you will get about half of it before the Challenger has time to even get up to speed with new engines, new interior, updated interior next year. The engines will be 3.5l V6 and probably 5.0l V8 .. then other special edition engines like the TwinForce 3.5l V6, 6.2l V8, 5.4l V8 all automatics will be 6speed. Dual zone, GPS etc .. are all going ot be there.

The more advanced stuff - IRS, etc .. 2011 calendar year 2012 model Year when the all new huntsmen Mustang debuts. I am not sure about the shorter and wider piece .. we shall see ... I think the mustang is short enough ... it does not have much interior space .. I would rather have them focus on making the car with similar dimensions, but lighter.

anyways - with the approval of GRWDP in spring,Ford is truly going full speed ahead with Mustang .. times will get tougher with competition again ... but Mustang will do well..




hmmmmm

 

time to start saving them pennies for 2011...

 

Igor's not been the fountain of knowledge he used to be recently, this isn't a whole lot "new." Good to see further confirmation of the 5L and 6-speed, though.

The Huntsmen platform cometh...

 

Original post link

http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums...topic=17433&hl=

 

That thread is hilarious. It's started by some guy with a rally Focus as his avatar. He wants the next Mustang to be made into a eletronic gadget laden Focus-like "hot hatch".
basically chop off the trunk...

Other people want the Mustang to be made into a sedan, others want it made into a BMW Z3 wagon ("shooting brake") . Might as well go all the way and make it a cross over.

Somehow making the Mustang over in these ways gets rid of the "redneck stigma"

Heck do these people even know what a Mustang is?
Here's what a Mustang should be:

• 4 passenger
• 2 door Coupe/convertible -- NOT a 4 door sedan, SUV, crossover, station wagon, or "hot hatch"
• Rear Wheel Drive
• long hood/short deck
• approximately 9 ft (~108 inch) wheelbase
• 4-V6-V8 capable chassis

emphasis on these features in order of importance:

1. engine/drivetrain performance
2. Styling
3. handling
4. comfort/convenience

This is the basic formula; the rest of the details can be filled in to meet the needs of the times. Right now the S197 follows the basic formula and succeeds.

 

Agreed 100%

 

i wouldn't be apposed to the mustang to have a real fastback roof ala 1968 and have it a hatch back ala fox bodies.

 

 

+1

I would love to see a '68-style fastback (though not sure about it being a hatchback) in the Mustang's future. I really think the current body style would've looked great in that guise.

 

Being as the 67-68 fastback is my favorite Stang ! I often wondered how the current S-197 would look, if it were a true fastback ? However after much thought and debate. The lines just wouldn't look right (in other words) The roofline would look way too boxy and flat ( no gradual curve/slope) especially in the rear glass and trunk area. IMHO the car would look more like the 71-73 sportsroof/flatback, from the side and rear profiles..

 

I'd think that they could just keep the roof line as it was, and just reduce (eliminate?) the trunk area and continue the roofline slope further than it currently goes. That'd certainly reduce functionality, but I think it'd look pretty good.

 

But once you eliminate the trunk area ! you also eliminate the rear overhang as well..Then you end up with a car, that looks as though it's a$$ end was just chopped off..

 

I'm not much with Photoshop, but I'll try to put something together to illustrate what I mean.

 

Not great, but this should give an idea of what I'm picturing as a fastback S197:





Rough idea of hip implementation:




Here's the stock pic to compare:

 

m05fastbackgt hit in on the head.... looks like the car's missing something or it's been rear ended.

 

Never could quite understand the visceral aversion to any hatchback -- though I think a lot of it is that people reflexively think econocar for some reason -- as the styling can be made every bit a sleek and sporting as a fastback with a trunk but with the added bonus of greatly enhanced utility. And with proper engineering, it not need end up being significantly heavier, more expensive or weaker.

In my mind, a hatchback is like having your cake and eating it too, the best of many worlds. My Probe 'ol GT is as sleek and as sporty in styling as any car short of a Gallardo -- the Stang profile looks like a breadvan in comparison -- yet has a beautifully integrated hatchback design that is stiff, light and cheap. And the icing on the cake is that I can fit an incredible amount of stuff in there -- a weekends worth of triathlon gear - for two, bikes included, inside -- for example. I just don't see the downside if properly done.

In general though, I'd like to see the Mustang a touch smaller and lighter -- not much, maybe taken in 5-10% at the seams and lose 150-200 lbs. Both would improve overall performance and, ever more important these days, efficiency. The current Stang seems in an early-'70's -ish death spriral of ever bigger motors in ever bigger and heavier cars, and we all know how that turned out -- the Mustang II placeholder.

 

It is!

Personally, I think it looks way better, but to each his own. To me the trunk area aft of the rear window, as it exists now, detracts from the car overall. While my rendition isn't perfect by any stretch, I do think it'd be important to maintain the current roofline, or at most, just slightly alter it. Otherwise, I imagine it would indeed look too much like the '71-'73s, as m05fastbackGT noted.

Also, if they could make a hatch back that looked like a fast back, I wouldn't be opposed, I guess. Just never have been a fan of how a traditional (stereotypical?) hatchback looked.

 

The 350z is a hatchback, but to make up for the missing structure and the stiffness it would bring, it has a huge brace between the rear wheels. But the Corvette coupe is a hatchback as well and doesn't have one.

It's a compromise. What is more important to the buying public right now, more cargo room for bulky items in a sporty car or more structrural stiffness and along with that less squeaks, rattles and flexing?
Breadvan? As shown in the photo below, the Mustang's roofline is an arch that starts at top of the windshield and tapers and slopes all the way back to the trunk. The Probe's roofline is flat and horizontal from the top of the windshield all the way back to just above top of the rear seat back, and then it slopes down. The Probe with it's horizontal straight flat roof is closer to a breadvan than the Mustang.

We've got a truck hauling large bulky items like bikes, furniture, etc. The trunk on the Mustang is large enough to haul everyday items and enough luggage for a weekend trip for a family of four.
I agree with you there on the desire for the Mustang to get back to it's '65-66 or even fox era size. But all cars are getting bigger. Look how big the current Honda Civic is. The G37 is larger and heavier than the G35. The Mustang while it has grown a bit, is the same length & about the same width as the '69-70 Mustang.

The Mustang II was the right car for the times (the 70's) and it's sales record shows that. Ford had gotten really lucky in starting work on downsizing the Mustang in 1970 and debuting the Mustang II right when the Arab oil embargos and the gas crisis hit in 1974.

 

As long as it was not shaped like the current "hot hatches" like the Focus hatchback, the Golf GTi, or Peugeot 206 GTi and instead looked sleek like a Mustang should, I agree.

 

Your right, that formula is not "redneck"! It is a winning formula!! The same formula works for another manufacture that makes a car with horse in the grill