to the original Corvette. That's because when the original Vette came out, sports cars had to be small to maintain sporty performance features. Technology was nowhere near where it is today. The wider a car in proportion to the length (the look of mass which you refer to), the better the handling. E aho laula. Wider is better.
So, are you proposing that the next generation Mustang should be similar in size to a Chrysler Crossfire? Count me out if the Mustang ever reaches that low. :notnice:
So, are you proposing that the next generation Mustang should be similar in size to a Chrysler Crossfire? Count me out if the Mustang ever reaches that low. :notnice:
10/4/04, 01:02 AM
#19
Bullitt Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: April 10, 2004
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NOt at all..not at all
I really don't think it needs to get THAT much smaller..lose a few inches in length, make it ride much lower... Give it IRS. Make the interior, look more "racing like" as in the older Mustangs..And yes it does already look pretty good. Make it generally smaller, but definatly not like 350Z size of course...It just shouldn't be the size of a GTO like it is now! :thumbsup:
I really don't think it needs to get THAT much smaller..lose a few inches in length, make it ride much lower... Give it IRS. Make the interior, look more "racing like" as in the older Mustangs..And yes it does already look pretty good. Make it generally smaller, but definatly not like 350Z size of course...It just shouldn't be the size of a GTO like it is now! :thumbsup:
10/4/04, 01:15 AM
#20
Bullitt Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: April 10, 2004
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure a lot of you wonder why so many people liked the almost identical concept, but hate the production right? See i think this is the reason why:
The concept was :sporty: while the production looks more powerful, and more like a muscle car.
And I know the concept was technically a sports car, and the Mustang should always have a backseat, but I'm saying that is probably the main reason why! They liked the concept because it was really more true to the 'stangs roots!
The concept was :sporty: while the production looks more powerful, and more like a muscle car.
And I know the concept was technically a sports car, and the Mustang should always have a backseat, but I'm saying that is probably the main reason why! They liked the concept because it was really more true to the 'stangs roots!