I'm glad they have a team. I wouldn't buy 90% of what I have seen here

 

Every rendering a car mag or website releases with a "sneak peak!" next to it is just a bastardized version of the current car

 

super quick hack job, just literally smudging some stuff around...





More to follow as time allows.

 

Someone call up carbuzz and tell them not to post photos of stuff they pull put of the cat's litterbox.

 

Actually I in NO WAY suggested that the mustang has to compete with any 80k car. I mentioned the Viper only as another example of a MUSCLE (perhaps the ultimate MUSCLE) CAR, which is adding a bit of Euro styling. At no time did I suggest that it must compete with it.

The only car I talked about the mustang competing with is the zl camaro which is in fact priced similarly to the shelby gt500. Mustang hasn't been just a muscle car since the 2005. It's happily moving towards being a great car with muscle. Ultimately that's a good thing.

 

I like it! Shave the front fenders a little and I think you've got a winner!

 

I agree

 

If its not competing with those cars then whats it keeping in competition with? Challenger v8s and and the Camaro SS. And what's their big advantage, o that's right IRS. Big deal. They all have ****ty brakes and they handle like an International diesel wrecker. UNLESS, like I mentioned, you get a ZL1 or a Rousch etc. As far as the 05 thing, the mustang has been a great car. And I don't recall any major improvements that made it any greater than the previous 40 years. Still has a v8. Still has a live rear axel. Still goes fast in a straight line. Still turns like a bathtub full of water on wheels. I don't know anyone with a brain that bought a Mustang instead of a Cadillac or an MX-5. If Ford wants to offer a handling package with softer seats for their confused buyers to grab more money, hey that's what they're in it for. But IMO, the modifications that ford has been rumored to have considered would detract from the character and romantic value of the Mustang. To me there's more to it than pure performance and cute looks. It should be hard, dangerous, and generally wild to drive. It should look and sound tough. There's a big difference between a muscle car and a sports car.

 

Let's see the first Mustang was a secretaries car. A fancy pants Falcon. Ford hired Shelby to make it .....a sports car and he did winning numerous races against tough competition. Then for a couple years they shoe horned some over size over weight V8s into the flexi flier chassis until the hp disappeared and the Mustang became a fancy pants Pinto. So when pray tell did this fierce reputation as a muscle car happen?

I think Ford is right on the money. Cars even sold in the US are held to a world standard either live up to it or die.

 

Yeah, definitions vary but "muscle car" and "pony car" are not synonymous. The Mustang (perhaps excepting some late 60s big blocks and maybe the current GT500s) is a Pony car. I've never understood why some people seem to think the Mustang is and has always been a muscle car.

 

Well, in response to Mustang handling, the Mustang has out handled its competition and then some even with the 2010 track pack. The 2012 was that much better. So a bathtub with water in it, surely you jest.

Apparently you guys dont remember the Boss 429. A pony car with muscle car qualities, to compete with muscle cars. I feel like its armature hour and I don't even own a Mustang.

 

The Boss 429 was an attempt to stuff a NASCAR engine in a Mustang to make a nice quarter-mile car. Results varied but it was one of only a handful of classic Mustangs that I think would qualify as a "muscle car".

 

@ 1:12

 

Stanghini?

 

There is clearly a much more varied opinion of what a muscle car is than what I had assumed. I've always though of long hood, short deck, v8, rwd, coupe, and straight lines. Guess I had it all wrong hahaha

 

You discredited everything you tried to get across by using "fancy pants" twice in one post. We're talking about mustangs, not trying to land dates with other men.

 

Yea I thought it was a cute analogy though lol

 

As already mentioned, the Mustang was originally conceived as a bit of a counter to the "muscle cars" of its era (I don't think the term existed back then), being smaller, lighter, more sophisticated and with a bit more well-rounded performance envelope than the fat, overpowered dreadnaughts of its time.

Yes, there were some big-block Stangs in the late 60's early 70s that did bleed over into to muscle car category, but they were more the exception than the rule and certainly not the iconic Mustang personality.

To want or expect the Mustang to have a more refined and well-rounded suite of performance capability is not in any way to imply that it become soft, plush or expensive. Rather, it is to want to Mustang to become an even more capable performance car in a wider range of driving environments beyond doing some short wind sprints on glassy smooth straight roads. The Stang's current competition is displaying a wide range of performance capabilities, including the direct competitors, the Camaro and Challenger, but also perhaps slightly less direct competitors such as the Genesis Coupe.

Too often, I think, the muscle car mavens try to define the Mustang by muscle car deficiencies such as bad handling, iffy brakes, crude ride, cheap interiors, etc., rather than performance strengths. A car need not be crude and ill handling to be fun, tactile and exciting at the same time. Should one want a "dangerous and wild" car, you can always strap on some cheap narrow bias ply tires, limp shocks and worn brake pads. I'd rather my performance car be capable, not some careening oaf.

 

The Boss 429 was actually more an expedient platform to homologate the 429 motor for NASCAR use rather than create a truly viable muscle car for the street. In fact, it really wasn't a terribly good muscle car out of the box, being somewhat constricted and actually inferior in such muscle car realms as the 1/4 mile to the older 428 motor in the Mach I, which along with a couple other big-block Stangs were closest to being "muscle cars".

Rember though, that was only maybe 5 years out of the Stang's nearly 50 year history and likely only a couple percent max of Stangs ever sold. The rest were far more in the Pony car mold.

 

Buddy, you just described the OE parts on a stock GT. Have you even driven a mustang that costs less than 50 grand? Or a car that's known for its handling? There is a substantial difference. Go drive an RX-8 and a stock GT and tell me about how amazingly capable the GT is in comparison.