Very nice find, Paul - definitely on the right track. As others have stated, make the '10's **** resemble the '67 - '68 cars and Ford would have a HUGE hit on their hands. That orange '67 in the Car Craft link is swwweeeet.

 

I agree. That rear end plus hips would make the S197 just about perfect, IMO. I've always felt the current rear end is a weak point in the overall S197 design.

 

Twin Turbo: As long as those taillights don't have trim surrounding them (I like taillights and tail bare, like the Giugiaro concept and Sofia Vergara) and you trash the faux gas cap for a bare rear panel--again, Sofia Vergara!

Greg "Eights" Ates

 

Pretty poor analogy, comparing throwing different artificial flavor in some ice cream to the huge capital expense of body stamping dies, marketing expenses, dealer support, spare parts inventory, training, etc., etc.

Reality is a Mercury version of the Mustang could not be profitably sold unless all it was, was a Mustang with a different grille & tail lamps. And there certainly isn't much point in doing that.

Considering that Ford will sell almost as many Mustangs in 2008 as the entire Mercury brand (that's right all Mercury vehicles) I'd expect Ford kill the Mercury brand before we'd see a Mercury version of the Mustang.

 

What I don't understand, is how can you change just the rear quarters and then slope the trunk, without changing the rear window angle.

In other words, you have to change the slope/angle of the rear window, before sloping the trunk. As the rear window, is also part of the quarter panel section.

 

^ Because the trunk/rear end would be lower. The incorporated "duck tail" feature would add some of the height back into the shape of the car.

(The current rear window is rather steep, so it probably wouldn't look right... but my assumptions also level out the "rake" built into the cars lines, and the hip would be the high point of the body lines)

 

My source told me a couple months ago that nobody at Ford was doing anything with the Mercury brand, and it looked like Ford was going to kill it.
Ford is focusing on Lincoln.

 

V10: Very perceptive posting! Paragraph two is especially superb, and I wholeheartedly agree with paragraph three--and I have owned two excellent Mercuries over the years--first a '69 Cyclone fastback Ram-Air CJ 428 automatic and a Mercury Lynx 5-speed manual station wagon. Mercury's time has passed, unfortunately--domestic automakers are struggling just to survive so standardizing as many production parts and processes is critical to being around in 2020. Duplicating Fords and "engineering" Mercury badges and grilles for them is stupid even in good times--which the domestic auto industry hasn't seen at any time in this century so far. Frankly, this applies to Lincolns, too. Ford ain't got the bucks to spend to give Lincoln the rejuvenation that GM gave Cadillac (which apparently is sputtering, anyway).

The ONLY variation of the Mustang that I can see being worthwhile is to offer a mildly stretched version to incorporate the rear half-doors currently on the RX8--an idea first seen on the Mercury Messenger concept about a decade ago. This would be an optional variation of the Mustang, offered in all models of Mustangs up through the Mustang GT. It would not be offered as an option on the Bullitts, although it might serve well as an option on the GT500 as a counter to high-perf RWD four-door vehicles from the other domestic makes--Chargers, various Cadillacs, etc. But it would have the advantages of being smaller (half-doors instead of full-sized rear doors), much lighter (even the Exxon Valdez is lighter than a Charger), much less expensive, ****loads faster, and Mustang looks. A "luxury" edition with lotsa leather, the new glass roof, and the gizmos and gadgets the luxury shoppers love so much could be a separate model marketed directly at performance-loving Cadillac owners and perhaps at Charger owners. And it would be all Mustang panels from the full "front" doors forward--saving money by modding only the aft half of the Mustang just in case the half-door models don't sell well. After all, Lincoln's LS failed despite its general excellence...

It has to be a Mustang--diluting the Mustang by calling this version a Mercury ("Cougar" would pop into most people's minds, I'm sure) would be a marketing mistake--people are sick and tired of re-badging, as they damned well should be.

Greg "Eights" Ates

 

The LS failed because Ford abandoned it. Ford killed plans to sell the LS globally, then killed all the follow on D/EW-98 platformed cars which then made the LS un-proftable according to Ford's bean counters. So Ford killed most of the LS advertising and left the LS to languish. The modest 2003 update only happened because the design & production engineering was already done by the time the desision was made to abandon the LS & let it die.

Just another expample of Ford's proud "Launch & abandon" history.

 

I've heard the same thing, Mulally has wanted to kill the Mercury brand since the day he took over, Billy Ford has been pleading to keep Mercury but Billy may have finally seen the light.

I've posted this on another Mercury discussion here on TMS. Today the Mercury brand is the equivalent of Boeing putting different nose cones and tail fins on their 737, 777 etc., putting "Douglas" decals on them and then hiring separate sales & marketing departments to try to sell them. Doesn't make much sense to me.

 

Justin,

I'm totally with you about the rear window being too steep, which is exactly why raising it, wouldn't look right.

But how would you go about just lowering the trunk/rear end area's ? And even if it could be done, how would you accomplish this without changing the car's structural body.

I also don't quite understand how lowering the doorline, would also lower the trunk/rear end sections. If I understood correctly, didn't you mention the rear hip line, would remain the same height as it is currently

 

Basically the hip would be at the same height it is currently... but the entire back end would have to slope down more...

something like this...

 

As good as it might look, I doubt there will be anything done to lower the back of the car, this appears to be an area of major consideration when the aerodytnamics of the car are considered. I remember reading awhile back that the front of the car was no big deal but as the air moved to the rear it was important to clean it up so that drag on the car was minimized. Hence the preponderance of many vehicles with a chunky stern set high in the rear.

 

I understand now where're your coming from Justin. The only problem IMO, is if you just slope the entire back end, while leaving the quarter panel/hip line at the same height it is currently. The entire rear end section will be lower than the hip line/rear quarter panel. In other words, it will no longer appear as visually level. Also, the slope in the trunk area, would look too steep.


Most of all, you'd also be changing the car's structural body as well.

 

I like the Magazine covers picture. I like it better than the 05-08s. With a V6 340 Turbo , Im even all for that !!

 

Is it just me or is ther a CBRA under that camo bra???

 

already spotted..but Good eye!

 

Wow. I feel like an idiot. I read post #116 and was like, what is CBRA? So I looked it up on Google and realized as I was typing it that he miss typed Cobra! LMAO.

 

^ Not something most of us would admit to.

 

All I can Say is "Friends Don't Let Friends Drink And Type"