From Igor @ BON
Cobra Member
Joined: July 11, 2007
Posts: 1,499
Likes: 0
I think your rendition looks pretty good and would be proud to own it, though it still has "too much junk in the trunk" in my opinion. I rather like the look of an abbreviated rear end, but it looks like I'm the only one that thinks so.
Meh, as long as it was a fastback, I think I'd be happy.
Legacy TMS Member
Joined: May 16, 2004
Posts: 5,206
Likes: 18
From: Bristol, TN
Needs a ducktail ala' the 69-70 cars and/or the green house needs to sit a little lower with a flatter angle (rahter than the bubble top) from the windshield to the rear of the car.
Cobra Member
Joined: September 10, 2004
Posts: 1,302
Likes: 0
From: Charlotte NC
Overall exterior styling isn't the S197's weak point. Add rear "hips", ditch the fugly antenna, replace the current side view mirrors with Shelby style "bullet" mirrors and make the front more agressive and you've got the perfect exterior design.
Where Ford needs to spend their coin is to update the hardware - engine, transmission, rearend and suspension. Ford needs to quit messing around and get the H/Boss engine in the Mustang by '09 or '10 at the latest - make it an all alloy engine with solid performance pieces (and build an honest Boss 302 SE, no tape and stripe only packages!!). Step up and offer a 6 spd trans in the SE models, make the GT500 brakes optional on other models and offer a true IRS option. Lastly, update the interior with better quality materials and more readable gauges.
Where Ford needs to spend their coin is to update the hardware - engine, transmission, rearend and suspension. Ford needs to quit messing around and get the H/Boss engine in the Mustang by '09 or '10 at the latest - make it an all alloy engine with solid performance pieces (and build an honest Boss 302 SE, no tape and stripe only packages!!). Step up and offer a 6 spd trans in the SE models, make the GT500 brakes optional on other models and offer a true IRS option. Lastly, update the interior with better quality materials and more readable gauges.
Cobra Member
Joined: October 12, 2004
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 7
From: Milwaukee, WI
Just for the record I would love a Mustang hatchback. ThunderRoad got it closer to what a hatchback/fastback Mustang should look like, in my opinion.
But you are right... no little 2 door station wagon body style for the Mustang.
But you are right... no little 2 door station wagon body style for the Mustang.
Cobra Member
Joined: May 16, 2006
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 0
From: NV
The Mustang is not an econobox hatchback like the Focus, Golf, etc. with a tuned suspension, and it shouldnt become one. It's a pony car, a whole different type of car.
Cobra Member
Joined: May 16, 2006
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 0
From: NV
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.
http://www.caradvice.com.au/wp-conte....thumbnail.jpg
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.
http://img105.mytextgraphics.com/pho...-489okfa70.jpg
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.
http://www.caradvice.com.au/wp-conte....thumbnail.jpg
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.http://img105.mytextgraphics.com/pho...-489okfa70.jpg
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 for the 350Z and Vette comparison, I think that does show that a properly designed hatchback can be sleek, light and stiff, and yet have the added benefits of practicality and room WITHOUT necessarily compromising its performance. Squeaks, rattles and flexing are a symptom of poor design and QC and in no way peculiar to hatchbacks.
My breadvan comparison was more a bit of hyperbole, but the Probe and many other hatchbacks (Aston Martin V8) do show that they can be as sleek as any fastback design. And the practicality is an added bonus and certainly far less of a financial compromise than having to buy, maintain, insure, park, etc... a second vehicle to make up for the lack of practicality of a first. Indeed, I think the added practicality would expand the Mustang's market without compromising performance for its core enthusiast market -- a win-win situation in my estimation.
I would concur on the size bloat issue, and that is certianly not unique to the Mustang. Bigger is simply bigger and not necessarily better -- quite often, it is to the detriment of a car, especially a performance car. Smaller size can mean less weight, less overall drag, easier driving (city and back roads) with resulting better performance, handling, braking and economy. But the easier design, engineering and marketing tack seems to be simply to stuff more into a car rather than a more rigorous approach of what you have better.
SUPERCHARGED RED ROCKET ------------------Master-Moderator
Joined: May 11, 2006
Posts: 10,648
Likes: 2,516
From: Carnegie, PA
Bob's quote nailed it right on the money, and he's right. The A-pillars need moved slightly forward, along with the the greenhouse needing to sit a bit lower with a flatter angle (rather than the bubble top) starting from the windshield, all the way back to the B-pillars..Then tapers into a slope from the B-pillars, all the way back to the rear of the car. Otherwise a full fastback will not look right on the current S-197..As a matter of fact, if you take a look at either the 67-68 fastback or even a 69-70 ! you'll notice how the greenhouse has a much flatter angle, and then directly tapers/slopes all the way back to the rear..
SUPERCHARGED RED ROCKET ------------------Master-Moderator
Joined: May 11, 2006
Posts: 10,648
Likes: 2,516
From: Carnegie, PA
No offense towards Probe owners, but ! I hardly consider the Probe as having a sleek design, let alone even being close to resembling a fastback. I also fully agree with Vermillion06's quote about, 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. IMHO the Probe reminds me more of a Focus ZX-2, with an Escort type greenhouse than anything else.. Just my $.02
Just my $.02
Cobra Member
Joined: August 19, 2004
Posts: 1,288
Likes: 0
I don't know how many in this discussion have owned a fox body Mustang.... but, as cool as they were in their own right, I'm glad that the Mustang moved away from the hatch back. I remember every time there was a cross wind, there was daylight around the windward side of the hatch. The wind would lift it up enough to see outside. I remember the friggin' thing rattled all the time, and sounded hidious on bumpy roads. I remember the hatch was heavy as crap too. So.. unless a design similar to the F-bodies or the Corvette is implimented where the hatch is all glass, then it's not going to save any weight... and there is still the issue of structural rigidity. I say no way to the hatch. .... yes way to the fast back design of '67-68. Either that or '69-70.. whichever they can make look cooler.
Cobra R Member
Joined: September 26, 2007
Posts: 1,931
Likes: 0
From: Massachusetts
I personaly feel that the overall look of the current mustang is great i'd just like to see it wider and lower to the ground. I never realized how tall and upright the current mustangs were until my friend parked his GT next to my Cobra and my other friend's vette it just didnt look like a sports car next to them. Oh and a 6 speed should be standard in all V8 mustangs.... i mean c'mon Vettes and camaros have had them since like 92' or 93'.
SUPERCHARGED RED ROCKET ------------------Master-Moderator
Joined: May 11, 2006
Posts: 10,648
Likes: 2,516
From: Carnegie, PA
No offense, but wider ! if anything..the current S-197 is already too porky, and IMHO.. the Mustang needs put on a diet, by at least 500-700 LBS.
Team Mustang Source
Joined: January 29, 2004
Posts: 2,358
Likes: 1
Whatever you may think of the Mustang's dimensions to expect a 500 to 700lb drop is completely unrealistic. Assuming the typical S197 GT weighs in at 3500lb, and that isn't too far off, you are effectively saying that the next V8 Mustang should be a 2800 to 3000lb car maximum with the V6 likely weighing in at something closer to 2600 to 2800lb. That would make this the lightest Mustang ever by a fair margin and would do so in the modern world of side impact testing and multiple airbags no less. The only way the above could ever occur in this day and age with a V8 powered Mustang is if the thing was the size of a Fiesta.
SUPERCHARGED RED ROCKET ------------------Master-Moderator
Joined: May 11, 2006
Posts: 10,648
Likes: 2,516
From: Carnegie, PA
Whatever you may think of the Mustang's dimensions to expect a 500 to 700lb drop is completely unrealistic. Assuming the typical S197 GT weighs in at 3500lb, and that isn't too far off, you are effectively saying that the next V8 Mustang should be a 2800 to 3000lb car maximum with the V6 likely weighing in at something closer to 2600 to 2800lb. That would make this the lightest Mustang ever by a fair margin and would do so in the modern world of side impact testing and multiple airbags no less. The only way the above could ever occur in this day and age with a V8 powered Mustang is if the thing was the size of a Fiesta.
Anyway a 200-300lb. reduction, should hopefully seem more reasonable. As this would bring the total weight down towards the 3234-3334lb. mark.
IMHO.. a 4-8 inch reduction in overall width, could accomplish this without sacrificing crash safety requirements..