How likely is it that Ford will introduce a "special edition" Stang in the near future with a 5.4 liter engine? If not the 5.4, what engine / configuration do you think the next special edition Stang will have? What is the latest word / rumor as to the name, configuration and model year of the next special edition Stang? Thanks! :-D

I really would like to get a 400 HP '05 body style Mustang Vert that won't cost me an arm and a leg that has a factory warranty. The '05 GT has 300+hp. The '07 Cobra GT500 will have approx. 500HP. I hope Ford puts out a 400 hp Vert that will run below or at $40K. That would be awesome. But if that doesn't happen, I'll eventually pick up a used '07 Cobra Vert in '08.

I would rather have an AL 4.6 than a Fe 5.4 in a special edition. Quite a bit of weight difference.

Even though it is highly unlikely, I'd love to see and SE with an AL 5.4L 4V making around 400 HP al natural. Add in a well balanced chassis with IRS, the Shelby brakes, 19" wheels and tires and I'd be the first one in line. Can anyone say Boss? Oh sorry, I slipped into an alternate universe... :jester:

I would prefer to see an aluminum 5.0L Cammer with IRS. Light weight, big bore, and no S/C to puff up the numbers.

Ford has raised the bar on the Mustang. I would say that special editions have an excellent chance on getting a n/a 5.4 in the 360-375 hp/torque range, which is achievable, both in performance and EPA requirements.

To be honest...I don't care what V8 resides under the hood as long as it has IRS under the trunk.

:lol: good luck

:lol: :lol: extra good luck

Yup.... I'l like to see GT350, with a bi-turbo 4.6 (4v w/al block), with IRS. Though a more street'ed 5.0 cammer isn't bad. Lower the CG, reduce the weight, improve the real road manners. 500 hp is nice.... but 400-450 isn't bad and completely doable. I want a sports car, not a 1/4 mile muscle car, with a horse-buggy back-end.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree here, David. In other words, you're asking Ford to do something it probably isn't going to do.

As to the endless IRS vs SRA debate, if you look at the people polled on this site, the vast majority want SRA. That poll probably reflects a fairly accurate litmus test of the average Mustang GT buyer. And Ford knows this...and it's easier to engineer...and it's cheaper to produce, which means their profit margins go up at a time when Ford really needs its profit margins to go up.

It really is just that simple.

Also, the Mustang is a vehicle that is designed to be a stoplight burner and track performer. It turned in a tremendous performance at the Grand Am race. And before you say, "yeah, but that's on smooth, controlled pavement," well sure, you're right. But the IRS equipped cars had the same advantages on the track that the Stang had, plus...

...and this is significant...

...while IRS equipped cars definitely have an advantage on a twisty mountain road with uneven pavement, not much mono-a-mono racing goes on in those kind of environments. The vast majority of one's "racing" encounters are going to occur at the stoplight or at the race track, both of which are environments that will favor the Shelby's massive torque and SRA straight arrow launch abilities.

All that said, I'd be willing to bet that because of the new Stang's terrific chassis alone, the Shelby will still be a reasonably good performer in the twisties.

I always laugh at the manufacturers who go on and on and on about their double-wishbone equipped IRS suspensions - and how that makes them such tremendous handling demons - and yet their cars are front wheel drive. Well, guess what? The extra 10 points you got for putting an IRS in your car doesn't make up for the 20 points you've lost due to the physics limitations (torque steer) of a front wheel drive car.

An SRA rear wheel drive car will handily dispatch an IRS front wheel drive car any day of the week.

If Ford wants to expand their market, they need NOT to cater to the enthusiasts, but their POTENTIAL customer base.

I realize I may be barking up the wrong tree.

I say, "why can't it have heated seats like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why not (too much money, etc.), or the histrionics, "Stangs never had heated seats before -- this isn't a pansy car".

I say "why can't it have a modern back end like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why the car should have an 1890's suspension.

I say "why can't it have a better weight ratio/balance like all it's competitors", and excuses are made for why it should be unbalanced.

I say "why can't it have a amenities/creature comforts like all it's competitors", and the attitude is "my 60s stang was loud, hot and uncomfortable -- it handled like a snow-plow with a rocket motor, and that's how it should always be".

I want a good sports car that will attract new customers to Ford/Mustang. Many enthusiasts want a more nostalgic car, than a modern/competitive car. It has happened on everything. I think HTT is more interested in recreating the past than living in the present. That may get Mustang customers to upgrade their current cars, and prevent much market erosion -- but it is highly unlikely that this attitude is going to penetrate many new markets and draw a lot of new customers to the brand. And so much for the crack-smoking pipe-dream of competing with the Germans and Japanese, when the answer to ever question about making it better is, "that's not the way it's always been done around here".

So with all your protestations about the car's arcane engineering (assertions with which I happen to wholeheartedly agree) why would you even consider buying one?

Lemmie answer that: because with all of those knocks against it, it has something most of the more "sophisticated" cars don't have: heritage, nostalgia, visceral appeal, raw unbridled power, great looks and good overall value for the $$. Oh, yeah, and the unquantifiable "cool" factor.

I share your beefs and lol at some of your comments above. There's no reason on earth why this Mustang shouldn't have heated seats, heated side mirrors, a sunroof, a NAV option and a host of other comfort and convenience features offered by the European and Japanese competitors. And frankly, the "mycolor" option is a joke when it's offered in lieu of other, more useful features.

I, too, would like to see the Mustang expand its market share. And this drives to the heart of what I was saying before: if Ford wants to compete globally, then it needs to build cars that compete with the best the world has to offer, not just continue to service its core enthusisast base, most of whom are - no offense - rednecks.

And Ford wonders why it's losing money. It's not just the unions, trade discrepancies and so forth, it's the company's corporate attitude towards building cars. Only in the last couple of years have they become dimly aware of what's at stake.

The American automakers are out of touch with the marketplace. Look at GM. It cancelled its promising zeta platform, which was to play host to a number of promising new automobiles (including a new Camaro). Why? To concentrate its efforts on new SUV and truck programs. Hello?!! There's a gas crisis on right now that shows no sign of slowing down, and truck and SUV sales are about to take their biggest hit in years.

Utter stupidity. :shame:

:lol:

C'mon, dude. Who needs pansy creature comforts, gay independent suspensions and balance when you've got god, guns and white sheets? Oh yeah, and Hooters girls, beer and football.

I mean, what else is there in life?

The aforementioned - with some exaggeration - is the attitude you're most likely to encounter on this board.

:lol:

C'mon, dude. Who needs pansy creature comforts, gay independent suspensions and balance when you've got god, guns and white sheets? Oh yeah, and Hooters girls, beer and football.

I mean, what else is there in life?

The aforementioned - with some exaggeration - is the attitude you're most likely to encounter on this board.
[/b][/quote]

Robert-

Very nice crass insinuations. :notnice: Imagine someone having preconceived assumptions regarding other persons on this board, about their preconceived assumptions regarding the Mustang. Nice! :nono:

I have no problem with peoples views/opinions regarding autos. Each have their likes/dislikes. I do however take offense to your 'white sheets' comments, as well as your sexual reference comments as each pertains to "attitude you're most likely to encounter on this board."

And yes . . .I can/did read your comment "with some exaggeration". . . .

Last I checked, a lot of Mustangs are sold in California. Much of the Mustang marketing is focused to the beach and California. Not too many rednecks I know in California.

Creature comforts are nice but in making cars there is a bit of a zero sum game. If you spend money on heated sideview mirrors (just another unnecessary gizmo that will break) and take away money from making the front end more aggressive then which would you rather have?

I have heated seats in my BMW. I turn them on 3 times a year maybe. I love the way my BMW handles, I sure hope the Mustang can perform similarly. I am not planning on extreme racing so if in handles well in the corners I will be happy.

I would love a nicer looking middle console and a nicer climate control system, but I will probably buy an aftermarket radio and live with the climate control system. As long as the heat, defroster, and A/C work I will be happy.

I have a great car in my BMW. I am not buying a Mustang to be a BMW. I am buying a Mustang to be a nasty, growling, snarling monster that will run like heck and turn heads. No matter how many heated seats, sideview mirrors, auto dimming mirrors, 30 way adjustable seats, seat memory (which I like a lot), navigation system (I like my Thomas guide) or other crap BMW, Mercedes, Lexus, Infiniti put out the Mustang is the one that will turn heads.

Plus it costs about 20,000 less for a GT500 than a M3. 20,000 will buy a lot of creature comforts.

Just to chime in, on to anyone who thinks this new Mustang isn't attractive more customers than just the normal enthusiasts. Ive had many people come in looking at the new Mustangs, who are cross shopping other vehicles, such as the Audi TT, BMW, and Porsche Boxster. I have also made it a point to ask them, if they would have considered a Mustang before the 2005, and many of them pointedly tell me NO. I just sold a black GT to someone who drives a Lexus, and said the same thing, he wouldnt have ever considered a Mustang! So much for not attracting new customers.

I am buying a Mustang to be MEAN... If I wanted "plushy" I would go with a luxury car, possibly a Caddy.

The point is I want the GT 500 to have a fairly Simple interior and a Nasty exterior... (All I need is A/C, a powerful audio system, lots of leather, and a cool dash)

I want Ford to spend the money where it counts!

:lol: good luck
[/b][/quote]

Y'know after mulling over Rhumb's cheapshot at rednecks the country over I was thinking about Joe and an IRS in the mustang. IFa ressurected camaro where to come to market in a coupla years (Camaro fans seem to be pushing for an IRS since it would in bench racing circles prove superior to the buggy axle mustang) you might see an IRS mustang, especially if sales remained strong up until that point and some of the costs were absorbed enough to allow a good profit margin even with an IRS. Just a thought as I cant even pretend to know the hows and whys of bringing an all new car to market and how long it takes to increase the profit margin on a particular design.

Personally I'll take an SE with an Fe 5.4 as long as it will rip a ditch through an LS1 powered F-body wide enough to sail an aircrft carrier sideways

Thats not a Mustang, you could wrap it in a mustang body, but it still would never be a mustang and I dont think there are exuses for anything, ford didn't bring the mustang to the table using a bunch of flim-flamery using stuff like "semi independant rear suspension" or "modified De Dion rear suspension" or what ever to try and woo over the masses. They brought out a mustang and said this is it, the quentissential modern detroit musclecar. take it or leave it.