bob

I'll pass on the transaxle - just to costly for what you get, namely more space in the footwell and some improvment in the f/r balance and maybe at the expense of some rear passenger room and trunk space.

rhumb

Yeah, transaxles are great, but would likely be a bespoke Mustang item and thus, very expensive for a Mustang's price points.

As for what sort of IRS, I think some version of the Control Blade design found on many Aussie Fords would be perfect: simple, rugged, effective and a well understood and developed design by Ford engineers. It's been doing effective duty down under for various hoonish, high-powered sedans there for a number of years.

Automagically

Yeah, as nice as the transaxle is, it just isn't for a Mustang, and would really put a price jump and room decrease on/in the car. Too much of a price bump for most of us. Plus the cars have been fine the way they are. I like the idea of better balance, but unlike the Corvette, the Mustang is a whole car, not a cockpit with wheels. Just like a Muscle car, Pony cars were and are still quite normal cars and should remain so. The Corvette is far more niche/sports car and probably deserves such a transmission.

Yeah, if it works well and is already available then go with it. Not only that, it's been tweaked before and can be done so by local tuners. So in true pony car fashion, it can be a more common and workable part for the performance fan in all of us or Mustang enthusiast, weekend racers, whatever.

908ssp

Actually a transmission from a front drive car say a twin turbo V6 could be used as a transaxle.

rhumb

A few transaxle cars essentially did the, though you really need a longitudinally arranged FWD to do that. The old Porsche 924/944 took that tack with, IIRC, essentially an Audi FWD drive train but with a long shaft in a tube separating the front mounted motor and clutch from the rear mounted tranny. I don't think Ford really has a longitudinal FWD system on its shelf to do this though.

The Vette sort of takes a slightly different tack by basically moving a regular RWD clutch and tranny to the back and grafting the differential onto the back of an otherwise fairly normal RWD gearbox. Probably a touch longer that the modified FWD approach but in a Vette, so what? Probably makes the clutch and diff a touch easier to access too. If Ford ever did contemplate a rear transaxle arrangement, it would probably be something more like this. Again though, I lot of dough and a regular RWD arrangement, provided the motor is tucked back for good weight distribution, can work fantastically in a less-than-Nth-degree, megabucks performance car.

39Mustang

If they go smaller they're making a huge mistake! Personally I think the current body is the perfect size. Yes, its over weight but there are other ways to trim it without ruining the car. I also say keep it retro looking as its been a huge success since it appeared in 2005. Sometimes change is not always a good thing take the 2010-to present and the squished front-end is not attractive no matter how much horsepower is under the hood. I say bring on the independent rear suspension as bar better driving with it.

Itravelalot

I think one of the points in the 50th year redesign is to show that the Mustang can go another 50 years as still being a popular car. The goal is not just a good 5 or 10 years more. In order to do this, Mustang fans are being asked to go along with some of the changes that are needed to keep this popular and fast 50 years from now. Granted, not all of the changes will come at once, but you can not rehash retro for 50 more years. You can keep some design elements similar, but in a newer way that keeps up with technology and fuel efficiency. I love the retro in the 2012, but I also okay with embracing a new design if it is designed well and has all of the features I need. If it has a smaller hood, then so be it. Length and overall size = extra weight that is an enemy to performance. Something has to get cut out, and I would rather it not be any more passenger space, or too much trunk space.

Getting better mpg isn't all bad. Humans are pretty efficient, and that is one of the reasons why we thrived in the first place. Our muscles are not nearly as strong or as dense as monkeys and apes. Our stomachs are not as large and complex as many plant eating animals that can digest more than we can, but they do have better energy density. We can not run as fast as many carnivores, but despite all this we were the ones that thrived. It is the efficiency that things like walking give us along with our intelligence that allowed us to thrive. It is not just because we could find all the food we need because of our intelligence, but rather that in combination with our lower needs, and our ability to make do with a lot of different food types that we did so well.

To apply this to cars, we will sooner or later have to make peace with the fact that car designs are about technology and style working together to give the most for what we have to work with. Like it or not, we already have a gas supply that is unreliable and prone to spikes. We have already started to transition away from gasoline to many other fuel sources, and that is okay. One way or another, if we do not we will run out of gas anywhere between 50 and 200 years from now. (And no, gas does not replenish itself inside the Earth, that is an unsubstantiated myth.) That sounds like a long time, but considering that our whole infrastructure for our society needs to be completely changed, we rightly do need to get started. This is a long process that we are already on that will ultimately lead to a future where we have fuel that hopefully does not run out or have such unreliable price spiked, or does not subsidize a lazy and &*&*!#$&*#$&*$@*@#&*$#@^%@#%@ people with gas money that rightly should stay in our own country.

Change is certain, it just is a matter of when. I do believe that no matter what technologies the Mustang uses, it can keep really great performance into the foreseeable future, but at the expense of some things we have grown comfortable with.

Hawaii 5.0

I can see what you mean bout technology and efficiency taking over design. But look at the new bmw efficient dynamics, perfect example of this. Loaded with tech, had multiple motors, batteries, and who knows how many other technological additions but look at how they incorporate evrything so fluidly into the design. The fan blade rims create a cushion of air around the wheels and i believe there is an undercarriage cover which reduces drag coefficient to somewhere between 1.0-1.6 or something like that. Its lightweight (for being loaded for war against gasoline) bout 3200 lbs i think. Anyway i could go on and on bout it but it would be easier if yalll checked it out. But the way cars are goin to be designed is going to change, no matter what. Times call for it. Muscle cars and fine exotics will soon become a dying breed as green machines take over. We can only hope that the bmw efficient dynamics is a precursor to the next generation of supercars

bob

Technology is fine, but if you can't make an emotional connection then what good is it? The Nissan GT-R is a good example of this - incredible car, but alot of people see it as pretty much like strapping into the space shuttle - your there for the ride and not much else.

RandyW

I'm pretty sure I'd have an emotional connection with the space shuttle if I ever had a ride in it, even if someone else is driving. That puppy's fast!

Twin Turbo

Good point. We had one guy in the UK who had a GT500 Super Snake, sold it and bought a GT-R. Now he's looking to get back into a Mustang

For me, the Mustang should always be a bit edgy. A bit more engine than the chassis (or these days, the electronics) can tame. I want it to be a bad boy that I can take by the scruff of the neck.

Technology has it's place.....but only to a limited degree in a Mustang. Or any other muscle car for that matter

Itravelalot

While technology does have its place, everything was new tech at some point in a car. The current mustang could not exist in the 1960's because the tech level was not high enough then to make the type of stuff that is in it now. The Coyote engine could not have been designed as well as it was without very fast computers, and even in the car it needs much more sophisticated tech to run than would ever be possible in the 60's. Muscle cars do need a certain type of refinement and personality, things that can not generally come with brand new tech, but that do come. Technology and personality do not have to be mutually exclusive. When designed well enough tech stuff does get a good personality. While I am sure that there should always be a raw unrestrained power, and less emphasis on the latest and greatest tech stuff, time will mean progress.

The problem with new tech for the Mustang is that a nice big v8 is one of its defining characteristics. The traditional v8 is currently running at the peak of its efficiency, and eventually something with have to happen to it, if the Mustang is really going to be around for another 50 years like Ford would like. Maybe Ford will show us all that refinement, raw power, and personality are also possible with other types of powerplants than just small block v8s. Maybe the true essence of a Mustang can remain intact with an Ecoboost, or even a more radical change. If we do see that it can work, then Ford could truly show us that in 50 years from now, no matter what powers the Mustang, be it hydrogen, hybrid, electricity, or other, that it will always have the Mustang personality that we all love. If the Mustang does have to have a decent sized normally aspirated v8 in it, then it might not be able to go another 50 years, and Ford can only create doubts in trying to show that it can. I love the v8, but technology can get to the point where some other powerplant is also exciting and reliable.

karman

I can't help thinking of the '69 Boss 429 when I read this paragraph.
Built in the 60s, more actual HP than the new 5.0.
Yeah it doesn't have the "current tech level", but it does all the power and was good enough to run on the track in it's day.
Also there were other engines that (while not having computer controls) had overhead cams or multi-valve heads.
"In 1965, Ford produced an even more exotic combination for A/FX with the introduction of a small number of custom-built Mustangs powered by the new 427-cid SOHC engine."
http://www.pahorsepower.com/page12/page12.html
The 3-valve:
"displacing 427 cubic inches, the Calliope"
http://www.wrljet.com/fordv8/exotics.html

hi5.0

True, but OTOH BMW & Porsche have found a way to put all kinds of tech in their sports cars without killing their essence. Ford just needs to find that balance. The Boss "Red Key" is a good step in the right direction.

karman

IMO the red key sucks.
Just a game with the EPA, not really a bonus.
They should just tune the car like the "RedKey" and not charge extra.
But they can't because it reduces fuel consumption.

assasinator

it was called a lincoln LS. they couldnt sell it. mustang with 4 doors and irs.

eric n

I've been a v8 guy my whole life. But, I've seen a Porsche Turbo and I have no problem using more modern tech to extract power more efficiently. I love the new technology which allows me to get 400+ ponies out of a little 5.0. I would likely enjoy technology which allows me to get even more out of a fuel efficient turbo 6.

Hawaii 5.0

Those new turbo S models can even hit 0-60 in 2.7 seconds! All from a twin turbo 6. The new bugatti veyron supersport hits 60 in 2.5-2.6 and its a quad turbo w16? Sometimes you gotta wonder if a car is realy worth 2.4 million

Topnotch

burningman

umm we are still talking about cars here....right?