97GT03SVT

+1
I totally agree, why buy a new car if it looks like the old one? Sure more power and better brakes help, but i'd rather mod an 05' for half the money of a new 10'! I think historically Ford is doing the right thing.

Didn't the Fox body's long reign almost lead to the Mustang's demise?

Remember the 4th gen Mustang vs. Camaro

The refreshed 98' Camaro consisted of a new front fascia, wheels, improved interior trim and of course the addition of the awesome LS1 engine. Though the Camaro was a more solid performance car than the 99' Mustang, it looked 5 years old right out the gate. Ford chose wisely to do a complete refresh of the Mustang's exterior changing all the sheet metal. This in my opinion is what killed the 98-02 Camaro! From what I've seen I think the refresh is a little too subtle, hopefully it looks more unique once the production model is revealed.

Why must people be so afraid of change, while so many are dreading the refresh I'm very excited!

red454

I was 2 in '69, but I have to wonder what people thought when the 69's and 71's came out. Those were some radical changes... There was no internet for all the concept sneak-peeks. I would think that all you had was a few car mags and that was it unless you lived near Detroit.

zzcoop

Same here. I can't wait.

I need SOMETHING to look forward to next month. This election crap doesn't really do it for me.

Tony Alonso

One might have inferred that sales would have fallen because of the desire for an improved interior as well. I don't think a power increase alone would have carried this car another 4 years. The interior is where people spend the majority of their time, so in keeping with the broad appeal, an interior makeover seems to be a smart decision for this car.

Regarding styling of the rear, some here do think it's an improvement, as they have been critical of the current look. People will argue incessantly about styling so any change seems to result in debates.

EDIT - Oops, I've just rehashed the last few posts

GT5088

good point...I just think people see the specs on the Camaro and Challenger and would like to see updated power numbers with an updated exterior.

Eights

DarkCandy08GT, Boomer, and 97GT03SVT have all made some really good points in their preceding postings!

Boom: You must be aware that Ford has a 5.0L 400 HP V8 for sale in crates--it's the "T50" 'Cammer (the "R50" 'Cammer powers the FR500C and FR500GT4). For reasons never explained, Ford has not added the Ford GT's emissions equipment that could probably have made this engine street-legal as early as the '05 model year. Go figure?
It IS costly for a crate engine--over $15,000, I believe--so that was probably the killer. OTOH, it is the only American DOHC V8 for sale--and I think there are enough well-heeled North American high-tech vehicle fans that it would have sold well as a high-perf special edition ("Mustang Cobra", "Mustang 5.0", "Mach 1", "Mach 5/Mach 5.0", whatever...). Saleen's selling plenty of his stroker 3-valve 5.0L V8s and he charges over the top for a "PJ" or a "Gurney". I'd kill to have one of each out on the driveway!!

Candy: Yet again, your postings say it all with far more eloquence than I ever have. You are the best!

SVT: All the hype about alternative fuels you hear about today is just that: Hype. Detroit at least will get by with the path of least resistance--note how many not-so-thrifty hybrids are for sale. Note how much hype there is for E85, which costs more to begin with and more of it must be burned to equal the performance of the same vehicle running straight regular unleaded. Deisel and/or BioDiesel will probably be the next "wunderfuel", since that's next up the ladder of cheap-to-implement engine mods after E85. Making the big jump to Hydrogen will cost--REALLY cost--so it might never be implemented. If it is, it will probably be implemented by the Japanese...Rechargeable battery vehicles have yet to see the breakthrough battery that will be powerful, long-lasting, fairly inexpensive, and reasonably safe in collisions and/or roll-overs...

And as evidence of this piecemeal approach to alternative fuels, I ask you who on this Earth would have predicted in 1968 that all the V8s in GM cars in 2010 would STILL be 2-valve pushrodders now that GM has decided not to develop an OHC replacement for the Slothstar that powers Cadillacs??? Or for that matter that the 2010 Mustang would STILL use a solid rear axle?

See what I mean?

Greg "Eights" Ates

Boomer

Yeah that crate Cammer is nice, and you're right it costs a boatload...

but I'll put money on the new 4v 5.0 to be that cats hiney...and it should be if its the predecessor to the current mod motors...

I'm VERY excited about this engine....as you can tell.

FordBlueHeart

Why are Ford Crate motors soo much more than GM High Performance crate motors?

GT5088

good question. I always wondered the same thing...is it because they are more commonly used and parts are found more common in the high performance outlet?

FordBlueHeart

I own a 1999 Tahoe with 133k on it. A new crate motor, mind you we are talking a TPI 350, is under two thousand.

GM has realized that they are losing money to the aftermarket and has planned accordingly. A couple years ago, maybe not quite that long ago, they came out with L92 aluminum heads with valves and everything for under $1000!

These heads fit on the LS series motors and give it immensely better breathing capabilities than stock motors. They come stock on the the new 6.2 liter motors, but will fit on the 4.8, 5.3, 6.0 motors as well.

Eights

Tony Alonso: Well, Tony, how can you explain the Porsche 911?? It has looked same ol' same ol' since around 1964 or 1965--Porschephiles are encouraged to post the correct introductory year of the 911 in this thread. It remains unmistakably a Porsche 911 even AFTER 911s dropped air-cooling for water-cooling!

Greg "Eights" Ates

zzcoop

The 911 has been refreshed how many dozens of times since then?

And that's really all we're talking about here for the 2010 – a refresh.

Evil_Capri

Heart must not be that Blue, if you have a Bowtie . . . .

zzcoop

FordBlueHeart

Oh, its blue, but sometimes you cant look a gift horse in the mouth. I also own a '99 Saturn as my daily driver.

Evil_Capri

FordBlueHeart

Its probably because Ford people hang onto their cars until they literally die, therefore, I cant buy a decent Ford at my current budget.

Eights

m05fastbackGT: Great posting--informative, persuasive, and concise! So persuasive, in fact, that I say we cut us some templates out of plywood of the '65 G.T. 350 fastback roofline, the '99-'04 roofline, and the S197 roofline. Then we lower the templates onto an S197 and compare the "fit" of the templates to the actual sheetmetal. 'Loser buys a twenty-four-bottle case of Negra Modello, and we both get shatfaced in the shade! Designated Drivers required!

I concede some points:

(A) the S197 is a significantly larger vehicle than a '65 Mustang fastback, so a '65 Mustang fastback roofline Sawzalled off a '65 and welded onto an S197 would look ridiculous, especially over the much-expanded rear seat area of the S197. To make it actually work, the '65-'66 roofline was "scaled up" a few percent to maintain the proper proportions on the larger vehicle
(B) the '65-'66 fastback roofline is different than the full fastback roofline of the '67-'68 Mustangs, and I am not claiming that the roofline of the S197 is a Xerox of the '67-'68 full fastback roofline. More or less, the '65-'66 fastback roofline is only a "partial" fastback, since it ends just forward of the decklid--and the decklid is flat. The '67-'68 roofline, however, extends to the rear of the vehicle and includes the decklid, a striking difference.
(C) the S197's roofline probably is a little flatter, as you say, since the '65-'66 roofline had to curve more to end just ahead of the decklid on what was a shorter car in its time--especially shorter in the rear seat area!

Nevertheless, if Ford had wanted to emulate the '99-'04 roofline, it woulda been easier and cheaper for them to do that because all the tooling was already in use for the pre-2005 Mustangs--especially the small rear windows on each side that are still used in the S197 convertibles. But in fact Ford went to considerable extra effort and extra cost to come up with a "scaled up" '65-'66 G.T. 350 fastback roofline to fit the larger dimensions & proportions of the S197 body. It was a brilliant styling touch, to be sure, and is one of the many superb features of the S197 that made the Mustang young again (the grille, the dash, the round headlights in recessed bezels, etc.)!

"Your Honor, the Defense rests its case."

Greg "Eights" Ates

Eights

The number one reason is that Ford crate 'Cammers are DOHC, 4-valves/cylinder, dual-injected V8s, with aluminum heads and with a choice of aluminum or iron blocks. Some of them come with intercooled superchargers, too.

Now, Ford began offering two-valved pushrod V8s in 1932 (maybe earlier in their trucks--I dunno about that)--and if you are into obsolete, Ford and the other domestic manufacturers can provide those in crates for you, too, for a significant savings.

Eights

zzcoop: There is a difference between a "refresh" and a "rehash":

The '67-'68 Mustangs were a refresh of the '65-'66 Mustangs.
The '69-'70 Mustangs were a refresh of the '67-'68 Mustangs.
The '71-'73 Mustangs were a rehash of the '69-'70 Mustangs.

The 2010 Mustangs pics are perilously close to a rehash of the '05-'09 Mustangs, but I have not labeled them that yet pending a personal examination of the 2010 in the sheetmetal.

Early returns are indicating that rehash will defeat refresh by an overwhelming majority...

I'm Greg "Eights" Ates, and I approved this message.