[QUOTE=Swoope;6092881]not correct,

the springs rates are upgraded on the brembo package..

http://www.allfordmustangs.com/forum...001-post1.html

really you slap a set of good shocks on that pack and you could be done.

I stand corrected on the Brembo Package springs issue.
Good info Swoope - thanks, You'd think the Ford marketing department would clearly indicate that in their sales propaganda.

 

There is a lot that Ford omits in their marketing propaganda. Remember, the average person reading this stuff doesn't know what a spring rate is, let alone why a different one is important. Those of us that care enough to find out do so here.

 

I assume that you haven't been in a lot of accidents.
The "driver error" is usually somebody that you have never met before, not yourself.
I have been almost killed by other people.
Modern cars are the reason I am here today.
Don't discount the importance of modern safety upgrades (except TPMS).

 

+1. my previous car was hit 5 different times and none of them were my fault. The last time it got hit was 10 days ago. I am just glad that I didn't have the Stang yet!

 

oNE THING TO REMEMBER IS THOSE OLDER MUSTANGS USED THE TOP OF THE GAS TANK AS THE TRUNK FLOOR AND MORE THAN ONE CAUGHT FIRE KILLING ITS OCCUPANTS.

 

Not saying to build 'em like they did 45+ years ago, just build 'em more nimble and smaller using safer designs and more advanced materials / manufacturing techniques than existed in the 60's.

 

Yep, that's why I like TMS and look here often for valuable information, ideas and suggestions.

 

Over the weekend we had back to the 50s. Car show and more then 11000 classics were cursing the twin cities all weekend, didn't hear of one person bursting into flames, I know new cars are safer but to assume that all old car are death traps because of there age is dumb, if they are really that unsafe then we should just scrap every classic and turn them into Honda civics, motorcycles too, it's not like people like seeing them o the road anyway

 

Were you dropped on your head as a child? You aren't really making any sense with your posts...

 

Slowly cruising down the street with other classics and hot rods is not the same as daily driving. Highways and busy daily commutes are something most old classic cars rarely face.

 

Cruising slowly isn't really part of back to the 50s, You all make it sound like your going to die everytime you take a classic out for a spin, it doesn't work that way, I drive a classic truck on a almost daily basis and I'm still here, been doing it for years.

 

Is this why all the old custom hot rods had flame paint jobs on them; as a warning because they could catch on fire at any given moment?

 

I'm looking forward to a smaller Stang. My 09 and my 99 (second from the right) together show that size difference you're talking about as well. I love my 09 but when I'm sitting in it, I don't feel as connected to the car as my 99. There is so much extra space around me in the 09.

 

good picture - that shows the size difference well. I prefer the 'look' of the S197, but the size and balance of the New Edge Mustangs would be perfect. I hope someone from Ford is listening and that we see the next-gen Mustang go on a size reduction program with a little weight loss to boot.

 

With an extra task of being a chick magnet.

 

The last Thunderbird was actually a 2-seater. That was on the criticisms made about it - heavy for a car with just 2 seats.

 

There's always nostalgia and a soft spot in our hearts for the old cars. The new Mustang does seem bigger -- but in fact it really isn't. Check out the facts from this Motor Trend article comparing the current Mustang, Camaro, and Challenger to their '60s counterparts. The article is actually comparing Shelby Mustangs, but you can still a lot from it. You'll see the current Mustang is taller by 4 inches and wider by 2 inches, but actually shorter. And the weight is the same. So in reality, the height makes the new one look a lot bigger, but they're really about the same size and weight.

http://www.motortrend.com/features/p...ars/index.html

As far as being nimble, c'mon! Compared to cars of today, the only thing the old one did fairly well was accelerate. The braking and handling were worlds apart from today's Mustangs.

 

The 69 Shelby had an extended snout at almost 191", the 69 Mustang was clearly shorter at 187" and shorter than the 2011 by an inch. On the weight issue, don't forget the 69 had a HEAVY cast iron FE 428, the 2011 has an all aluminum 5.4L engine but both cars weigh essentially the same.

I didn't say the old one were nimble, nor did I say they were built better, just make the new, vastly improved Mustangs smaller in size (like the old ones)

 

I would like to see a slightly smaller version of the stang for the next generation; but only if they can work some design magic and make it smaller on the outside but just as roomy on the inside, one of the things I like about the current design is that it fits my 6'2" / 210 lb. frame quite nicely