This proves a good point..there is a lot of hyperbole in the Mustang weight debate. Case in point? The 71-73 Mustang weighed no more than the 69-70 did despite 'accepted' logic. Ford's published base weights tended to be a bit lower for 69-70 models than for the 71-73. But in real world, on road trim curb weight was so close between the two as to be nearly indistinguishable. And truth be told the 71-73 wasn't really any bigger than the 69-70 models were either, although it did look that way due largely to the 'flatback' styling and long hood. For figures in 1971 the Mustangs wheelbase grew by an inch and overall length grew by two inches....width was up a bit as well, but height was down. Put bluntly it would take a pretty creative argument to argue that 1 inch of wheelbase and 2 inches of overall length makes a car appreciably larger.

The new model is surrounded by no less drama. Under 3500lb in V8 GT trim the current pony is a veritable lightweight compared to the competition. A V6 350Z barely weighs less and nothing with a rear seat, rwd, and six cylinders or more under the hood weighs less than the Mustang does.

 

yeah dudes. just cuz it looks bigger, doesn't mean it's heavier.

 

yeah if you made the 05+ identical engineered and made it smaller by a little bit in every dimension it wouls still weigh the same!

 

Well, who goes easy in a Mustang? Nobody that I know of. If I can get those ratings without going easy on it all the time, then I'll celebrate.

 

it could. it's not physically impossible.

 

Where's the fun in that?


I read in Automobile Magazine this month that Ford is looking into using organic materials in production. The two examples they listed would be using organic fibers in resins to increase strength and reduce weight. They also said that they were partially using soy in the foam of the 2008 mustang's seats and the organic materials could reduce the weight by as much as 30% in the parts they were used in

 

On my drive home yesteday I ended up behind a 1966 Mustang vert. (fully restored). I was shocked at how small the old Stang looked, I'd forgotten how small they are compared to today's vehicles including the S-197.

I also got a rude awakening of how horrible the exhuast fumes from those old un-emission controlled engines smell too.

 

The 71-73 is also 3" wider than the 69-70 which contributes to the massive look of the 71-73 Stangs.

 

S197 is about the same length as a '69-'70 and almost the same width as a '71.

'71-73 is still the overall largest Mustang , though.

 

Even thought the box dimensions are close the 05 it self is just really bulky.

I bet the hood and trunk heights are much higher .

 

i think there going to lower the roof and make the front end more "compact" ...

 

Greenhouse will not change apparently, every other panel will

 

My guess is that the '09 revision will be similar in scale to the '99 revision -- the basic understructure and architecture will remain pretty much the same, with the revisions basically involving non-loadbearing panels (hood, trunk, fenders, lights, door skins, bumper caps) with some incremental tweaking of mechanical systems (perhaps bigger brakes, some modest hp increases, suspension tuning tweaks, etc.).

Interior will probably get a minor/moderate refresh too, mostly to get somewhat better materials and just spiff things up, probably some added electronic gee-gaws too.

Less likely but not implausible changes might adding a six speed cog swapper to the GT, add a 5.4 motor to the GT/SEs in addition to the 3.7 in the base version, and perhaps finally release the IRS to compete with the Camaro/Challenger in ride/handling prowess.

I suspect that Ford's stategy, vis-a-vis the Camaro and Challenger, won't be to compete with them head-to-head on outright performance, engineering and capability but rather, to somewhat undercut them in price and offer "good enough" performance for less. Whether they succeed in this is another matter.

I think Chevy, learning from past F-car experience, will compete more vigorously on price in addition to offering better performance, and this time with very good quality. They may be able to pull this off as, given the Camaro's shared Zeta chassis and other bits, they'll be much better positioned to use economies of scale than Ford with the one-car, bespoke Mustang chassis. So even if the Stang out-cheaps the Camaro by one or two big, Chevy might make a compelling argument that it represents a better value if not lower sticker.

The Challenger will likely be somewhat more expensive, but it sounds like this will be a much lower production piece and trade more on cache than just churning out cheap, hot rides for the great unwashed masses. But again, given its shared chassis and the price benefits that can accrue from that, I don't think its price will be statospheric either, perhaps just 2-3 grand over comparable Stangs or Camaros.

I suspect the cheaper strategy will work better for the base versions, whose buyers are looking for cheap style anyways and don't care that much about engineering or performance substance. It'll probably work less well for the more discerning GT and Z-28 (and RT/SRT-8) buyers who DO care about what's under the hood and how well the cars work and perform.

Anyways, the next two years or so should be very interesting for Pony Car fans.

But that's just my two cents ... well, maybe three or four bucks... :-)

 

I agree, especially in light of the info. that an all new Mustang based on a new RWD platform with IRS is due for around 2012.

 

I gotta wait that long for a non-Cobra, factory IRS-equipped 'Stang?

 

Think on the bright side: you have time to save up, and it should be pretty **** hot when it does get here.

 

Which makes me think the 2010 will have a Solid Rear End still

I can't see ford spending the money on this platform knowing that a new one is coming betwen 2012 and 2015
(I can't see the 2010 only lasting 3 model years, especially if its really sucessful)
The platform may be ready, but I think they'll push the 'all new' till 2014 the earliest, or 2015

UNLESS... the 2010 will be JUST reskin and nothing else..which I don't think it will be...

 

Volume= L*W*H

ie. 1971-3 =703,538.82 cubic inches
2005-8 =755,568.38 cubic inches
(granted this is cubical volume, however the current mustang fills the cube moreso then the 72, so the data is only only skewed in favor of the 72)

The four inches in height really screw the current stang. The current mustang is the largest, hands down. Volume aside, My reason for saying this is that my '72 Mach looks tiny compared to my brothers 05 V6. The current mustang is way taller, has much less ground clearance, the trunk deck is about 2" taller (even with the mach's rear end jacked up). All of this and what surprises me most is that the interior of the Mach still seams bigger, allbeit much less refined.

Anyway, the new stang needs to Re-proportion itself. Unfortunately that is the trend with vehicles. All of them are getting taller and taller, with higher and higher belt-lines.

 

Given Ford's rather cribbed view on product content and engineering (as opposed to their expansive view on flashy marketing and gimmickering), you're quite likely to be right -- the Connestoga axle remains for a few more years yet. But two rays of hope for getting a fully competitive chassis sooner rather than later:

The hot breath of competition: Chevy and Dodge seem fully capable of introducing state of the art IRS systems on their upcoming pony cars rather than pathetic excuses (like $5 grand extra for a suspension found on entry level Civics and Subarus...). Ford could get away with it as long as there were no truly direct competitors, but those big fish in a little pond days are drying up and Ford will have to step forward with pure product excellence and content now.

Engineering is pretty much done anyways: From what I've read, the engineering on the IRS is pretty much done, first intended for the GT and then the Cobra/GT500, but Ford's short sighted bean counters ruled the day and the "good enough" SRA stayed in place instead. Presumably/hopefully the component suppliers they likely jerked around didn't bury the machining and whatnot for the IRS in a landfill somewhere and are willing to gear up production at this belated stage. There has also been talk of an Aussie subsidiary/supplier (name escapes me) gearing up for productions of the Control Blade IRS, which I presume the Stang's IRS to basically be, here in the U.S. of A. The hi-po Stang desiring hi-po handling would be a natural candidate for this hi-po suspension.

But of course all this presumes enlightened foresight and wise strategic thinking of Ford's part, which has been in scant evidence of late. The more likely course would be the typical short sighted penny pinching that has gotten them to their current inenviable state.

 

This is the part that worries me. I am not as yet convinced that the competition has their act together. They've proven that they can throw together a good looking concept, but neither has proven that they can compete effectively and profitably with the Mustang when those ideas become production reality.

To be fair to the folks at Chrysler they decided to go a more expensive route with the Charger some time ago. But Chevy, who does appear to want a direct Mustang competitor, is by all appearances having serious issues with the numbers with that company having even considered engineering a live axle for the rear of the Camaro's version of the new rwd platform.

The unfortunate part of this would be that Ford needs the competition here. If they can rest on their laurels they will. And I am still unsure that anything Chrysler or GM can conjure will make enough of a ruckus to cause a serious stir.