Very nice drawing, you've got the skills!

That being said, I hope that is never produced

 

Maybe a CAD skeleton will get leaked a year early like the 05 car...nobody believed it at the time, but after all the spy camo came off, we had to look back and confirm it as real!

 

I remember when that CAD skeleton of the 05 broke cover. Wasn't it a guy named Chazcron or something?

 

I don't remember who it was, but I do remember thinking at the time "no way that's real, it's too retro-looking"....LOL

 

Funny, but the first thing I thought was how the 05-09 front end made it look like an updated Capri!

 

Well I'm sure no matter what the next gen mustang looks like it will perform well and (obviously) get great gas mileage.

If the car does move away from it's retro look I'm sorry to say but I'm almost 100% sure that I will no longer be buying mustangs. The 05 Mustang is the car that brought the mustang back onto my radar. It's allowed me the kind of car that I could never have when I was a teen. The current model is also very good but it's got a few bits I could do without (but I'm trying to like those changes). If the car moves beyond it's retro looks then, for me, it's a deal breaker. But I've had/got my fun, so maybe it's time for a new generation to get theirs.

 

I agree 100%

 

I wouldn't make that statement until you see the FINAL design of the 2014 IN PERSON. Just because it might be less retro or not retro at all, that doesn't mean it will be a design that you wouldn't love.

I'm a HUGE fan of the retro-ness of the '05+ Mustangs, but just because they'll probably move away from that trend doesn't mean the new car won't be sweet. And I won't allow drawings, renderings, photos or concept cars to determine if I like it or not. Once I see one live in person, that'll be my deciding time.

 

John,

I guess it's just the age I'm at (52), I really don't NEED a mustang. I certainly don't need the kind of power my GT500 puts down. For me it really is a chance to re-live, or in my case- finally live, the muscle car era. For me it's 100% about the retro look. If the mustang moves away from that look, and I can fully understand why Ford would move away from it, then I just can't see any reason to stay with the car.

For me the mustang died in '74 and was reborn in '05.

 

That car in post #208 looks like a Camaro with a Mustang front end.

 

Gentlemen: Great postings throughout this thread! I had attempted to post a reply some days ago via a laptop, but the *%$#X@* laptop screwed it up somehow ('Couldn'ta been me that screwed it up--no way).

In any case, all I can add is that the next Mustang will be just fine with the convertible, the fastback coupe, and the glassback rooflines--a notchback is oh-so-secretary. Don't go there!

I gotta git for now, but I check the thread at least every-other-day. 'Wish I had more time! That's why my postings exceed 600 characters even on a slow day--I gotta get it out there because it could be days/weeks before I get the chance to post in the forum again (and you thought you never got lucky!).

Don't let some azzhole fork-up the Mustang while God and I ain't here to protect and defend the One True Affordable Performance Car!

Greg "Mustang Crusader" Ates

P.S.: 93GT03SVT:
"6. I'm a Ford guy but I feel that the Camaro's motor is just as good as the 5.0. IT makes more power and has that fun down low grunt. The Camaro with an extra 500 or so extra lbs is still is within striking distance of the Mustang GT in both 1/4 times and MPG numbers. The fact that the motor of this car can move that fat pig as well as it does is a borderline miracle."
Shrink that Camaro's LSwhatever down from 6.2L to 5.0L and it couldn't power its way out of an igloo with a flamethrower. It's the old GM Engines & Powertrains motto: "Why make it better as long as you can still make it bigger?"

Consider that the Mustang's TiVCT 4V DOHC 5.0L went from a conceptual "what if" engine sketched on sticky notes to sitting in Mustang engine compartments in just two years and you should realize what a feat it is. Versions of GM's LS engine powered Columbus's Pinta and Nina (too weak for the heavier Santa Maria, however, which weighed almost as much as the new Camaro). GM has had forfriggingever to diddle with it and several centuries to copy the best of the aftermarket performance parts, yet the LS gets pounded by the 412 HP version 1.0 of an engine that's twenty percent smaller in displacement--which also gets better MPG and lower emissions per mile to boot! And the very first upgraded 5.0 (version 1.1, I guess) gets 440 HP--more HP than the Camaro's LSwhatever which must be on version 6,798,662.98 by now. Can you imagine what will be the power of the TiVCT 4V DOHC 5.0L five years from now?

 

I still see no change in opinion here. Who cares if the LS engine is bigger? It is just as efficient. Keep in mind GM has already put high tech gadgets like direct injection and cylinder deactivation in the LS motors. The only reason why the 5.0 gets better MPGs is simply because it has 500 less lbs to carry. If the next gen Camaro gets smaller like insiders are saying I'm sure the MPGs will improve. I once again feel that attacking the LS motor because of it's so called "low tech" is just as bad as bashing the Mustang's solid rear. Doesn't the Mustang's solid rear date back to the Model T? If it aint broke don't fix it. Think about it the Corvette, it is a world beater and it uses a pushrod V8 and even leaf springs for cryin' out loud lol!

The newer tech is not always better, I should know I own a 2V 4.6 lol!

 

Dont forget VVT, Ford uses a strategy to reduce pumping losses at crusing speeds (low RPM part throttle operation that would normally create a high vaccum load the engine has to operate against).

Interestingly one of the reasons a smaller engine gains in effciency over a larger engine is the increased engine speeds they typically operate under. At higher speeds and greater throttle openings pumping losses are reduced when crusing.

I dont know how incremental Ford's VVT strategy (and I'm pretty sure the 5.0 doesn't leverage the smaller engine/ higher engine speed at cruise to much effect - its still a pretty good sized engine in modern terms), but one of the distinguishing advantages a diesel has over a gasoline engine is very little effciency given up to puming losses.

IIRC, GM's cylinder deactivation strategy allows for the cylinder to take in an air charge (sans fuel) and lets the engine compress the charge allowing it to act like a spring, otherwise it wouldn't provide any real benefit if the piston had to pull against such a strong vaccum.

I hear the next gen LS engine will emply direct injection and VVT (probably like the cam-in-cam technology the last viper engine used). VVT with cylinder deactivation in the next gen engine should provide some worth while gains in effciency when combined with GM's big engine since it can loaf along at cruise at practically an idle speed.

 

Hey... you found a sketch of an '86 Capri!

 

97GT03SVT: I see a little selective reading or selective comprehension here...Re-read what I posted and pay particular attention to this paragraph:

Consider that the Mustang's TiVCT 4V DOHC 5.0L went from a conceptual "what if" engine sketched on sticky notes to sitting in Mustang engine compartments in just two years and you should realize what a feat it is. Versions of GM's LS engine powered Columbus's Pinta and Nina (too weak for the heavier Santa Maria, however, which weighed almost as much as the new Camaro). GM has had forfriggingever to diddle with it and several centuries to copy the best of the aftermarket performance parts, yet the LS gets pounded by the 412 HP version 1.0 of an engine that's twenty percent smaller in displacement--which also gets better MPG and lower emissions per mile to boot! And the very first upgraded 5.0 (version 1.1, I guess) gets 440 HP--more HP than the Camaro's LSwhatever which must be on version 6,798,662.98 by now. Can you imagine what will be the power of the TiVCT 4V DOHC 5.0L five years from now?

And I might add that the 5.0 gets better mileage and more power without cylinder deactivation and without Gasoline Direct Injection. If Ford chose to add those features to the 5.0, the advantage over the Camaro's LS would be lengthened even more. And if Ford chose to adapt all the features found in the DOHC TiVCT 4-valve 5.0L V8 to the 6.2L block, the differences in the performance of the two engines would effectively render the Camaro's LS a relic for the Smithsonian--assuming the Smithsonian would lower their standards that much, of course.

It's sorta like the original Mustangs--not the 1964-and-a-half Mustangs and not the mid-engined V4 Mustangs that Dan Gurney showcased for Ford at Watkins Glen Raceway in 1962--I'm talkin' the P-51 Mustangs of World War II here. Originally requested by the British, the P-51s came with massive-displacement pushrodder Allison V12s--probably the engines also powering the P-38 Lightnings, but I ain't sure of that. The British found them underpowered and only able to perform satisfactorily at low altitude--which made them at least useful as ground attack aircraft in much the same way that the Soviets used the P-39 AiraCobras (likely also powered by the Allison V12s). But then desperate men at Fighter Command put the Spitfire quadcam 4-valve Rolls-Royce V12 in the P-51 thereby creating one of the greatest fighter aircraft of World War II--able to take the game to any other propeller-equipped fighters in the sky.

Technology works--drop a 5.0L into whatever is the highest-mileage 2011 Corvette, tweak it for the smaller vehicle, and watch the mileage of the newly-upgraded 'Vette embarrass the Corvette's original mileage figures. I bet it'll drop the ET and the 0-60, up the MPH in the quarter, and raise the top end as an added bonus.

Greg "Yes, Virginia, 1954 is every bit of 56 years ago" Ates

 

I understood your post but so what? Once again it reminds me of the GM guys trash talking the SRA of the Mustang even though it gets the job done. As far as performance goes the Mustang GT and Camaro SS are pretty much equals the stats are so close you really can't call one a better performer than the other. Every comparison I have seen has pretty much been a drivers race. The 5.0 produces 412HP while the 6.2 produces 426 so given my limited math ability it's safe to say the Camaro makes more power than the 5.0. There is no replacement for displacement. I hate to defend brand X here but you are flat out wrong on the Camaro's capabilities. The downfall of the Camaro is poor design and execution, the motor on the other hand has never been the problem.

Camaro SS 16/24 Mustang GT 17/26......wow what a huge difference!

Ask these 5.0 drivers how close they are getting to the posted mileage. The downfall of the Camaro is it's weight and not it's engine. The 6.2 under the hood of the Camaro weighs no more than the 5.0 hot rod magazine did a spec comparo of both motors. Also GM is more likely to upgrade it's motor sooner than Ford because they always do. The 2005 Corvette had the new for 05 6.0 only to be upgraded a few years later with the 6.2. GM has historically has always been quicker to upgrade engines.

I think it's ridiculous to accuse GM for lack of innovation. The CTS-V sedan hands the GT500 it's *ss on a road course but it has and old 556HP push rod motor.... What about it's IRS and magnetic ride control talk about a dated machine... I mention the CTS-V because it is likely going to be the basis for the Camaro Z28.

I think that GM and Ford are giving us the same thing a different way. We can split hairs for days on this one but I think both engines are quite effective at what they do. I agree Ford developing the 5.0 in just 2 years is impressive but it was also out of necessity. How long could Ford justify the 4.6 competing with an equally priced car with 100+HP more? Bash the LS all you want but it made the 5.0 a better motor for us Ford fans.

 

Yeah it'd be a different story if the cars weighed the same...but they don't.

And remember the 5.0L wasn't a reaction to the needing it because of the competition or wanting to string the 4.6 any longer, it was dead regardless.
It was because the followup to the 4.6 wasn't or didn't achieve what they wanted to do, and the 5L was the better choice.

 

I did not mean to do a what if scenario. I am just pointing out that the LS powered engines are as effective as the newer high tech 5.0. They both produce similar stats with different tech in the same way that Ford's SRA competes with GM's IRS.

Though I knew the 4.6 was going to be phased out I still firmly feel that the development of this new engine was because Ford knew the competition was coming. Blame GM for taking 5 or so years for a concept to become reality but as far back as 2006-07 Ford knew the Camaro and Challenger were going to compete with the Mustang again. Not trying to be the 5th dentist here I just feel that bashing a Camaro for it's performance is kinda silly. The design and styling on the other hand flame on! GM took a great motor and put it in an overweight, hard to see out of, poor built car.

 

No and I'm not saying its a bad car either.
I think its one of those 'did the best they could with what they had'
GM didn't exactly have a blank cheque or a better platform that suited what they needed at the time (at the price point they were trying to hit)

Obviously the 5L is aimed at the competition, but its not a direct result of it.

If i remember as far back as the late 90s, if you look back to leaked info on BON at the time (regarding the 2003.5 turned 2005 Mustang) there were plans of replacing the 4.6 2v with bigger engines (surprisingly enough, a 5L was in that mix, not talking the coyote here though)
Due to budgets and other unknown to me circumstances, they obviously nixed those plans and went with the 3v.
At the time, it did what it needed to do and hit the targets they wanted.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Flash forward another generation, a Mustang had plans to use larger engines.
And yet again, plans change but instead of staying with the 4.6 this time, and due to different management and a different outlook, the 5L was born.

This is why I say the 5L wasn't a direct reaction to the Camaro, because it wasn't.
Things change all the time, and I'm sure it'll happen again.

 

The motor is alright, but it is pushing it in terms of age and if GM tries to stick with pushrods much longer I would argue that they could find themselves way behind the curve.

Actually yeah, it is...particularly to the manufacturer. And remember that the Camaro had to break out the skip shift feature to even knock that down. With an actual weight difference of about 300lb between these two cars, and roughly similar aerodynamics, GM is left with some explaining to do and some serious soul searching if they are going to find a way to keep offering competitive V8 engines in a meaningful amount of vehicles.

Sounds great on paper but the reality is that you're talking about a pre bankruptcy GM that spent like the bill was never going to come due and a pre revival Ford that lacked direction. Right now GM looks to be pretty slow and clumsy.

The Z28 is extremely unlikely to be facing the existing GT500 by the time the uber-Camaro actually shows up. Although, I have no doubt the current GT500 is the benchmark, which means the Z28 will face off against a new GT500 that it was never designed to compete with. Like I said, slow and clumsy.

Honestly, I think Ford seldom even considers what GM's product lineup looks like or what their plans are when they make their decisions because I don't think they view GM as a legitimate long term competitor. And to be blunt about it, I think they are right.