Not sure I get it. How would that equate to a Mustang II?

 

What's not to get? If you know anything about Mustang history, FORD gave the people what they asked for: smaller, better economy with styling linked to the original. The Mustang II was the result and we all know what a great car that was!

 

Not sure how are you are arriving at that from what you quoted, but all I'm saying is that I think Ford should maintain at least some of the retro styling in future Mustangs.

However, to address your fears of a new Mustang II, today's technologies mean you don't necessarily have to forfeit performance for economy, though I don't think I ever mentioned fuel economy in this thread. It could make 10mpg for all I care.

Still, from a performance standpoint, smaller and lighter is not a bad thing and I don't think the 400HP 5.0 is going anywhere. Just because it might be a smaller car does not mean it's a new Mustang II and in fact most all Mustangs except for the whales of '71-'73 were small cars...

 

You guys want lighter...how about a 2012 LX 5.0 - like back in the day....no Power Windows - No 500 Watt Stereo system - Manual Cloth Seats - Manual Mirrors - A/C delete - etc....That should shave some weight off of it.. ... Thats what we were all looking for back in the late 80's -

 

Welcome to the forum.

As has been covered in the past here, a new LX isn't in the cards. Ford is moving toward more standard features and not less. Features drive car sales in the mainstream, they get the sales that aren't decided merely on track numbers or brand loyalty. An enthusiast can still strip his or her car themselves, and add lightweight components in replace of stock, if they want that kind of experience. But the manufacturers won't, or like the European sports car firms they'll charge you more for the Lightweight than the car with comforts and amenities.

 

True, there is nothing to fear at this point. If anything, the performance is going to get better.
Even GM is talking about making the Camaro smaller.

 

you can save 6lbs by going from a 16 gallon to a 15 gallon gas tank.

 

I'm just wondering how much room Ford will have to play in the C.A.F.E. regulations now they've dumped Mercury? Could be the Mustang will retain the V-8 option that is still affordable as it is now.

 

+1 ... A cheaper no-frills Mustang with a powerhouse V-8 is what a lot of us have been waiting for to return.

 

Sure, sell alot of A and B segement cars and Ford will still have plenty of wiggle room (can you buy CAFE credits now?) Remeber its, Corporate Average Fuel Economy. However more worriesum is the EPA and that fact that carbon dioxide is considered a health hazard. If they want to get rid of V8s or at least relatively large displacement engines, the EPA just has to mandate "X" amount of carbon per mile and that would kill the party real quick since engines pretty much need to run in the 14.7:1 a/f ratio range for proper emissions operation with a conventional engine. That leaves lean burn engines which come with thier own set of problems.

More than likely, V8s will become premium offerings simply due to a self fulfilling prophecy brought about by conscience and social pressure rather than direct goverment influence.

Even now on this forum are a cadre of posters who would rather have an ecoboost 6 or 4 cylinder rather than the V6 and V8 offerings. Seeing both as out-dated hardware with limited potential and decidedly less effcient.

????, to my knowledge this has never really exsisted. The Mustangs "power house" offerings have always been a cost added proposition (orginal Shelbys, Boss and Mach cars to the R models and SVT products now). The current 5.0 with 400hp is really a Mustang first for a high powered standard V8, but its all relative. If GM ups the HP ante with the Camaro and if Dodge does the same with the Challenger, eventually you will see people whinning about how a 12 second capable GT Mustang is "slow" in comparison, which is frigg'n nuts when the average grocery getter/mom taxi is roughly a 15.5-16 second car.

 

The LX of the fox bodies. 5.0 base car with no frills. I think this has been discussed thoroughly. THe current GT comes with a grocery list of standard options that a lot of guys/gals don't want. I believe this is the point he is making.

 

I would be in more support of these EcoBoost engines with a smaller platform, like instead of a 60's throwback Mustang, a late 80's throw back Mustang. Eeesh, isn't that what started the Mustang II ideas? No one wants that again. It was a good attempt but just failed, probably even well intentioned but not successful. American's are a fickle bunch aren't we?

I'm not sure how the engineering will go for the future but it seems the path is good thus far and with the possibility of a lighter load, a smaller build, the V8 might have a good chance at staying around longer. Inevitably it will probably die. With Ford's attitude toward the Mustang, I see hope for a longer period now then I did 3 years ago even. That's a great thing.

I know I'm all over the place but back on the EcoBoost thing, the engines will have to keep being refined and perfected. The world is still too full of super cars not to ignite the imagination for spirited driving. The VQ series engines Nissan produces is incredible, and Ford will have to be this incredible and better to keep winning this race. I think they can do it as the current offering is proving worthy. With a few more refinements and keeping that fuel mileage up, it is easily the better platform.

Just throwing a few words out there. Hey everyone!

 

Good point, still though, I wouldn't consider an LX anything but a standard V8 stripper car (although I lov'em), its to bad Ford never saw fit to put the fox-body cobra's V8 into an LX on a limited basis, that would have made a nice cheap power house combo for the day.

Then again its a shame Ford never offered the 351 in anything but the R during the SN95 era

 

I suppose it depends on how you define failure? The Mustang II sold right around 400k units in its first year of production. I suppose it was the right car for the times, but given previous and current Mustang performance history, the II just doesnt seem all that great.

 

This is what I meant by successful. I'm not a numbers man, the Pontiac G8 GT is by far one the largest successes for GM's sedans from an automotive stand point. Dismal sales and poor advertising with many other factors killed an incredible car.

The Mustang II was no incredible car. Like you stated, given the history of current Mustang performance history, it just doesn't seem all that great.- It's this, or similar statements that have killed many cars in US history. I could go on, I just wanted to clarify. If I did clarify any.

 

The Mustang II was a result of a smaller, more efficient Mustang, but not necessarily THE type of result of a smaller, lighter and more efficient Mustang, especially given modern technologies and materials.

Would the NextStang be smaller? Undoubtedly, but given that it has bloated in size and lard to the leviathan '71-'73 model, which typically has been looked upon as the nadir of corpulent excess, then I'd say the Stang could readily hit the gym and loose some pounds and inches without turning out emaciated. I'll stick with my '64-'66 box rule -- spotting only a few inches in width -- as the goal. I'll step out and say what modern rules and expectations pack on, modern engineering, technology and materials -- plus excellent engineering -- should pare back off to end up in a draw, weight wise.

Would the NextStang be a clumsy slug like the Mustang II? Again, not necessarily given modern technologies, materials and engineering. Less size, mass and drag are among the core basics of improving overall performance and on that alone, the Mustang's performance should benefit.

The Mustang II reflected a particular point in time when Detroit hurriedly and inadeptly tried to bring smaller, more efficient cars to market. They certainly did not have their hearts in it, culturally, treating smaller cars like a necessary evil to endure until they could get back to making immense land yachts again. The small cars of the times certainly reflected this with such gems as the Vega, Pinto (and its Mustang II progeny) among a slew of other horribly done small cars.

It took a generation or two of very well done foreign small cars to slowly convince Detroit that any small car is merely something to endure until one can buy a proper big car. Even today Detroit readily backslides into that earlier cultural view but excellent cars like the upcoming Fiesta and Focus show that there are realms of enlightened thinking and that extremely fun, interesting and desirable smaller cars can be done.

If the conceptualization, design and engineering be done as adroitly as the Fiesta and Focus, then a smaller, lighter and more efficient NextStang should be something to look forward to, not dread.

 

But in the case of the G8, being a success performance-wise did not save it. When it comes down to it, sales numbers are what matters to an automaker. The Model T and VW Beetle weren't incredible performance cars either but they were successes.

The Mustang II was a success for Ford during the time it was being produced. I remember they were everywhere and I don't remember anyone trash talking them during the mid '70s -early '80s. I remember they started looking really old fashioned when the futuristic Fox Mustangs debuted.

I first heard people saying they were a "failure" during the Nineties, and that attitude really took off with the arrival of the internet , automotive forums and blogs. The only thing really wrong with them was the lack of horsepower, but '70s was a dismal time for performance cars of all makes, like the 200hp 6.6L Trans Am , for example.

Now a Mustang II sized car designed with today's technology packing the current 300+hp V6 or the current 400+hp 5.0 V8 would really be incredible.

 

Aside from me having need of a thesaurus, Very well stated rhumb.

 

Then how do you explain Ford's Fox platform, which was thousands of pounds lighter , smaller in size , generally more efficient with fuel?

Ford's car line up was almost entirely Fox based at one time, except for the Escort and Crown Vic.

I do agree with you, the next gen Mustang should be '65-'66 sized.

 

I agree with this, just hitting some highlights. Anyone can tell that the Mustang II was treated with little heart. Maybe it was just an unfortunate set of circumstances that brought the car its demise.

Whither I love or hate the smaller segment cars, I am really excited that Ford is bringing a workable, attractive and fun platform to the Focus and Fiesta. I am a firm believer in keep it simple stupid and these vehicles demonstrate this. A sucessful platform in an environment that the US needs to inject a little more of into its self during this time of conflict, economy, fuel. I was really happy to see that Ford was taking promising steps forward, and more quickly than either of its competitors. We won't see Fiat's for a while and GM...just...its GM.


Maybe the G8 was a bad example, but a good example of an automobile that was completely overlooked. By whom? The public. Auto enthusiasts make up about 1to 2% of the car community. While America has an automotive spirit that is all its own, the people that the car appealed to were the only ones in the know.

My attitude about the Mustang II grew from seeing and learning about the car. Hind sight is 20-20 so I shouldn't really make that call. I think in the 70's it really did seem like the right decision, regardless of how the public reacted about the car. Yep, the 70's were a dismal time for performance cars. Good call on the 200ho 6.6L, that's ridiculous!

I do think a new Mustang II could be made in much better form now then it ever was. Maybe try a new segment with the V6 and 4 cylinder versions. Leave the regular Mustang for a more performance oriented car. It could still use the weight loss and size shrinkage. I think we may see this trend. Maybe just not as extreme as in the past and without as careless an engineering plan.

All great points though!