For those of you who said we could never see a '65 sized Mustang again...(FT-86/FR-S)

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

11/30/11, 07:26 PM

#21

stangfoeva

MOTM Committee Member

Join Date: April 17, 2006

Location: SoCal

Posts: 9,181

Likes: 0

Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stinger

Of course if it was smaller and 1000 lbs lighter, it wouldn't NEED a 650hp 5.8L V8 to get the performance we are now accustomed to

touche

Reply Like

11/30/11, 08:03 PM

#22

~~11SHELBYGT500~~

Banned

Join Date: March 9, 2011

Posts: 16,041

Likes: 0

Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stinger

Of course if it was smaller and 1000 lbs lighter, it wouldn't NEED a 650hp 5.8L V8 to get the performance we are now accustomed to

It's not a NEED, it's a WANT and mustang owners will ALWAYS WANT.

Reply Like

11/30/11, 08:29 PM

#23

bob

Legacy TMS Member

Join Date: May 16, 2004

Location: Bristol, TN

Posts: 5,199

Likes: 13

Received 17 Likes on 12 Posts

Quote:

Originally Posted by stangfoeva

This.

Ford could easily build a mustang that small if it only had a 200 hp 4 banger.

Let's see if the brz/gt-86 chassis can handle a 650hp 5.8L V8 w/o significant modification. The mustang truly does need to be a bigger car, however there is always room for improvement

Its probably not even designed to handle an output close to what the coyote makes although to be fair, Toyota and Subaru might be making extensive use of the so called super steels that the auto industry is converting to allowing the FT-86 to be lighter than it normally could.

Last edited by bob; 11/30/11 at 09:02 PM.

Reply Like

12/1/11, 07:33 AM

#24

Vermillion06

Cobra Member

Thread Starter

Join Date: May 16, 2006

Location: NV

Posts: 1,322

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Reply Like

12/1/11, 09:01 AM

#25

rhumb

SLA Isn't So Bad

Join Date: January 30, 2004

Location: DMV

Posts: 2,980

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vermillion06

Love the lean, long, low proportions of the GT350 here, especially the light and airy greenhouse and ample glass area. The 2005 Stang looks positively pudgy, heavy and tall in comparison.

Reply Like

12/1/11, 12:12 PM

#26

cdynaco

Post *****

Join Date: December 14, 2007

Location: State of Jefferson Mountains USA

Posts: 20,005

Likes: 0

Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhumb

Love the lean, long, low proportions of the GT350 here, especially the light and airy greenhouse and ample glass area. The 2005 Stang looks positively pudgy, heavy and tall in comparison.

Re: height: Well to be fair... the GT350 is lowered to the extreme on prob 15" wheels.

Reply Like

12/1/11, 12:23 PM

#27

Vermillion06

Cobra Member

Thread Starter

Join Date: May 16, 2006

Location: NV

Posts: 1,322

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdynaco

Re: height: Well to be fair... the GT350 is lowered to the extreme on prob 15" wheels.

But still, the s197 is about 4 inches taller, 5 inches wider and 6 inches longer than a stock '65 Mustang.

Reply Like

12/2/11, 09:23 AM

#28

908ssp

Mach 1 Member

Join Date: July 16, 2010

Posts: 864

Likes: 0

Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts

I prefer the S197 to a 65. Plus that 65 would fail completely any crash test probably worse than a Mini or Fiat 500.

Reply Like

12/2/11, 10:17 AM

#29

Vermillion06

Cobra Member

Thread Starter

Join Date: May 16, 2006

Location: NV

Posts: 1,322

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Quote:

Originally Posted by 908ssp

I prefer the S197 to a 65. Plus that 65 would fail completely any crash test probably worse than a Mini or Fiat 500.

Well, yeah, 46 years of advances in automotive engineering should make safer cars these days

But the Mustang could be made the size of the 65 or the fox body (which are nearly the same size) again. We don't have to a have keep getting taller , wider and longer Mustangs.

Toyota and Subaru have just come out with a car that is nearly the same height and width as the original pony car but is a foot shorter because of being designed for a flat-4 instead of V8. And it passes today's crash standards.

I'm not saying a want an exact clone of a '65 Mustang for the next generation chassis. I want one that is the size of a '65 or Fox body, as long as it looks good and looks like a Mustang should.

Reply Like

12/2/11, 11:51 AM

#30

stupidgenius36

Just Plain Rude!

Join Date: February 1, 2004

Location: Denton, TX

Posts: 3,392

Likes: 0

Received 18 Likes on 18 Posts

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vermillion06

Toyota and Subaru have just come out with a car that is nearly the same height and width as the original pony car but is a foot shorter because of being designed for a flat-4 instead of V8. And it passes today's crash standards.

I'm sure that's not the only reason. Has anyone seen/sat in the back seats yet?

EDIT: After just seeing pics of the trunk/back seats...that's how it's so short. There's no real space in that interior.

Last edited by stupidgenius36; 12/2/11 at 12:28 PM.