What are some improvements you want to see in the NEXT GEN redesign?
Mach 1 Member
Joined: January 14, 2008
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
From: Maryland
That is Cool but I wonder how durable it is.. I can see my 3 year old grabbing that protector yanking it off ans saying " What's this Daddy??"
Member
Joined: October 3, 2011
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
NO thats not my major beef and no, my other car doesnt have to be pushed down towards the ground. just up and to the left.....
my major issues are
Lack of Quality Materials/Parts/Attention to detail
Vehicle needs a diet
Too much plastic everywhere
Last edited by 03Termn8r; Oct 5, 2011 at 09:06 AM.
Bullitt Member
Joined: May 21, 2011
Posts: 505
Likes: 0
From: Austin, TX
Originally Posted by 2010MustangGT
The only "plus" to the prop prod, is no finger prints on the hood upon closing... I for one am a stickler on smudges and prints. God help me when I have to close the trunk. 
Legacy TMS Member
Joined: May 16, 2004
Posts: 5,206
Likes: 18
From: Bristol, TN
Well a 1993 Mustang GT hatchback weighed in at a svelte 3144 pounds w/ manual tranmission.
However comparitively speaking its a death trap and would require a roll cage to equal the chassis stiffness of the current car (that'd add about 80-90 pounds)
That car also had puny disc/drum brakes (IIRC the front rotors were less than 12" in dia.) and 15" diameter wheels
Had an M5 tranmission that couldn't support more than 300 ft/lbs
Had 28 spline axles (which aren't pretty bad but I doubt they would hold up that long with good traction behind the 400+hp engine Ford is making now).
Had a cooling system that was only good for a 250hp engine.
And I could go on.
So what your really saying is that you would forego the current high 12 second Mustang that is the best handling best braking Mustang ever to have graced the earth for a mid to low 14 second car that had terribly unpredictable handling and laughable braking and in the sort of serious accident you would survive in the current car and walk away from would leave you seriously injured or even dead in the former car all so you could save 450 pounds of weight.
However comparitively speaking its a death trap and would require a roll cage to equal the chassis stiffness of the current car (that'd add about 80-90 pounds)
That car also had puny disc/drum brakes (IIRC the front rotors were less than 12" in dia.) and 15" diameter wheels
Had an M5 tranmission that couldn't support more than 300 ft/lbs
Had 28 spline axles (which aren't pretty bad but I doubt they would hold up that long with good traction behind the 400+hp engine Ford is making now).
Had a cooling system that was only good for a 250hp engine.
And I could go on.
So what your really saying is that you would forego the current high 12 second Mustang that is the best handling best braking Mustang ever to have graced the earth for a mid to low 14 second car that had terribly unpredictable handling and laughable braking and in the sort of serious accident you would survive in the current car and walk away from would leave you seriously injured or even dead in the former car all so you could save 450 pounds of weight.
Mach 1 Member
Joined: January 14, 2008
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
From: Maryland
Well a 1993 Mustang GT hatchback weighed in at a svelte 3144 pounds w/ manual tranmission.
However comparitively speaking its a death trap and would require a roll cage to equal the chassis stiffness of the current car (that'd add about 80-90 pounds)
That car also had puny disc/drum brakes (IIRC the front rotors were less than 12" in dia.) and 15" diameter wheels
Had an M5 tranmission that couldn't support more than 300 ft/lbs
Had 28 spline axles (which aren't pretty bad but I doubt they would hold up that long with good traction behind the 400+hp engine Ford is making now).
Had a cooling system that was only good for a 250hp engine.
And I could go on.
So what your really saying is that you would forego the current high 12 second Mustang that is the best handling best braking Mustang ever to have graced the earth for a mid to low 14 second car that had terribly unpredictable handling and laughable braking and in the sort of serious accident you would survive in the current car and walk away from would leave you seriously injured or even dead in the former car all so you could save 450 pounds of weight.
However comparitively speaking its a death trap and would require a roll cage to equal the chassis stiffness of the current car (that'd add about 80-90 pounds)
That car also had puny disc/drum brakes (IIRC the front rotors were less than 12" in dia.) and 15" diameter wheels
Had an M5 tranmission that couldn't support more than 300 ft/lbs
Had 28 spline axles (which aren't pretty bad but I doubt they would hold up that long with good traction behind the 400+hp engine Ford is making now).
Had a cooling system that was only good for a 250hp engine.
And I could go on.
So what your really saying is that you would forego the current high 12 second Mustang that is the best handling best braking Mustang ever to have graced the earth for a mid to low 14 second car that had terribly unpredictable handling and laughable braking and in the sort of serious accident you would survive in the current car and walk away from would leave you seriously injured or even dead in the former car all so you could save 450 pounds of weight.
Legacy TMS Member
Joined: May 16, 2004
Posts: 5,206
Likes: 18
From: Bristol, TN
However, its not just the body thats adding weight, the drivetrains and thier support systems add alot as well. The coyote V8 was put on a pretty extensive diet and yet it still weighs right in or a bit more than the 4.6 3v it replaced.
Mach 1 Member
Joined: January 14, 2008
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
From: Maryland
I'm waiting to see where Ford goes with that, I read in a link to a BMW Q&A elswhere even the M cars are having trouble keeping the weight down. Although they've done a good job at it since the new M5 is just 70 pounds heavier than the regular 5 series car.
However, its not just the body thats adding weight, the drivetrains and thier support systems add alot as well. The coyote V8 was put on a pretty extensive diet and yet it still weighs right in or a bit more than the 4.6 3v it replaced.
However, its not just the body thats adding weight, the drivetrains and thier support systems add alot as well. The coyote V8 was put on a pretty extensive diet and yet it still weighs right in or a bit more than the 4.6 3v it replaced.
Team Mustang Source
Joined: January 29, 2004
Posts: 2,358
Likes: 1
I would like to see a lighter weight car myself. Mazda can manage a sub 3000lb car with the RX8, and that is a quasi four door, true 2+2 with enough chassis stiffening added around the huge door openings to choke a mule. Even with a 5.0L V-8 and stouter driveline added Ford should be able to provide us a sub 3400lb GT without breaking a sweat. Of course, I also don't mind if the car gets a bit smaller to manage that, so long as front seat room stays relatively generous I don't see that as a problem. A couple of inches from the wheelbase and overall length, and a little less section height below the windows and you would lose a lot of weight just by ridding the car of mass.
A telescoping steering column is looooong overdue at this point.
Also, why can I buy an AWD, WRX sedan for 25k and change without even haggling but the most basic Mustang GT is 29k and change? No, they aren't similar, but the disparity in price tags isn't justified by the equipment. My local dealer just offered to sell me a 5.0L V-8 powered F-150 4wd for 22k and change plus TTT. Yes, that is a base model, but the majority of features are no worse than you will find in a base Mustang and I would get about another 2,000lb worth of steel and 4wd for my trouble. Heck, the afore-mentioned RX8 starts about notable below where the current Mustang GT does despite ridiculously limited volume, IRS, and a convoluted chassis design. Even the simple Wankel motor likely isn't cheap because it isn't used in anything else. At this point I think it pretty clear, the profit margin on the Mustang is probably pretty healthy, IMO likely a little too healthy for the long term good of the car. Either the Mustang needs to shed some price tag or it needs to pick it up in the materials and equipment department. And frankly, I would prefer that it shed some price tag.
Just my two cents.
A telescoping steering column is looooong overdue at this point.
Also, why can I buy an AWD, WRX sedan for 25k and change without even haggling but the most basic Mustang GT is 29k and change? No, they aren't similar, but the disparity in price tags isn't justified by the equipment. My local dealer just offered to sell me a 5.0L V-8 powered F-150 4wd for 22k and change plus TTT. Yes, that is a base model, but the majority of features are no worse than you will find in a base Mustang and I would get about another 2,000lb worth of steel and 4wd for my trouble. Heck, the afore-mentioned RX8 starts about notable below where the current Mustang GT does despite ridiculously limited volume, IRS, and a convoluted chassis design. Even the simple Wankel motor likely isn't cheap because it isn't used in anything else. At this point I think it pretty clear, the profit margin on the Mustang is probably pretty healthy, IMO likely a little too healthy for the long term good of the car. Either the Mustang needs to shed some price tag or it needs to pick it up in the materials and equipment department. And frankly, I would prefer that it shed some price tag.
Just my two cents.
Last edited by jsaylor; Oct 26, 2011 at 09:26 PM.
Cobra Member
Joined: July 11, 2007
Posts: 1,499
Likes: 0
I would like to see a lighter weight car myself. Mazda can manage a sub 3000lb car with the RX8, and that is a quasi four door, true 2+2 with enough chassis stiffening added around the huge door openings to choke a mule. Even with a 5.0L V-8 and stouter driveline added Ford should be able to provide us a sub 3400lb GT without breaking a sweat. Of course, I also don't mind if the car gets a bit smaller to manage that, so long as front seat room stays relatively generous I don't see that as a problem. A couple of inches from the wheelbase and overall length, and a little less section height below the windows and you would lose a lot of weight just by ridding the car of mass.
A telescoping steering column is looooong overdue at this point.
Also, why can I buy an AWD, WRX sedan for 25k and change without even haggling but the most basic Mustang GT is 29k and change? No, they aren't similar, but the disparity in price tags isn't justified by the equipment. My local dealer just offered to sell me a 5.0L V-8 powered F-150 4wd for 22k and change plus TTT. Yes, that is a base model, but the majority of features are no worse than you will find in a base Mustang and I would get about another 2,000lb worth of steel and 4wd for my trouble. Heck, the afore-mentioned RX8 starts about notable below where the current Mustang GT does despite ridiculously limited volume, IRS, and a convoluted chassis design. Even the simple Wankel motor likely isn't cheap because it isn't used in anything else. At this point I think it pretty clear, the profit margin on the Mustang is probably pretty healthy, IMO likely a little too healthy for the long term good of the car. Either the Mustang needs to shed some price tag or it needs to pick it up in the materials and equipment department. And frankly, I would prefer that it shed some price tag.
Just my two cents.
A telescoping steering column is looooong overdue at this point.
Also, why can I buy an AWD, WRX sedan for 25k and change without even haggling but the most basic Mustang GT is 29k and change? No, they aren't similar, but the disparity in price tags isn't justified by the equipment. My local dealer just offered to sell me a 5.0L V-8 powered F-150 4wd for 22k and change plus TTT. Yes, that is a base model, but the majority of features are no worse than you will find in a base Mustang and I would get about another 2,000lb worth of steel and 4wd for my trouble. Heck, the afore-mentioned RX8 starts about notable below where the current Mustang GT does despite ridiculously limited volume, IRS, and a convoluted chassis design. Even the simple Wankel motor likely isn't cheap because it isn't used in anything else. At this point I think it pretty clear, the profit margin on the Mustang is probably pretty healthy, IMO likely a little too healthy for the long term good of the car. Either the Mustang needs to shed some price tag or it needs to pick it up in the materials and equipment department. And frankly, I would prefer that it shed some price tag.
Just my two cents.
Team Mustang Source
Joined: January 29, 2004
Posts: 2,358
Likes: 1
I'm glad to see that I'm not alone on this. I too am virtually certain that Ford would not consider such a thing, but can you imagine the publicity a truly great little, V-8 powered 2+2 would generate at an affordable price? I have little doubt ales of every Ford car would benefit.
GT Member
Joined: July 23, 2011
Posts: 102
Likes: 9
From: wv
THE 05-09 CARS WERE GREAT BUT LACKED POWER AND HANDLING, AND MAN IF I HAD BOUGHT A 2010 THEN ID BE REALLY DISAPPONTED BCAUSE A LIL OF THAT RETRO FEEL WAS LOST AND COMPARED TO A 2011 5.0 THEY ARE JUST SLOW. I LOVED THE STYLE OF MY 2009 BUT MY NEW 5.0 IS 5 TIMES THE CAR -IT HANDLES AND RUNS LIKE A MUSCLE CAR SHOULD. AS FAR AS RUNNING I DONT SEE HOW THEY CAN IMPROVE ON THE PERFORMANCE MUCH . ALL IT NEEDS NOW IS A LIL BODY CHANGES AND MAN ,,WHAT A RIDE
Legacy TMS Member
Joined: May 16, 2004
Posts: 5,206
Likes: 18
From: Bristol, TN
MAN, YOU SEEM REALLY UPSET ABOUT THE 05-09 CARS? 
Anyways, I agree the 05-09 cars could have had tighter handling but they were defintely a magnitude in improvement over the out going SN95/New Edge cars.
Honestly power is subjective. Maybe I'm old school but a mid 13 second to low 14 second car (I dont give a **** if its a Honda Accord or Scion TC) is pretty fast. We've just been spoiled in the last decade or so by the improvements in traction and power (not condemning it one bit mind you) that have been made available at an affordable price.
I suppose it will level off at some point once we start seeing factory 12 second mini-vans and 10 second base V6 Pony cars
Anyways, I agree the 05-09 cars could have had tighter handling but they were defintely a magnitude in improvement over the out going SN95/New Edge cars.
Honestly power is subjective. Maybe I'm old school but a mid 13 second to low 14 second car (I dont give a **** if its a Honda Accord or Scion TC) is pretty fast. We've just been spoiled in the last decade or so by the improvements in traction and power (not condemning it one bit mind you) that have been made available at an affordable price.
I suppose it will level off at some point once we start seeing factory 12 second mini-vans and 10 second base V6 Pony cars
Shelby GT350 Member
Joined: April 20, 2010
Posts: 2,121
Likes: 3
From: Dallas
MAN, YOU SEEM REALLY UPSET ABOUT THE 05-09 CARS?
Anyways, I agree the 05-09 cars could have had tighter handling but they were defintely a magnitude in improvement over the out going SN95/New Edge cars.
Honestly power is subjective. Maybe I'm old school but a mid 13 second to low 14 second car (I dont give a **** if its a Honda Accord or Scion TC) is pretty fast. We've just been spoiled in the last decade or so by the improvements in traction and power (not condemning it one bit mind you) that have been made available at an affordable price.
I suppose it will level off at some point once we start seeing factory 12 second mini-vans and 10 second base V6 Pony cars
Anyways, I agree the 05-09 cars could have had tighter handling but they were defintely a magnitude in improvement over the out going SN95/New Edge cars.
Honestly power is subjective. Maybe I'm old school but a mid 13 second to low 14 second car (I dont give a **** if its a Honda Accord or Scion TC) is pretty fast. We've just been spoiled in the last decade or so by the improvements in traction and power (not condemning it one bit mind you) that have been made available at an affordable price.
I suppose it will level off at some point once we start seeing factory 12 second mini-vans and 10 second base V6 Pony cars
I feel like if you were to set up a 2010 Mustang to your best track preference and go with it, it would run much faster than you might think. The Drag strip is a one dimensional test of a car's performance and potential. I love drag racing but watching the right driver tackle VIR in a Mazda 3 is far more interesting. Don't know if you guys watched the video of the Porsche GT2 RS and Renault Megane yesterday, but performance is in the hands of the weilder. Not to say that somethings were awry with the comparisons, it was still impressive to watch. What I'm trying to say in short is that everyone has to slow down in the corners and if your faster/smoother in those technical areas, you've just become the faster car. Or at least evenly matched.
I've gone off on a tangent. Just to perk everyone up, I'm feeling better about turbo 4's these days. Call me crazy but I am. Just think. Ford offers the best of both worlds. A Turbo4 and a V8 again, both potent and powerful. The V-6's seem to be on the way out and at this point I'd almost rather see the Turbo 4 than another V6 anyway.
Legacy TMS Member
Joined: May 16, 2004
Posts: 5,206
Likes: 18
From: Bristol, TN
Also, why can I buy an AWD, WRX sedan for 25k and change without even haggling but the most basic Mustang GT is 29k and change? No, they aren't similar, but the disparity in price tags isn't justified by the equipment. My local dealer just offered to sell me a 5.0L V-8 powered F-150 4wd for 22k and change plus TTT. Yes, that is a base model, but the majority of features are no worse than you will find in a base Mustang and I would get about another 2,000lb worth of steel and 4wd for my trouble. Heck, the afore-mentioned RX8 starts about notable below where the current Mustang GT does despite ridiculously limited volume, IRS, and a convoluted chassis design. Even the simple Wankel motor likely isn't cheap because it isn't used in anything else. At this point I think it pretty clear, the profit margin on the Mustang is probably pretty healthy, IMO likely a little too healthy for the long term good of the car. Either the Mustang needs to shed some price tag or it needs to pick it up in the materials and equipment department. And frankly, I would prefer that it shed some price tag.
Cant disagree there, lmao, Ford is probably using the margin on the Mustang to completely cover thier loan repayments
which I understand accounts for a 1200 dollar overhead on each vehicle sold. Which is kinda depressing when you consider GM's overhead on each car due to the bailout is only about 350 bucks per vehicle.