Adding turbo to a v6 is too much money. Who wants to pay over 21k for a base base model? Not me or any other v6 owner. One of the main reasons that make the current v6 so good is the bang for your buck. Being able to get one new for 21-22k is amazing to say the least considering what it gives you. No one wants the base model to cost as much as a GT and it defeats te purpose of a base model. Also without the turbo the GNX is a pile of crap.

 

You guyz are missing the point. Cars keep getting heavier and heavier year after year. The HP and torque numbers are marketing gimmicks to sell them. I dont care if I have a 100hp engine---if it can push me to 10-12 sec times I'm all in. I'm also a fan of all American muscle cars, old, new, small block, big block, whatever, I like to go. Look up 0-60 and 1/4 mile time for some cars from a decade, two decades, even three or for decades ago and see how close they are to cars of today. If you know anyone with a classic ask to go for a drive. Some o those older cars give you a punch in the gut that you just dont feel with any newer car.
Cars today should be smoking the numbers cars of yesteryear could make, yet they dont. Sure some are faster but how much faster? .1-.5 sec faster then people went all those years ago? We should be demanding more from our cars,rather than take what they give us and argue about whats faster.

For what it was in its day the GNX was badass, I was on the road when they came out and after a few runs against them with my mustang, I and every other Mustang, Camaro, Vette driver on the road learned not to mess with them. Alot of my friends drove Mustangs as well win or lose it didn't matter we had fun racing Camaros, Vetts, even the occasional exotic when they poped up, the GN and GNX's were simply not fun to race against they made everything else at the time seem ...slow.

 

Supposedly Ford is looking to reduce the weight of the next car by a meaningful amount or perhaps that's just another way of saying "mass neutral", in any event increased content and safety advances as well as NVH expectations have driven the weight increases and while enthusiasts might eschew those things in favor of FR-S/BRZ/Miata lightness the average person isn't nor is NHSTA big on giving out stars for cars that might be good at defensive driving.

 

Replacing the solid rear axle with the independent set-up will save some weight.
Using high-strength alloys instead of steel will do that too.
No longer engineering the car to be able to take a heavy supercharged 5.8 engine will allow for lighter suspension and other components all over the place

All of that means a lighter car

 

IRS weighs more than an SRA. The reason the cars weigh more is b/c of a cost factor. If everyone was willing to shell out 100K plus for a car then you could have them build with carbon fiber and other aluminums. Steel is just cheaper and heavier. And when they start to reduce weight, you are going to see the cost go up as well.
And it is alot eaiser to get a car to go 10's now than it was with the fox body. And alot safer to stop that car from the 10's afterward also

 

Yes cars are heavier and need more hp/tq to get them to accellerate. But sorry, every current version is faster then their originals. The current V-6 mustang almost matches the 67 Gt500
67 GT500 0-60 4.9s, 1/4 13.6 @ 106
13 V6 0-60 5.1 s 1/4 13/8 @ 101
13 GT 0-60 4.3s, 1/4 12.7 @ 111
13 Boss 0-60 4.0s, 1/4 12.3 @ 115
GT500 0-60 3.5s, 1/4 11.6 @ 125

the weight on the 67 GT500 was right around 3400 lbs. The current Gt weighs a little over 3500. So there isnt that much of a weight difference. Now the Camaro and Challenger are way up there in weight.

and about the only thing you'll get a 10 sec 1/4 out of with a 100hp is a light weight bike. Don't think you'd want a car that weighed 400lbs

 

Everyone likes to be nostalgic

 

Depends on how they do it, if Ford hangs the IRS components right off the body it might be lighter than an SRA over all but that's so last millennium as most if not all manufacturers of high powered cars use a cradle to mount the IRS and attach to the body. The overall weight in this case tends to be more than an SRA however in both cases the unpsprung mass is lower than an SRA.

 

Single turbo. They were single turbo only.

 

The 67 gt500's were NOT that fast. I lived thru it.. if they broke 100 mph in the quarter and 7 seconds 0-60 stock, you were flying. They MOST CERTAINLY were not running 0-60 in under 5 seconds.. New 5.0's would kill one.
Here is an original test of one. 0-60 in 6.5 and 15.0 in the quarter..

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...t500-road-test

 

That was an auto saw that test too. Threw that one out since it was the only auto tested. The rest I found were 14.0-13.6 so I took the fastest

 

The 100 hp thing was sarcasm if ya didn't catch on, I was intending to mean that HP numbers don't mean crap if the car isn't going any faster than one with less advertized numbers.

Thank you for proving my point.
67 GT500 0-60 4.9s, 1/4 13.6 @ 106
13 GT 0-60 4.3s, 1/4 12.7 @ 111
46 years of progress and we get what? 0.6 sec improvement in 0-60 times and less than 1 sec in the 1/4? After 46 years?!?!?! What does that give you bragging rights in a timed run, cause on the road you'd barely be ahead of that '67, miss a shift and you lose. It shouldn't even be close after 46 years. Half a century for that? I know, You know, everyone knows they could have done better. Dont limit yourself to looking up Mustangs, like I said I like all incarnations of American Muscle cars not just Mustangs, although they are pretty close to the top on my list. If you start looking up some other makes you'll see todays Mustang numbers 2-3 decades ago.
As for materials sure if you go with the latest greatest super awesome sauce materials you will pay a ton for the car. Carbon Fiber, might cost alot but there are cheaper lighter alternatives. Steel is strong but weighs a ton, there are alternatives.
The mustang platform is awesome, but if Ford is not careful they will screw it up and be left behind.

 

That 67 is a motor with wheels, they probably didn't even come with air bags or a radio. Think about the measures new car designs go to, to be safe, quiet, functional. It's easy to be light when all that is required is a motor, four wheels and a steering wheel.

 

My comment about the motorcycle is tongue and cheek. Mustangs were something quick and easy to look up. Yeah it's only .9 second faster in the 1/4 mile...but that doesn't tell everything. Which would you rather have to do a panic stop from 80 in? The Shelby's mpg was 9 city 12 highway. And how many got that? All the safety features the govt mandates makes up a large amount of the weight as well. Mustangs have what 4-6 air bags, 8 speaker sound systems with amps and subwoofers, power everything,sound deadening, power steering, ABS etc.
The Challenger, Camaro, Charger, Vette even Ferrari and Porsche all deal with the same things. Do I wish we could get all the stuff we do in a car that weights 3200 or less? Heck yeah...but Ford is staying lighter then everyone else so they are having to play catch up. Hopefully their significant weight loss is 200+
What other makes were running consistent mid 12's off the showroom floor? You mentioned the GN and GNX...GN ran high 13's and the GNX was mid 13's stock. And the GNX was 30,000 in 1987.
Original Viper from 1992-1995 only ran mid 12's with an 8.0L V10 and weighed 3200+. There are the occasional car made 20-30 years ago that matched the current performance.

 

The answer: tires. The old cars just needed better rubber. As cars got heavier and HP and TQ numbers went up it was the tires that made the real difference.

 

Oops quoted the wrong one. There was someone saying there will be no ecoboost at all in the US. Don't have time to go find it at the moment.

Some of the reasoning for that was the rental car companies don't want to deal with a turbo. But they have lots full of ecoboost Fusions and Escapes.

 

The biggest reason is that in Europe they pay by the liter not the gallon. A smaller engine with a turbo makes more sense over there.

 

That and someone on here said there's a tax on engines over a certain Liter.

 

Can you show which 67 gt500 ran 4.9 in 0-60? Because thats haul azzin in that car. It was built very light with racing in mind. Barely any creature comforts or amenities and not even much in the way of safety as well.

 

I don't know about the tax but the thing about gas is true. That alone would make sense to have a turbo 4 as a bass model. The v6 dosent get all that better MPG than the GT. and if you turbo a v6 you'll need more fuel this decreasing gas mileage. A turbo 4 would make the same power as the v6 but with better gas mileage.....though if I was in Europe I wouldn't choose either as gas is too expensive there.