-radio controls on steering wheel
-stability control (after having it I'll never be without it again, period)
-auto climate control
-techie options from the factory, bluetooth, MP3 (just give it sync)
-moonroof
-keyless entry and start (Ford Power button like they have in Europe)
- sharkfin style antenna (window antenna doesn't work for verts, and this could cover the sat antenna as well)
-heated seats with multiple settings that stay on till I turn them off.
-6 speed Manual (auto too I guess, but I won't be getting an Auto so doesn't matter to me)
-Global open windows (Come on Ford, this isn't rocket science.)

 

How about a "Drivers" car!! I don't care about memory seats, steering wheel mounted radio buttons or auto climate control!

I want:

50/50 weight distribution
Big Brakes
6 speed manual
FR 500 seats
350+ HP
real gauges
IRS
HID headlights and foglights
Stability Control
Hardtop vert option
Make the car smaller and lighter (like it use to be, 3200# max), the rear seats are useless anyway...but keep small back seats for insurance purposes and cargo room.

 

I will probably get flamed for this. But I want to see an optional LSD on the V6 model. FRPP has one for less then $200. I would gladly pay that to have it on my vehicle, but installation after the fact is phenominal.
Ford could advertise it multiple ways and I believe they would see great results. they could pass it off as improvement for the snow belt, where even the V6 cars are often useless because of the open diff. I would love to have LSD to help in the snow. They could pass it off as a performance model for traction and cornering.

They could even make it part of packages: Winter Pkg: steel wheels, snow tires, heated seats, heated mirrors, LSD rear end, etc.

or

V6 Performance Package: 18" wheels and tires, GT susp., LSD rear end.

Or

ala carte

I think this could really boost sales in the north.

 

How about a cup holder that will not make it imposable to shift the manual transmission when you put a cup in it!

 

Truer words were never spoken.

These costs could always be passed onto the customer.

I also think that Ford needs to get smarter about which things to allow the bean counters to cut. There are somethings that can be cut, and easily remedied by the purchaser. For instance, if the bean counters didn't include floor mats with the car, any dummy can buy and install floor mats.
As an example of what to NOT let the bean counters cut, take a look at my (or any) 2007 Focus SE. It's a stick, but it doesn't have a tachometer. You had to buy the SES, or the $300 sport group package to get a tach. That is the totally retarded way to cut costs.

Things like that need to be thought out more at Ford.

 

I'll echo TacBear quite a bit, make the Stang more of a driver's car, at least in the higher level models (keep the V6 as the price beater secretary's style ride if need be). Ford could get away with keeping the Stang's actual on road capabilities rather narrowly confined to stoplights and dragstrips in lieu on no direct competition, but I fear those fat, easy livi'n days are over with the Challenger and Camaro soon to hit the streets.

To wit:

350+hp, at least -- the ante is soon to be raised, what was sufficient in half a decade ago ain't now.

6 speed -- see above and add stricter EPA and CAFE.

Decent brakes -- Don't have to be big-buck Brembos, just something more than the current econocar-class binders now on the GT.

IRS -- The real world does in fact have turns and bumps, and even turns with bumps, that driving enthusiasts might like to tackle with more than grandmotherly enthusiasm. Time to make the leap from the 19th century to the 21st.

Better seats -- now with great brakes and suspension, folks may actually want to hit the corners without hitting the door panels.

Better aerodynamics -- '60's era styling is accompanied by '60's era drag numbers, how about increased efficiency for 201#'s era EPA and CAFE with free speed as the sweetener for us enthusiasts. And no, it need not look like a bar of soap.

Better instruments -- Current instruments might look great, but you gotta look real hard to read them.

Upgraded interior materials -- Currently not up to bargain basement econocars either in terms of detailing, feel, form, texture and aesthetics -- see VW Rabbit/GTI for live example of how a contemporary affordable interior ought to be outfitted.

Some will day this will push the price into the stratosphere in a zero-sum sort of thinking. I think Ford needs not to simply do more with more, but rather, do better by doing more with less. Far better design, development and manufacturing processes need to be instituted to complement clearer, more forward looking and astute strategic thinking and planning.

 

What to say? I see a schism here between those who want more raw performance (handling and braking as well as acceleration) and those who want more comfort/convenience/luxury.

For forty-four years, the Mustang has been about affordable performance in a really good car.

The only solution is to return to the original '64-and-a-half Mustang success formula of a very basic, stripped car (on 4/17/64, a 170-CID six with a floor-shifting manual and a heater stickered at $2365). But the options list was the longest of any car at any price at any time in the history of the Earth.
Going back to this a la carte formula allows those who want nothing but performance to get all of it they want with no frills to encumber their Mustang, while those who want maximum comfort/convenience/luxury can get all of it they want and still have performance options available if they want those, too. This will push up the price of Mustangs, but offsetting that is the savings of not having to pay for shiite you don't want--which is too often how "packages" work.

Bean counters have put out a contract on me...

Greg "Eights" Ates

 

While my '05 Mustang GT will probably be my last for a while, as I have a baby on the way, these are the things that I would like to see the next Stang have. If it raises the cost on the vehicle, so be it, but these should either be standard and/or options:

1- IRS - SRA just doesn't cut it in everyday driving.
2- Stability Control.
3- Better interior materials and more supportive seats.
4- Fixed roof antenna - the 80's 4*4 antenna on the current car has got to go.
5- More competent brakes. Every Ford/Lincoln vehicle I see tested on Motorweek television gets called out for the sub-par brakes. I notice it everytime I stop.
6- Alleviate the squeaks and rattles. After 40K miles, they keep getting worse and worse.

All in all its been a great car for the money, and I still look forward to driving it everyday. But Ford can do better.

 

I just happened across some data that puts Automotive sales in general into perspective, but definitely addresses some problems I have with the current mustang.

The average income in the 1960's was $5,000.00/year. The average price of a mustang in 1966 was approx. $2,500.00 or half a years salary for the average person.

Unfortunately I was unable to locate USA national for 2000-present.

The average income in 1999 was $28,000.00/year. Averaging out the various models offered in 1999 the rough average price of a mustang was $23,700.00 or 85% of a years salary for the average person.

Assuming the typical 3% pay increase that has been the national average the last few years, the average salary for 2008 approximates $36,000.00. The average mustang is $26,000 (inc. v6/gt,coupe/vert)(coincidently this is the base price of the GT coupe). this is a slightly better 72% of annual income.

I don't know about anyone else, but if an average (not base) mustang cost only half the annual salary then I'd be all over this next one. Imagine the base mustang GT priced at $18,000.00.

This of course will never happen and is a futile discussion, but if ford wanted to start selling 300,000-500,000 mustangs again, this is what it would take. (Not that they want to). I just found it interesting how disproportional the increase in all automobile's prices are when compared to average salary.

If the government wasn't forcing them to put all the perifrial equipment on these vehicles they might actually be affordable.

**all prices referred to are sticker prices not negotiated or discounted with xplan or aplan**

 

main difference is that in 1960 most families were on 1 income where as today most are 2 imcome so 28k x 2 is 56k.

 

That statement is retarded. End of story.

 

I see your point, but disagree with the logic. One large factor in the switch from single income to 2 income families was to keep up with the increasing costs, not the other way around. But I wasn't looking at average household income. It is just fact that inflation is outpacing wage increase.

If this continues we will all have to be polygimists in the next 20 years so we can buy a mustang as a 3 income family

 

Oh, thanks for the intelligent post! it contributes so much to this forum.

by the way..."retarded" is a mean word.

 

I just have one complaint about our stangs and that’s the displacement,
It just doesn’t have enough cubes . 281 is just pathetic and doesn’t yield enough power NA.
The most I’ve seen is 370rwhp and that’s on a built engine , while these chevy guys slap in a cam and intake mani and are well over 400rwhp NA
So my wish list would start Like this

1. More displacement 5.4 -6.2 Aluminum block of course. Don’t care if if comes with 325Hp form the factory
2. 6-speed M /A optional
3. Electronic steering –
4. weight in 3300 to 3400 and not a pound more
5. A thicker Steering wheel, the one on there right now is too thin.—but I could live without
6. Seats could be better. ---but I could also live without

I don’t really care for the IRS it just adds weight, if it doesn’t handle well then just buy the FFRP handling pack or BMR stuff. If it doesn’t stop well, buy some hawk pads. Every other little thing the car needs or lacks one can fix for themselves with after maker support .
This car should be bang for the buck with some major potential for the real car guys, not some overweight plush pig catering to people who think that it’s just cool to drive a stang.

 

I'd love that!

 

While a bigger engine is one route to more power, and for better or worse, the typical one of late, modest displacement engines can be made to make a lot of power yet retain the lighter weight and greater economy generally conferred by a smaller motor. Audi, BMW and other are well over 400hp with smaller motors (4.2, 4.0), so getting similar power out of a bigger 4.6 ought not to be too difficult. And I think the simple expedient option of just stuffing ever bigger motors into ever fatter cars will cease to be a viable one in the face of far more stringent CAFE and EPA standards, never mind gas that'll likely stay well above $3 a jug. It does sound like Ford is working on a GDI system for perhaps the rumored 5.0, so perhaps we'll all get a little of both (bigger and better motor), if only by 2010 or 2011.

As for IRS, it adds much more than just a little weight or simply a plush ride. I might turn that logic on its side and just say that bigger motors just add weight, if it doesn't go well, then just buy the FFRP power pack or Roush stuff...every little hp the car needs or lacks one can fix for themselves with aftermarket support.

I don't think anybody arguing for an IRS is at all interested in turning the Stang into some plush pig. Quite to the contrary, they are hoping for a far more capable driver's car that can compete with its contemporaries everywhere, not just a quick stoplight spurt on a smooth, straight road. And a far more broadly capable suspension and brakes will better, more safely, and more enjoyably allow the Stang to most effectively utilize whatever speed the drivetrain can generate.

The Mustang should remain a great bang for the buck car, but perhaps the "bang" aspect ought to be measured less narrowly as just stop lilght acceleration and the "buck" part should perhaps reflect overall value rather than just a miserly sticker price number. And in this coming era of 35mpg CAFE, more stringent EPA and expensive gas, perhaps a car's "bang" ought to be considered more broadly beyond simple acceleration to include all the other aspects of driving performance and enjoyment such as handling, steering response, braking, etc. As the saying goes, it isn't only how fast a car goes, but how a car goes fast that really matters.

 

Much of what I would really like to see on the Mustang isn't plausible, at least by this point, before the new GRWD chassis debuts...an eventuality I would like to see sooner rather than later. That said, my S197 wish list, containing only items which I believe to be practical for the next gen of S197, even if not by the 2010 debut, follows.

1. Much improved seats for all models. It isn't that much more difficult or expensive to design and manufacture a great set of seats, and yet we so seldom get the same. The V6 and GT should offer a single, basic set of very supportive, very comfortable seats. Volvo's basic seat design with the addition of more aggressive seat bolsters would be a great place to start. If there must be differentiation in V6 and GT seating then this could easily be accomplished through the use of different patterns and materials since I see no need to punish V6 owners here simply for the sake of differentiation. High feature and special edition Mustangs like the GT500 carry enough of a markup to warrant an even better, more exclusive set of seats if they are needed. I would gladly sacrifice memory seats, or even power seats as standard for that matter, if we could get the above in trade.

2. A 3.5L Duratec V6 as the base model. This would represent a huge improvement as is, although an exhaust note which is reminiscent of an old V6 Alfa would be welcome. A bit of a hp bump wouldn't be bad either for that matter, although even 265hp would be nice so long as it comes with a significant bump in fuel economy.

3. A 5.0L, DOHC, DI, V8 which shows up sooner rather than later, meaning no later than the 2011 model year. HP should be 400 or better with torque coming in at no less than 360lb-ft peak.....the torque curve should be decently flat as well. Something close to 415hp or so with a 375lb-ft tq peak around 4,000rpm would be ideal.

3. A Twinforce/Ecoboost V6 to fill the rather sizable gap between a 400+hp V8 and a ~270hp V6. The rumored 340hp and 360lb-ft tq for this engine makes for a great entry level performance Mustang which supplements rather than replaces the V8 model. Not as fast, but still plenty quick, fuel efficient, and easily modded such a car might also help to sway more of the younger crowd toward the Mustang.

4. At least mild weight loss. The 3.5L V6 would go some way toward achieving this end on it's own in V6 equipped model. But, it would be nice to see a 5.0L powered GT at least return to 2005 level weight ratings. Even minor weight loss is weight loss.

5. Improved brakes for the GT and base model.

6. The addition of a six speed manual across the board as the standard transmission with an available six speed auto as an option. IMO we aren't to the point where the car needs to have a DSG just yet, so I've skipped it.

7. A telescoping steering column.

 

AMEN!!!! on #7

 

+1 but i dont really care for a 6 speed or HIDS or stability control or IRS

 

I like the M6 for the reduction in engine speed on the highway while still providing nice steep gears at the bottom. However I wonder what the trade off in effciency is? And thats another reason I like the stick alxe out back (if only they'd dump that power robbing 2-piece driveshaft) IMO you could balance the addition of the M6 with a 1-piece driveshaft and a 2 something or low 3 something rear gear which would probably give you a net increase in overall drivetrain effciency which in turn would help to improve fuel mileage numbers, not to mention the added benefit from an overall reduction in engine speed at cruise.