2015 Mustang Models?
Shelby GT350 Member
Joined: February 5, 2008
Posts: 2,339
Likes: 3
From: Chattanooga
The pointless LX designation was done away with completely for 1994 when the base Mustang with the V6 was called just Mustang as it had always been before 1982. The Mustang GT of course had the V8.
GT Member
Joined: January 11, 2005
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Yeah I owned two LX 5.0's back in the late 80's and a GT.
LX was never written or placed on the body anywhere.
It's just what it was called as the "base" model.
I liked the sleeper appeal of the LX model though.
It was also a bit lighter than the GT and therefore was actually a tick quicker.
LX was never written or placed on the body anywhere.
It's just what it was called as the "base" model.
I liked the sleeper appeal of the LX model though.
It was also a bit lighter than the GT and therefore was actually a tick quicker.
I'm sorry to have to correct you but I have an '89 LX 5.0L sitting in my garage that I purchased new. It is completely original and it does have an "LX" badge.
The badge is above the left tail light, below the spoiler, on the hatchback.
I can assure you that it came from the factory this way.
Shelby GT350 Member
Joined: April 20, 2010
Posts: 2,121
Likes: 3
From: Dallas
Originally Posted by Planeswalker
Yes I do!
Boss: flashy road and track racer
Mach I: flashy street and strip racer
Bullitt: understated gentleman's GT performance car
Mach 1 Member
Joined: July 13, 2010
Posts: 517
Likes: 0
From: Cal
-------------------------------------
I'm sorry to have to correct you but I have an '89 LX 5.0L sitting in my garage that I purchased new. It is completely original and it does have an "LX" badge.
The badge is above the left tail light, below the spoiler, on the hatchback.
I can assure you that it came from the factory this way.
I'm sorry to have to correct you but I have an '89 LX 5.0L sitting in my garage that I purchased new. It is completely original and it does have an "LX" badge.
The badge is above the left tail light, below the spoiler, on the hatchback.
I can assure you that it came from the factory this way.
Both of mine were "debadged".
First one by the original owner
My second one, a rare all black version with the removable T-Tops, I did myself
Mach 1 Member
Joined: July 13, 2010
Posts: 517
Likes: 0
From: Cal
Again, why the love for an NA 5.8L? Torque? The coyote 5.0L is much superior in design. It wouldn't make much sense to go this route. I like where your heads are at but I'm just not sure what the 5.8 will bring to the table.
I'm sure the IRS will be built well enough. If you're serious about drag racing then you'll spend the cash on a beefier set up.
Turbos, well I foresee the turbo 4 at decent power but not an SVO. Should make for one hell of a tuner car. Sadly there is a lot more money in Ford branching out and gaining a new populace of owners rather than keep appealing to a niche market. Don't get hurt, it's just good business and I'm sure they will appeal to a lot more people than you guys are crying about. There is a lot more competition now then before.
I'm sure the IRS will be built well enough. If you're serious about drag racing then you'll spend the cash on a beefier set up.
Turbos, well I foresee the turbo 4 at decent power but not an SVO. Should make for one hell of a tuner car. Sadly there is a lot more money in Ford branching out and gaining a new populace of owners rather than keep appealing to a niche market. Don't get hurt, it's just good business and I'm sure they will appeal to a lot more people than you guys are crying about. There is a lot more competition now then before.
Because I think the 5.8 makes more sense in a specialty vehicle than the 2.3 Turbo.
SVO stood for Special Vehicle Operations
The Base 2.0 Ecoboost will suffice for the people who want a bit of power but with good fuel economy. It will mainly be the rental fleet and women who order a Mustang with that engine.
The 2.3 EcoBoost is not even sold here in the U.S.
With just 300 cc's more, and even with a larger turbo, it would make probably 50 hp more max. So you'd be looking at 300 hp.
Why?
They have a V6 with 305 hp.
Add direct injection to that and you have 320.
Would make little sense to have two different Mustangs that make within 20 hp of each other and probably 1-2 mpg difference.
Sure they could use the 2.3 Ecoboost in other cars too, but not sure how well that would sell. Who wants a 290-300 hp Escape or FWD Fusion?
They'd rather pay a grand or two less and be happy with 250 hp from the 2.0 Ecoboost that would also get 1-2 mpg better gas mileage.
The NA 5.8 makes more sense to me.
It would give the SVO something "special"
It would fill the gap between the 420 hp 5.0 and 662 hp GT500. Filing the gap that the Boss leaves, when it leaves.
Having a NA 5.8 liter in an SVO would be awesome.
It would be to the Mustang what the Z06 is to the Corvette.
And again, the 5.8 NA would then replace the 6.2 as the truck top engine.
That IS an engine truck buyers would want. More power than the 6.2 and better gas mileage.
I'm positive there would be a lot more truck buyers who would upgrade to that engine over the 3.5 EcoBoost, than there would be car buyers who would upgrade to a 2.3 Ecoboost over a 2.0 Ecoboost.
We don't need a 2.3 Ecoboost engine here in the U.S.
The 2.0 does fine for what it's needed for.
The 3.5 Ecoboost is the upgrade.
Shelby GT350 Member
Joined: April 20, 2010
Posts: 2,121
Likes: 3
From: Dallas
Originally Posted by rhumb
I can see market slots for all three:
Boss: flashy road and track racer
Mach I: flashy street and strip racer
Bullitt: understated gentleman's GT performance car
Shelby GT350 Member
Joined: April 20, 2010
Posts: 2,121
Likes: 3
From: Dallas
Originally Posted by Driver72
Because I think the 5.8 makes more sense in a specialty vehicle than the 2.3 Turbo.
SVO stood for Special Vehicle Operations
The Base 2.0 Ecoboost will suffice for the people who want a bit of power but with good fuel economy. It will mainly be the rental fleet and women who order a Mustang with that engine.
The 2.3 EcoBoost is not even sold here in the U.S.
With just 300 cc's more, and even with a larger turbo, it would make probably 50 hp more max. So you'd be looking at 300 hp.
Why?
They have a V6 with 305 hp.
Add direct injection to that and you have 320.
Would make little sense to have two different Mustangs that make within 20 hp of each other and probably 1-2 mpg difference.
Sure they could use the 2.3 Ecoboost in other cars too, but not sure how well that would sell. Who wants a 290-300 hp Escape or FWD Fusion?
They'd rather pay a grand or two less and be happy with 250 hp from the 2.0 Ecoboost that would also get 1-2 mpg better gas mileage.
The NA 5.8 makes more sense to me.
It would give the SVO something "special"
It would fill the gap between the 420 hp 5.0 and 662 hp GT500. Filing the gap that the Boss leaves, when it leaves.
Having a NA 5.8 liter in an SVO would be awesome.
It would be to the Mustang what the Z06 is to the Corvette.
And again, the 5.8 NA would then replace the 6.2 as the truck top engine.
That IS an engine truck buyers would want. More power than the 6.2 and better gas mileage.
I'm positive there would be a lot more truck buyers who would upgrade to that engine over the 3.5 EcoBoost, than there would be car buyers who would upgrade to a 2.3 Ecoboost over a 2.0 Ecoboost.
We don't need a 2.3 Ecoboost engine here in the U.S.
The 2.0 does fine for what it's needed for.
The 3.5 Ecoboost is the upgrade.
Ok SVO (no def needed) is no longer, it was transitioned into SVT and some of Ford Racing. The new possible 2.0L EcoBoost is not an SVO, nor will your proposed 5.8L. Regardless, SVO no longer exists.
The 2.0L has a great potential to be a high performance pocket rocket type. It may not be that way from the factory, thus the use of the word potential. Like that of the Hyundai Genesis. A competitor to the Mustang.
That's all, the end. The 2.3L debate probably shouldn't even be made.
The 5.8L is amazing but only for the technology behind the build. Other than that it's still a simple OHV design. Without VVT-I it is still only a guess at the ability to perform and do so while getting better fuel mileage. Look at the Raptor. The 5.8L and the current 6.2L rate the same in fuel mileage. They made the 6.2L better in order to put more performance same fuel mileage in the truck. I will say that the new proposed 5.8L could weigh less and do better than the 6.2L in a lot of areas. Totally plausible. And I could get behind that. Still not sure why you compare this to the EcoBoost 3.5L. They don't even have the same characteristics.
The 5.8L has its roots as a workhorse engine but I don't think it's going to be as cheap as we would hope to put in any vehicle. I could kind of see your argument as it being the match up to the 7.0L GM mill. It's possible that it could be. But will it really deliver the goods where it needs to, well enough, to oust the Boss 5.0L? There is a lot to ponder here.
All that said, I think it would be interesting to see the characteristics of an NA 5.8L in a Mustang. I do agree that it would fill the street/strip performance niche. And I would welcome such a Special Edition to round out the Pony collection.
Mach 1 Member
Joined: July 13, 2010
Posts: 517
Likes: 0
From: Cal
You are so wrapped up in the wrong details. Your head is in the right place but you just aren't making very valid points. Let's just rearrange and then discuss what is more likely. I am really only criticizing semantics here.
Ok SVO (no def needed) is no longer, it was transitioned into SVT and some of Ford Racing. The new possible 2.0L EcoBoost is not an SVO, nor will your proposed 5.8L. Regardless, SVO no longer exists.
The 2.0L has a great potential to be a high performance pocket rocket type. It may not be that way from the factory, thus the use of the word potential. Like that of the Hyundai Genesis. A competitor to the Mustang.
That's all, the end. The 2.3L debate probably shouldn't even be made.
The 5.8L is amazing but only for the technology behind the build. Other than that it's still a simple OHV design. Without VVT-I it is still only a guess at the ability to perform and do so while getting better fuel mileage. Look at the Raptor. The 5.8L and the current 6.2L rate the same in fuel mileage. They made the 6.2L better in order to put more performance same fuel mileage in the truck. I will say that the new proposed 5.8L could weigh less and do better than the 6.2L in a lot of areas. Totally plausible. And I could get behind that. Still not sure why you compare this to the EcoBoost 3.5L. They don't even have the same characteristics.
The 5.8L has its roots as a workhorse engine but I don't think it's going to be as cheap as we would hope to put in any vehicle. I could kind of see your argument as it being the match up to the 7.0L GM mill. It's possible that it could be. But will it really deliver the goods where it needs to, well enough, to oust the Boss 5.0L? There is a lot to ponder here.
All that said, I think it would be interesting to see the characteristics of an NA 5.8L in a Mustang. I do agree that it would fill the street/strip performance niche. And I would welcome such a Special Edition to round out the Pony collection.
Ok SVO (no def needed) is no longer, it was transitioned into SVT and some of Ford Racing. The new possible 2.0L EcoBoost is not an SVO, nor will your proposed 5.8L. Regardless, SVO no longer exists.
The 2.0L has a great potential to be a high performance pocket rocket type. It may not be that way from the factory, thus the use of the word potential. Like that of the Hyundai Genesis. A competitor to the Mustang.
That's all, the end. The 2.3L debate probably shouldn't even be made.
The 5.8L is amazing but only for the technology behind the build. Other than that it's still a simple OHV design. Without VVT-I it is still only a guess at the ability to perform and do so while getting better fuel mileage. Look at the Raptor. The 5.8L and the current 6.2L rate the same in fuel mileage. They made the 6.2L better in order to put more performance same fuel mileage in the truck. I will say that the new proposed 5.8L could weigh less and do better than the 6.2L in a lot of areas. Totally plausible. And I could get behind that. Still not sure why you compare this to the EcoBoost 3.5L. They don't even have the same characteristics.
The 5.8L has its roots as a workhorse engine but I don't think it's going to be as cheap as we would hope to put in any vehicle. I could kind of see your argument as it being the match up to the 7.0L GM mill. It's possible that it could be. But will it really deliver the goods where it needs to, well enough, to oust the Boss 5.0L? There is a lot to ponder here.
All that said, I think it would be interesting to see the characteristics of an NA 5.8L in a Mustang. I do agree that it would fill the street/strip performance niche. And I would welcome such a Special Edition to round out the Pony collection.
I understand your point, but in a strange way you disagreed with me in the beginning of this post, then seemed to agree with me by the end.
I understand that SVO became SVT.
But that does not mean that Ford and the SVT could not make a Mustang and call it the SVO.
I don't think it's also in Ford's best interest to start making or marketing a car that competes with Hyundai. Ford needs to continue blazing the trail, let Hyundai chase Ford and the venerable and famous Mustang. Ford has no need or probably desire to "counter" Hyundai's Genesis 2.0T to make it look like they are following Hyundai's lead.
The 2.3 Ecoboost is probably (unfortunately) the engine that WILL make it into the SVO Mustang if they bring it back. As I said, my original post was just me thinking of bring the SVO back. After posting that, I did a Google search of SVO Mustang to see if there was any talk of it. And sure enough there was, and even Ford themselves said they are considering it.
So my post here of suggesting a return of the SVO Mustang seemed to be spot on with what may happen.
But my point, I would NOT market/make another "lower" model than the 5.0 GT?
Sure if it comes with the 2.3 Ecoboost again, it will be a delight for the tuners who can easily crank up boost, adjust A/F Ratios, and make 30-40 hp more.
Then add FMIC, Intake, exhaust, blah blah and make 60+ hp more.
But even at that point, it still won't make the power of the stock 5.0 GT.
So to me, what would the point of the SVO be? Just a slower car than the 5.0 GT that handles better?
Like the first Mustang SVO, it would tank in sales if that's the goal. It needs to be like the Boss is now and be faster AND handle better than the GT.
TO ME, the better marketing would be to drop a NA version of the GT500's 5.8 Liter in there.
With some factory tweaks I'm sure it would make 475-500 hp.
It would be lighter than the GT500 but probably within 100 lbs of the GT 5.0
Give it the suspension and brake upgrades above and beyond what you can get on the GT and you have a sweet SPECIAL car that slots in price right between a GT and a GT500.
I'm sure it would be a modders dream too.
Again it would to the Mustang what the Z06 is to the Corvette. And the Z06 has sold pretty darn well.
Do you think the Z06 Vette would of sold many at all if they would of put a 320 hp I4 Turbo in it that would make it slower than the standard Corvette even if it handled better than the standard Corvette?
Anybody who wants a Mustang that's slower than the GT will have two choices:
Base 2.0T version and
3.7 liter V6 version
To me, having a 3rd Mustang that slots below the GT in power and very similar to the V6 power levels already, is a waste.
The SVO should be a replacement for the Boss, not filling a gap that to me nobody is asking to be filled.
Oh and I'm pretty sure a new direct injected, DOHC 5.8 liter V8 now would make a decent amount more power than the current 6.2 liter's, and since it's a smaller engine and with new technology built in, would therefore make better gas mileage too. Two things any truck buyer would love to have.
Anyway, we can agree to disagree if you want.
I'll I'm saying is I'd never buy a new SVO Mustang if it came with a 2.3 Ecoboost I4 and was priced higher than the V6 but lower than the GT.
If it came in priced HIGHER than the GT, it will TANK, TANK in sales, just like it did back in the late 80's and early 90's.
If they brought an SVO to the table with a NA 5.8 liter than out accelerated, and out handled the GT for say $5-6k more.....that is the Mustang I would buy.
Peace
I think an EB 2.3 SVO/SVT might make for a more viable model now than back in the day, if done slightly differently. It wouldn't have quite so much model-specific body work and trim, which undoubtedly contributed to the originals high price. Any new Stang would have sufficiently sleek bodywork as standard and thus, only more minor trim and color options might be necessary to distinguish it. I think there would be a much larger parts shelf of hi-po parts to pick from, chassis-wise, again requiring fewer model-unique bits like the original. The motor itself would essentially be a variant of the existing EB 2.3, again not an expensive custom piece. It might be tuned up a bit more towards the 300-330hp level (as talk of a Focus RS 2.3 motor hints at).
As for placement within the line, I think it would likely be more akin to the Hyundai Genesis Coupe 2.0 and would appeal more to the large import tuner crowd. I don't think it would be folly for Ford not to cede this potential market to competitors, especially given its size and popularity not only here but abroad, the latter of which Ford apparently intends to compete in with the '15. EPA and CAFE standards also make as strong case for a very efficient performance option for the Stang line. Also, competing in that market in no way implies Ford abandoning in any way the market segments the Mustang currently does very well in.
A possible lineup might thus be:
SE I4 (2.0, possible EB, Focus ST motor), 250hp. $25K
ST (EB 2.3, oriented towards handling performance) 300-330hp. $28K
V6 (DI 3.7, a poor man's GT) 350hp. $30K
GT 5.0 (DI 5.0) 450hp. $32K
SVT (Basically the Boss, DI 5.0 Boss motor) 475-500hp. $36-38K
RS 500 (or retain Shelby GT500 name, an EB 5.0 with 600+hp). $45-50K
I presume that the basic '15 chassis and suspension will be significantly more capable than the current Stang's. Thus, this would mean that performance versions would need to be tweaked quite so much as now and could be proffered more cheaply. Somewhat the same is true of the upper ranges where hp will only increase modestly at best but performance will increase significantly due to less weight, better aerodynamics and with a significantly broadened envelope due to a much better suspension. All this with while guzzling less gas and emitting less stink.
There would be a mix of new and old nomenclature, mostly new to firmly establish the Stang is a creature of the here and now, and tomorrow, and not some piece of rolling nostalgia pining away for some golden yesteryear -- but with enough old names to warm the hearts of aging boomers pining away for some golden yesteryear. Time for the Mustang to create some new legends today and not constantly feed off of those of decades ago like some Al Bundy on wheels.
As for placement within the line, I think it would likely be more akin to the Hyundai Genesis Coupe 2.0 and would appeal more to the large import tuner crowd. I don't think it would be folly for Ford not to cede this potential market to competitors, especially given its size and popularity not only here but abroad, the latter of which Ford apparently intends to compete in with the '15. EPA and CAFE standards also make as strong case for a very efficient performance option for the Stang line. Also, competing in that market in no way implies Ford abandoning in any way the market segments the Mustang currently does very well in.
A possible lineup might thus be:
SE I4 (2.0, possible EB, Focus ST motor), 250hp. $25K
ST (EB 2.3, oriented towards handling performance) 300-330hp. $28K
V6 (DI 3.7, a poor man's GT) 350hp. $30K
GT 5.0 (DI 5.0) 450hp. $32K
SVT (Basically the Boss, DI 5.0 Boss motor) 475-500hp. $36-38K
RS 500 (or retain Shelby GT500 name, an EB 5.0 with 600+hp). $45-50K
I presume that the basic '15 chassis and suspension will be significantly more capable than the current Stang's. Thus, this would mean that performance versions would need to be tweaked quite so much as now and could be proffered more cheaply. Somewhat the same is true of the upper ranges where hp will only increase modestly at best but performance will increase significantly due to less weight, better aerodynamics and with a significantly broadened envelope due to a much better suspension. All this with while guzzling less gas and emitting less stink.
There would be a mix of new and old nomenclature, mostly new to firmly establish the Stang is a creature of the here and now, and tomorrow, and not some piece of rolling nostalgia pining away for some golden yesteryear -- but with enough old names to warm the hearts of aging boomers pining away for some golden yesteryear. Time for the Mustang to create some new legends today and not constantly feed off of those of decades ago like some Al Bundy on wheels.
FR500 Member
Joined: December 9, 2011
Posts: 3,584
Likes: 6
From: Corpus Christi, TX
Originally Posted by rhumb
I think an EB 2.3 SVO/SVT might make for a more viable model now than back in the day, if done slightly differently. It wouldn't have quite so much model-specific body work and trim, which undoubtedly contributed to the originals high price. Any new Stang would have sufficiently sleek bodywork as standard and thus, only more minor trim and color options might be necessary to distinguish it. I think there would be a much larger parts shelf of hi-po parts to pick from, chassis-wise, again requiring fewer model-unique bits like the original. The motor itself would essentially be a variant of the existing EB 2.3, again not an expensive custom piece. It might be tuned up a bit more towards the 300-330hp level (as talk of a Focus RS 2.3 motor hints at).
As for placement within the line, I think it would likely be more akin to the Hyundai Genesis Coupe 2.0 and would appeal more to the large import tuner crowd. I don't think it would be folly for Ford not to cede this potential market to competitors, especially given its size and popularity not only here but abroad, the latter of which Ford apparently intends to compete in with the '15. EPA and CAFE standards also make as strong case for a very efficient performance option for the Stang line. Also, competing in that market in no way implies Ford abandoning in any way the market segments the Mustang currently does very well in.
A possible lineup might thus be:
SE I4 (2.0, possible EB, Focus ST motor), 250hp. $25K
ST (EB 2.3, oriented towards handling performance) 300-330hp. $28K
V6 (DI 3.7, a poor man's GT) 350hp. $30K
GT 5.0 (DI 5.0) 450hp. $32K
SVT (Basically the Boss, DI 5.0 Boss motor) 475-500hp. $36-38K
RS 500 (or retain Shelby GT500 name, an EB 5.0 with 600+hp). $45-50K
I presume that the basic '15 chassis and suspension will be significantly more capable than the current Stang's. Thus, this would mean that performance versions would need to be tweaked quite so much as now and could be proffered more cheaply. Somewhat the same is true of the upper ranges where hp will only increase modestly at best but performance will increase significantly due to less weight, better aerodynamics and with a significantly broadened envelope due to a much better suspension. All this with while guzzling less gas and emitting less stink.
There would be a mix of new and old nomenclature, mostly new to firmly establish the Stang is a creature of the here and now, and tomorrow, and not some piece of rolling nostalgia pining away for some golden yesteryear -- but with enough old names to warm the hearts of aging boomers pining away for some golden yesteryear. Time for the Mustang to create some new legends today and not constantly feed off of those of decades ago like some Al Bundy on wheels.
As for placement within the line, I think it would likely be more akin to the Hyundai Genesis Coupe 2.0 and would appeal more to the large import tuner crowd. I don't think it would be folly for Ford not to cede this potential market to competitors, especially given its size and popularity not only here but abroad, the latter of which Ford apparently intends to compete in with the '15. EPA and CAFE standards also make as strong case for a very efficient performance option for the Stang line. Also, competing in that market in no way implies Ford abandoning in any way the market segments the Mustang currently does very well in.
A possible lineup might thus be:
SE I4 (2.0, possible EB, Focus ST motor), 250hp. $25K
ST (EB 2.3, oriented towards handling performance) 300-330hp. $28K
V6 (DI 3.7, a poor man's GT) 350hp. $30K
GT 5.0 (DI 5.0) 450hp. $32K
SVT (Basically the Boss, DI 5.0 Boss motor) 475-500hp. $36-38K
RS 500 (or retain Shelby GT500 name, an EB 5.0 with 600+hp). $45-50K
I presume that the basic '15 chassis and suspension will be significantly more capable than the current Stang's. Thus, this would mean that performance versions would need to be tweaked quite so much as now and could be proffered more cheaply. Somewhat the same is true of the upper ranges where hp will only increase modestly at best but performance will increase significantly due to less weight, better aerodynamics and with a significantly broadened envelope due to a much better suspension. All this with while guzzling less gas and emitting less stink.
There would be a mix of new and old nomenclature, mostly new to firmly establish the Stang is a creature of the here and now, and tomorrow, and not some piece of rolling nostalgia pining away for some golden yesteryear -- but with enough old names to warm the hearts of aging boomers pining away for some golden yesteryear. Time for the Mustang to create some new legends today and not constantly feed off of those of decades ago like some Al Bundy on wheels.
V6 Member
Joined: October 17, 2010
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Member
Joined: August 13, 2012
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
As far as a Bullitt version of the '15, I could see that. It certainly worked for the last two body styles as a stripped down, dark colored gentlemans stealth Stang. In fact, being a gentleman of a certain age, such a car holds a lot of appeal to me. I'd love to see the current Boss's performance bits packaged in a far less ostentatious wrapper, i.e., 2014 Bullitt?
__________________
Sac Main Longchamp
__________________
Sac Main Longchamp
As far as a Bullitt version of the '15, I could see that. It certainly worked for the last two body styles as a stripped down, dark colored gentlemans stealth Stang. In fact, being a gentleman of a certain age, such a car holds a lot of appeal to me. I'd love to see the current Boss's performance bits packaged in a far less ostentatious wrapper, i.e., 2014 Bullitt?
__________________
Sac Main Longchamp
__________________
Sac Main Longchamp
Shelby GT350 Member
Joined: February 5, 2008
Posts: 2,339
Likes: 3
From: Chattanooga
Here, here! While I love the Boss's performance bits, it's ostenstacious styling would grow old after about, oh, a weekend for me and for a gentleman of a certain age, would scream mid-life crisis. A Boss wrapped more in a business suit than the current Zoot suit would suite me better.
It's amazing what a hairdryer can do...
Last edited by watchdevil; Aug 15, 2012 at 01:58 AM.
Shelby GT350 Member
Joined: February 5, 2008
Posts: 2,339
Likes: 3
From: Chattanooga
As far as a Bullitt version of the '15, I could see that. It certainly worked for the last two body styles as a stripped down, dark colored gentlemans stealth Stang. In fact, being a gentleman of a certain age, such a car holds a lot of appeal to me. I'd love to see the current Boss's performance bits packaged in a far less ostentatious wrapper, i.e., 2014 Bullitt?
__________________
Sac Main Longchamp
__________________
Sac Main Longchamp
Last edited by watchdevil; Aug 15, 2012 at 02:30 AM.
