Hollywood_North GT

Of course they can afford it. "They can't afford it" is the biggest pile of disinformation crap going around out there, and has already been proven as such.

mustang68w

well topnotch really knows how to get everyone worked up

its kinda funny

krnpimpsta

Don't shoot me for saying this, but I'll be very happy with no V8 option being available from 2014 and beyond. It just means I can keep a 2011 Mustang for the rest of my life. Otherwise I will be forced to upgrade.

It's obvious that as gas prices keep going up, we're going to go through another fuel-efficient car phase - maybe it won't be a phase, maybe it will be forever. Granted, I'm sure it won't be like the 70's, but I do see max stock horsepower's plateauing a little above where we are now.

When it's 2040 and everyone who still uses gas is driving around in high tech 80mpg 1.5L i4 twin turbos, I want to be one of the few that still own a 12mpg-around-the-city V8 5.0L "monster" (compared to everything else that's on the street).

Like the guys who owned a 69/70 big block mustang with over 300hp, in the sub-200hp-era of the late 70's-80's. Yeah, I bet they spent a relative fortune on gas, but I bet their smiles-per-gallon made up for any lack of miles-per-gallon (ok, you may shoot me now).

I want the last raw, powerful, gas guzzling, beast of a car before the Mustang goes the way of higher tech F.I. i4/v6 engines. It's gonna happen eventually, it's just a question of when. And I want the car that was made just before that happens.

rhumb

I pretty much agree with JSaylor's assessment. In my crystal ball, I too see the 2014(?) being smaller, sleeker and lighter. It will likely retain a decidedly "Mustang" styling theme though a more modern interpretation than the current design, if not as ultra contemporary as the Fox Stang was back in its day. I can readily see Ford developing and using a GRWD platform for the Stang and many other cars, both domestic and overseas (Australia). It just makes far more sense than developing a bespoke chassis just for the Mustang and I think you'll see a lot of benefits (IRS for one) that had to be cut from the S-197's platform to meet costs.

As for motors, I too think that a GTDI 4 banger may well become the standard mill with perhaps a 300+hp 3.7 becoming the base GT motor. Remember, the '14 will be significantly lighter and sleeker, so performance should at least match the current GT but with better mileage. The V8s, and yes, there will be V8s, will likely be more sparingly used in various SE models, whatever they're named (Shelby, Boss, Mach I, ...). They may be somewhat smaller, higher tech V8s, but looking at, say, the BMW M3s 4.0, I'm not too worried about that.

In all, done right, a lighter, tighter and more efficient Mustang can still be a "Mustang," and will be an even better car than the current model. Straight line performance will be retained if not enhanced but ride, handling and braking -- vast areas of the Stang's performance envelope that have gotten only passing grades -- will be much better and likely fully up to world class standards rather than the rather pathetic "muscle car" standards by which the current Stang is generally judged. And this may well be because the Stang will be sold worldwide and will thus have to stand on its broader merits beyond just a relatively small, if important, base of domestic aficionados who sometimes take a perverse pride in the Stang's very mediocrity in these areas -- oddly defining the Stang by its inabilities as much as its strengths.

Eights

What can I say? This is clearly the best thread in the forum, and one of the best threads in ANY forum on the World Wide Web...

Crystal balling even the near future is tough--so much uncertainty exists about petroleum supplies that we can only expect (and hopefully wisely prepare for) the worst while hoping for the best. In this respect, the Mustang has major advantages over the current round of resurrected imitations from Chevrolet & Dodge--with Asian makes making some tentative efforts to become players in this market. The Mustang is the original, all others are just imitations scrambling for the scraps dropped from the Mustang's table. An imitation is fine for some people, but we and thousands of others demand the genuine item! And that will see Mustang through the harder times ahead--too bad about those lesser vehicles...

Some items to seriously ponder:

What happens to Shelby automobile production when Ol' Shel' finally "goes horizontal" as he puts it? Can a tuner car manufacturer succeed when the tuner "hisself" is no more? Naturally, the other tuners--Steeda, Saleen, Kenny Brown, Roush, et al--face this mortality issue, too. Actually, WE face the issue of their mortality as we are the owners of--or at least the fans of--their wares...Sad thoughts...

Can we afford the technothrills so many have predicted for future Mustangs? Mustang's forty-five years of uninterrupted continuous production is the result of Ford offering America affordable performance in a really good car! How affordable is all the techno-wizardry everyone predicts to be surely forthcoming in the next Mustang--or at the very least in the next Mustang after that? How much will a DOHC, twin-turbocharged, Gasoline Direct Injected, 4-valves-per-cylinder, IRS-equipped, six-speed, ethanol-compatible, cylinder-shutdown-capable, 3200 pound, two-door coupe/convertible/glassback set you back in the showrooms? I can see that technology reaching GT500 pricing even if it doesn't reach GT500 performance. Have YOU been able to afford a GT500? Some of you have and some of you (including me) haven't...

Will insurance, financing, fuel costs, and shaky employment conditions finally kill off the Mustang's customers even though future Mustangs may be more desirable than ever?

Future Mustangs face those limitations, although they aren't the fault of the Mustang. I feel a lot less panicked knowing that the Mustang is a Ford and not a Chrysler or GM product--two companies with hardly a clue. If they had a clue, they'd abandon their "Profit Through Imitation" gods and come up with original vehicle ideas of their own instead of offering Xeroxed Mustangs with their corporate pushrodders under their hoods. As I once read on another website some years ago: "Strolling through the automotive graveyard of 2015, I came upon the tombstones of Dodge and Chevrolet upon which these words had been inscribed: "But we built Mustangs, too!"

Greg "Eights" Ates

rhumb

As for the cost/affordability of technothrills, pretty much everything described can be found under the hoods of a large number of econocars, or at least cheapish sport coupes these days. Look at the spec sheet of a VW GTI or MazdaSpeed 3, or a Mini Cooper -- turbos, DI, IRS, 4 valve heads. Or howzabout the Hyundai Genesis Coupe? Minus two or four cylinders, it pretty much matches a lot of your description of a techno-infused Stang.

For another perspective, much of what is now on the Stang was, at one time, some pretty exotic stuff for a domestic sport coupe: 3V OHC aluminum fuel injected, electronic ignition, knock sensored motor. If the Stang's motor were timewarped back to the sixties, it would be put on a pedestal for all to revere as being of almost alien-level technology.

I think perhaps what some of us are arguing is that the Stang is falling a bit behind the curve of what is currently doable and affordable, much less leading the pace in introducing or bringing into affordability various technologies. And what is the cost of not taking advantage of what the latest technologies offer under the assumption that they do offer tangible benefits and are not merely geeky bragging fodder? The ever more stringent constraints and demands of a contemporary car are far more demanding than the free and easy sixties when the Stang was foaled. CAFE, EPA, NHTSA, DOT, etc. all impose challenging demands on any car, not to mention the ever increasing basic expectations of customers themselves ("what, no standard AC, CC, electric windows, etc).

While a warm fondness for the simplicities of the days or yore are nice for a case of the warm and fuzzies, we do live in todays world and Ford competes, with, ummmm, varying success of late, with extremely competitive cars. Perhaps these leading edge technologies are the best and most affordable way to make and keep the Mustang relevant and competitive on its own merits and not just a rolling nostalgia piece like some wood-framed Morgan.

Yes, we do want to keep the Mustang's spirit and soul -- though what those might be is a huge philosophical discussion right there -- regardless of the specific technologies used in making it run. Is an IRS or turbo antithetical to what a Mustang is or ought to be? Were McPherson struts, fuel injection and the demise of rear leaf springs corruptions of the Mustang's heritage? Wouldn't a return to a Mustang the size, weight and displacement of a '65 fastback be a return to the Stang's roots rather than an evil mutation into some, gasp, Euro/Oriental coupe?

Well, enough philosophizing for one day -- brain starting to hurt -- off to the couch, a cold one and the Olympics.

Hollywood_North GT

I think what Ford needs to do is sit down and 'probe' the Mustang's mission for the 21st century.

fla.boy

I thought 2011 was the year for the mustang to get a new platform and greenhouse.

m05fastbackGT

How could you possibly think that Ford would change the Mustang's platform, being as the current S-197 platform, is only 4 years old. That just doesn't make any logical sense at all, especially when the current platform hasn't even reached it's midlife status cycle yet.

Just imagine if Ford had skipped the previous SN-95 makeover in 99, and had jumped right into the current S-197 platform, only after 4 years of existence

jsaylor

First, let me say I think you are absolutely right here. If the plan to integrate FOE and FNA product fails to deliver the sales increase Ford wants and needs almost anything you can imagine in the way of cost trimming could happen as a result. Indeed, even GRWD, which at the moment seems nearly unassailable since so much future FoMoCo product depends upon it, could conceivably get cut in an effort to divert needed resources back to 'fixing' other product.

That said, I think such a scenario is pretty unlikely at this point. (and thankfully so) Ford's plan is pretty sound, with the combination of great cars and the very clever and timely Ecoboost engine lineup appearing likely to serve them very well in the near future.

Also, remember that right now the plan is to base the Mustang on the upcoming GRWD platform which is also intended to underpin the Taurus replacement, (which will likely be sold as the next Falcon and/or Fairlane in Australia depending upon what we finally end up with) and the upcoming Lincoln MKR. Other possible models include a 2-seat retractable hardtop Thunderbird, and the obvious SUV applications. So, the Control Blade IRS which will most likely underpin this platform will be used on many more models than just the Mustang.

Careful there with the suggestions, people have been sent to Guatanamo for less.........

I'm really looking forward to a Control-Blade equipped GRWD Mustang. Don't get me wrong, I think the upcoming S197 based refresh is going to surprise and please a lot of folks. But, I think the GRWD Mustang could be the Ferrari 355/Porsche 928S4 of the Mustang world......the moment when they finally really get it all right once again and build a Mustang that is both a ponycar benchmark and a world beater.

I should also mention that while IRS is a given for the next Mustang a Control Blade IRS is apparently not a certainty.......I think it was Old Wizard who said that with GRWD Dearborn is indeed setting their sights on building a world beater and that nothing is being ruled out. Still, Control Blade appears to be well on it's way to becoming a trademark Ford piece, much like the MacPherson strut IFS which was also conceived under their auspices. When you take into consideration just how clever the design is overall it is difficult to imagine the engineers going with anything else.

Boomer

I'm not familiar with the peticulars of the CB IRS, but I know it's been around for a while (and a while back rumoured to be in the 2005 mustang (or 2003.5 for those that can remember back that far)

Is it really that good of an IRS? and is it up to the task...
...or would ford build a newer IRS.

Again not knowing any specifics on it, wondering if someone else has done any reading/knowledge on the subject.

Knight

My take on 2013/14

Ford will invest heavily in a new fuel system called Mr. fusion. You can take any biodegradable product and waste and dump it into the tank. The system will be capable of generating 1.21 Gigawatts of power for Fords new sound system the Skaker 1,000,000. Only downside is the Mustang will only have a top speed of 88mph.

watchdevil

I heard it will run on human waste and be called the Mustang Trots ...

rhumb

The design is actually not too dissimilar to the IRS in my M3, which, IMHO, works fantastically, providing a firm but supple ride and razor sharp handling.

It is reasonably simple, doesn't take up much room and given its Aussie roots, can be made to be very rugged and durable for Outback beatings. Of importance to you quarte-horses out there, "this unit has excellent resistance to wheel hop. In fact Ford Australia already has tuning in place for high horsepower applications with the BOSS 290 Falcons which come with a snarling 5.4 liter DOHC power plant" (from Mustang News), so worries that all IRSs are delicate little flowers that hop like bunnies can be put to rest.

It apparently is also fairly lightweight overall but with far less unsprung weight (critical for excellent ride and handling) than a heavy live axle. It is also quite modular and self contained unit making for very easy vehicle assembly and repair.

Here is one discussion of an Aussie application of it:
http://www.fordforums.com/f126/barra-news-irs-16649/

And here is another technical description of the CB-IRS:
http://www.themustangnews.com/tech_06/st-0706_ozirs.htm

And yet one more:
http://www.trueblueford.com/BA_suspension.html

Hope this helps.

jsaylor

Rhumbs links above are just what the doctor ordered and do an excellent job of covering the basics and then some. I personally really appreciate the design because it is lightweight and extraordinarily space efficient without being expensive and without compromising ride or handling. Geometry is great and tuning is extremely easy with this design, largely because Ford separated the shock and the spring allowing them both to more directly perform the task intended for that specific component. (part of what makes this such a clever design is that separating the shock and spring is typically the polar opposite of what people trying to save space would do) Despite being made completely out of stamped steel (and despite being extra beefy for it's role in the Falcon) the design is light. Put simply Ford engineers did more with less here having designed a simplified version of a multi-link IRS which uses a minimal amount of components but which still does a great job at everything.

I could go on for a long time. This design encompasses many of the things we like about Mac Struts, multi-link IRS, and even a SRA.....and throws them all into one package. Ford has got to take this design and run with it.

As an aside. Can anybody guess the first vehicle the Control blade IRS was designed for and used in? It might surprise you.

max2000jp

I actually agree with you It would be neat if Ford put a SLA up front too, but I have a feeling that's going to be too costly.

Boomer

Which is great to hear.

My concern is also the high HP/TRQ.
If it can take it, then all for it

I'd love to know (as I don't ever remember hearing or seeing it posted) when the D2C was being created, it was designed for an IRS.

What was the IRS that it was being designed to use...was it indeed the CBS?!? that was hoofed at last second, and forced to the SRA.

max2000jp

I remember seeing spy pictures of GT500 mules with an IRS rear. Was anything released about that particular setup?

Moosetang

First car I heard using "Control Blade" was the Euro Focus, that it started life as a way to get the heavy Mondeo IRS into the lightweight Focus.

jsaylor

I've seen a lot of folks wish for the new Falcon's equally clever SLA IFS design to show up on GRWD during my internet rounds, but agree with you that cost considerations are likely to squelch that. Personally I'm hoping for a continuation of Mac Struts up front, primarily because I think it's the best setup Ford can actually afford to execute really well on a vehicle intended to cover so many models in such vastly different price brackets. And as we've seen with so many phenomenal BMW's, and even the S197 Mustang which has received more than a few compliments on it's steering feel and precision, a Mac Strut design can be made to work really well. I just hope that GRWD, if it indeed does employ a Mac Strut IFS, takes the suspension to a level truly on par with what BMW offers. Heck, maybe we'll get lucky and Ford will deliver that world class strut IFS on the revised S197 (obviously, I'm an optimist )

Good guess bro....the Mondeo Estate (wagon) was actually the first vehicle to use what we now call 'Control Blade' IRS....although I am uncertain whether it was actually called by that name prior to it's use on the Focus. (I included the question because I only recently learned of the Mondeo Estate origins myself and thought others might be as surprised as I was)

I've heard the Control Blade IRS receive very high praise from our muscle car brethren down under, some even ranting that it was nearly as durable and well suited for drag-strip duty as a SRA. Obviously I can't speak to that myself, but a lot of the basics do seem to be there, it is a very rugged/tough design and what I know of the geometry would seem to lend itself well to a drag-strip launch. Still, what little I know is a long way from really knowing what the score is here.

Speaking of Control Blade attributes. Given it's rugged and compact nature, if this design makes it's way into the Mustang, and if the surprisingly modular nature of the Falcon's Dana-built unit makes survives the transition intact, could this become a popular unit for custom IRS installs? Vehicles like street rods and kits cars would be obvious candidates for something so self contained.

I too would love to know what was actually under the S197's **** prior to the decision to scrub IRS. I would also love to know if the IRS considered for GT500 duty after the decision was made to go with the SRA in the base and GT models was the same basic unit previously considered for use across the entire Mustang lineup.