Most of the things I want to see have already been covered. In case Ford is reading our dreams, I'm posting this:

Styling / Body:
- Hips !
- More 1969 styling elements
- More agressive front facia
- Hidden radio antenna
- Ducktail spoiler built into the design (think 1969)
- HID headlighs
- LED tail lights
- Painted Side mirrors
- Gas struts on hood

Drive Train:
-V6 = Duratec 35 minumum 260 HP / 260 lb ft.
-LX = Updated 4.6L, 3V, 310 HP / 330 lb ft.
-GT = 302 CID / 5.0L, 3V, 350 HP / 360 lb ft. CGI block (compacted graphite iron). CGI would allow a 93.5 mm bore with 90 mm stroke = 302 CID, , variable displacement.
- Boss = 302 CID CGI block with 4V heads with dual VVT. 375 HP / 375 lb ft.
- Mach 1 = 5.8L, updated 5.4L with CGI block, 93.5mm bore., 400 HP / 420 lb ft. variable displacement.
- GT350 = 5.0, 4V, S/C, CGI block, 450+ HP
- GT500KR = 5.8L, 4V, S/C CGI block, 550+ HP
....note if the rumored 6.2 is for real, it would replace the 5.8.
- 6 speed auto with driver gear selection (SST)
- 6 spd manual optional with wider 1 - 6 ratio spacing

Chassis / Suspension
- Even stiffer unibody
- F/R weight distribution closer to 50/50
- 3200 lb max curb weight LX
- 3300 lb max curb weight GT
- 3700 lb max curb weight GT-500KR
- IRS standard GT & higher
- Live axle standard on LX, optional GT & higher
- Better Brakes
- Advance Track optional

Interior
- Complete interior design update
- New instrument cluster - loose the super retro appearance
- Heated front seats and side mirrors
- All unlock/alarm controls in key
- Better interior plastics
- Better quality leather
- Navigation System option
- Lighted vanity mirrors
- Working global window open from keyfob
- Telescoping Steering Wheel
- Dual zone climate control optional
- 8X power driver and passenger seats with memory0
- More attractive parking brake lever
- Audio controls on steering wheel
- more side support on front seats

 

mustang upgrades from the perspective of an army private:

- no IRS; i can't afford something like that and most other kids probably can't either. i like to drag and if i can show up a rice burner due to a superior suspension set up, awesome.

- larger engine options; make an engine option that will outweigh the "benefits" of turbo fours and sixes in compacts. give me enough power so that the bragging rights overwhelm my sense of guilt for having to burn up twice as much gas.

- wilder/ more colors and color combinations; an orange mustang with a black hood would be sweet. a dark green would be nice too. heck, as long as they still have black or red, i'll at least have one option.

- the headlight package from the gt-r; i thought it looked sweet.

- gps ; i thought they made map pockets for holding maps. i guess make it an option, but i don't need the weight or the bling. i personally don't want to look like a m3 driving yuppie.

- bare bones performance model; make a competition package. a real competition package. strip it down, tighten up the suspension, throw in supportive cloth seats, rip out the radio, and make a/c an option. tear out the sound deadening and the rear bench. sell it for a little more than the gt, or less , and put in the 5.4L. throw in the lowered supsension with lighter wheels and sticky tires. mitsubishi did it with the evo, why not the mustang?


what i have observed from others posting:

the idea of having IRS as a must seems superfluous to me. mustang won the grand am cup with the solid rear axle set up. m3's probably had top of the line IRS's in their vehicles. sure the ride is smoother, but come on, a car doesn't feel young and wild if you make it like driving a euro.

a live rear axle is a mustang signature. why get rid of it. porshe builds the 911 with a rear placed engine even though it isn't the best option for performance. they do it b/c that is the essence of that car. a live rear is mustang and american.

i personally like the retro look and i hope they continue with it. people pay big money for the 67-69 mustangs for a reason, they looked the best. you don't see 70+ mustangs calling for $100,000.00+ bids on barrett-jackson.

 

DOD, is hard to implement on an OHC engine, the OHV engines restrict or eliminate oil to the lifter allowing the lifters to collapse, effectively sealing off the cylinder in the process. To do this on an OHC engine would require some serious valve gear (like BMW's VANOS system) or would have to use some sort of valve in the exhaust and intake ports to achieve the same thing while still allowing the cam to actuate valves. Either way very complex and expensive (as an example to offset the weight of the VANOS system BMW basically designed a composite block uitlizing magnesium and aluminum - not an alloy mind you, but a magnesium web in an aluminum block).

Proponents of OHC engines can derided OHV valve engines all they want, but the design is highly adpatable and competitive. The only area an OHV engine falls short on is aggressive cam motion and in the realm of street engines this is negligable.

 

Items that are needed immediately
more interior sound proffing at rear wheels and tranny tunnel
auto headlights
plenum beauty cover for engine
memory seat backs
foot well courtesy lights
longer floor mats
rear floor mats
nav system option
inside trunk release
heat that comes out at full floor position rather than blended as it is now 50 % to windshield
fusion style remote key
clear front signal lens with amber bulbs
sequential rear turn signals
longer arm rest pad on center console
arm rests on doors and center console slighty higher say .5 inch
door pockets large enough to store something
illuminate red reflector on interior door panels
interior overhead console
heated outside mirror option available with heated seats,cloth or leather. Winter driving package.
additional interior rear seat lights, can be installed in same shape and design location as current panel where upper front seat belt anchors are installed.
front seat belts that have retractors built into upper seat backsbacks

 

Better interior quality!
6 spd. (like almost all the competition)
IRS (like ALL modern, non-racetrack-only cars that need to absorb bumps mid-corner)
weight under 3400# (or at least as close as possible)
Lower ride height to end the truck look!
Optional FORGED 19" rims
Optional navigation
Optional glassback roof!
Interior trunk release button (I mean, really, why is it there in the first place?)

But, really, I would settle for the optional Glassback roof and better interior quality.

 

If you can fit them then they should go all around to even out the handling of the car, you know make it push less.

Quote:

Originally posted by V10@January 24, 2006, 7:27 PM

Drive Train:
-V6 = Duratec 35 minumum 260 HP / 260 lb ft.
-LX = Updated 4.6L, 3V, 310 HP / 330 lb ft.
-GT = 302 CID / 5.0L, 3V, 350 HP / 360 lb ft. CGI block (compacted graphite iron). CGI would allow a 93.5 mm bore with 90 mm stroke = 302 CID, , variable displacement.
- Boss = 302 CID CGI block with 4V heads with dual VVT. 375 HP / 375 lb ft.
- Mach 1 = 5.8L, updated 5.4L with CGI block, 93.5mm bore., 400 HP / 420 lb ft. variable displacement.
- GT350 = 5.0, 4V, S/C, CGI block, 450+ HP
- GT500KR = 5.8L, 4V, S/C CGI block, 550+ HP
....note if the rumored 6.2 is for real, it would replace the 5.8.
- 6 speed auto with driver gear selection (SST)
- 6 spd manual optional with wider 1 - 6 ratio spacing

Quoted post

Hopefully a redesigned CGI block to keep the weight in the same realm as the current Aluminum blocks.

Quote:

Originally posted by Decisive@January 24, 2006, 8:14 PM
mustang upgrades from the perspective of an army private:

- bare bones performance model; make a competition package. a real competition package. strip it down, tighten up the suspension, throw in supportive cloth seats, rip out the radio, and make a/c an option. tear out the sound deadening and the rear bench. sell it for a little more than the gt, or less , and put in the 5.4L. throw in the lowered supsension with lighter wheels and sticky tires. mitsubishi did it with the evo, why not the mustang?

Quoted post

This would be my buy only I would like the 6.2L

Quote:

Originally posted by Decisive@January 24, 2006, 8:14 PM
the idea of having IRS as a must seems superfluous to me. mustang won the grand am cup with the solid rear axle set up. m3's probably had top of the line IRS's in their vehicles. sure the ride is smoother, but come on, a car doesn't feel young and wild if you make it like driving a euro.

Quoted post

While agree with you on the price the reason the Mustangs won the GAC is because of the large difference in HP let them pull away on the straights, I think an all around performer would be more fun.

<!--QuoteBegin-redmsgt@January 24, 2006, 9:37 PM
Items that are needed immediately
more interior sound proffing at rear wheels and tranny tunnel

Quoted post

[/quote]

If it's to loud, your too old. (Airheads)

 

Honda has developed the technology. It can be implemented on OHC engines and Honda is a great example. Ford sells a lot of V8 engines, thus across the product line cost shouldn't be that great.

 

ya that's true. the v6 in the honda odyssey and the accord hybrid shuts off half the cylinders. the cool part about this one is that since 3-bangers are notoriously noisy, the sound system emits anti-noise to cancel it out. pretty schnazzy.

 

All new models should have:
-Hips!
-Aux input
-color keyed mirrors
-fully sculpted c-indent on sides
-aluminum roof panel

V6 should have:
-3.5 V6
-optional dual exhaust

Add LX model or offer a standard GT with less options and badges.
-foglight delete
-delete traction control
-no radio and steel wheels (add yourself aftermarket)
-and what ever else that could be done without to be the best bang for the buck.

GT should have:
-optional shaker hood

SEs should have:
-6 spd
-IRS
-Stability Control
-Supercharger / large displacement engines
-larger wheels
-ram air

 

I'm actually going to retract a comment I made earlier that the '09 car should have rear quarter window treatment similar to the '69 - '70 cars.

Given the comment that Brad made regarding the similarity of the PROPOSED redesign displayed in Detroit to the Camaro and Challenger, retaining the current rear quarter window would enhance the differentiation between the Mustang and the competition from a styling perspective. It is a truly unique Mustang trait. Having said that, I do believe Ford can incorporate "hips" into the design and retain the current rear quarter window and roof line.

I know I'm very excited about the '09 model year, I'll be in the market and MAYBE the Boss will truly be back!!

 

I think it's funny/sad that my '94 Tbird has factory hood shocks and a car 11 years newer doesn't! :scratch:


And someone mentioned XM.... Ford has a deal with SIRIUS and last I heard from the guy at Sirius, it should be available in all Ford vehicles as an optioin by 2008. It's available in some noe I believe.


As for Options I'd like to see... Definitely a permanent "middle" stang between the GT and Cobra (Mach 1, Boss, or something else).

More Rim options was a good idea.. I'd love to see a deeper version of the 03-04 Mach 1 (mag 500) style rims... I'm sure they'll have something like that on the new Mach1 or Boss

Optional Two tone interior (not just red) gray, blue, yellow, and whatever else (like the Newer Tbirds had)

A Drag pack option would be great so you could choose between a IRS and 3-link. Also different gear options would be cool as well 3.27, 3.55, 3.73, and maybe even 4.10s

intergrated ducktail similar to the way it was on the Boss's

Recessed taillights like on the 69-70 Bosses (make the rear more eye-catching)

6-speed for sure

MORE CUBIC INCHES!!!!!

 

Does anyone have any insight on a longer term transmission roadmap or strategy. I have been driving manual transmission vehicles all my (driving) life and am seeing a migration away from manual transmissions..close to or being obsolete on lots of vehicles. I was hoping for a '06 explorer with a manual transmission for my next purchase (wife), but my next mustang may be the '09. Do you ever see a CVT, or even a auto stick type offering in the Mustang?

 

I read later somewhere later that night that GM also has OHC DOD engines, I'd be interested in seeing how it works on an OHC engine. If I had to take a stab at it, I'd say that the (dang I cant think of the name of the preload device??) collapses like a lifter allowing the cam follower to fall away from the cam disconnecting the follower and valve from the cam, but thats just a guess.

I know on a GM engine its worth about a 10% improvement in fuel economy so it would be a nice feature.

 

It would definetly be a feature that could benefit Ford. Put it on all 4.6 and 5.4 V8s, heck adapt it to the new V6 coming out like Honda did. Ford sells a lot of modular V8's in the F150, Explorer, Expedition, Mustang, etc. Throw in a 6 speed transmission and we will have a really fuel efficient Mustang. I'd venture to say roughly 30 mpg on the highway. I have a heavy foot around town, but it's nice to have on highway trips.

 

I've got a sneaking suspicion we'll see 19" wheels on the Mustang GT

 

Just to keep it simple, in case anyone at Ford IS listening.....

5.4 DOHC
Six speed

Gimme that and I'll do the rest.

 

OK with me as long as they're not standard.

 

Give '09 an IRS & more cubes.

 

I'm talking about down right traction. Spinning the tires at every stop sign in the rain sucks. I could care less about handling. I would have gotten a vette if I wanted that.

 

less weight, better brakes, wider standard wheels & tires, steering wheel with smaller spokes, 6-spd, and IRS - without signifigantly upping the price.