and that thing has a 351 in it. Really puts the huge rear end in perspective.

 

I would wage war and lay waste to a thousand lands for that Mach 1

 

Like I said over in the photoshop thread, get rid of the extra 6" of body height that's blacked out at the bottom of the current car and it looks so much better and sleeker.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

Just thinking...

 

I know driving my '69 around really highlights to me how big cars really are nowadays, even the "small" ones...

 

For convertibles, a complete redesign of the header latches. I was looking at a 2010 GT500 vert, ended up buying a Porsche Boxster S instead (which I regret, but that's another story...) One very large factor was the header latches - Mustang is archaic. Swing by a Porsche dealer and check it out.

Cooled/blown air seats. Yes, it's not a performance item directly, but I'd rather have air blowing through the seat to keep my back dry than have to run the A/C - which uses less power? So, equal comfort, the cooled seat car will outrun the car without it.

Less "over bite" on the front. Yes, it's 68-73 classic, but my first car was a 66, and it didn't have the Bunkie (pure Bunk if you ask me) Knudson inspired front treatment, and was better looking for it. Pull the lower edges of the headlight buckets forward, or completely redesign and streamline the look. Moosetang's avatar is a good start on the front design...
his profile: https://themustangsource.com/members/moosetang-88355/

More pronounced "hips" that start a little further back and taper to a smaller rear. Way too much visual weight back there.

IRS - yes, Ford has done amazing things with the solid axle, but when the left tire must respond to inputs to the right, and vice versa, at the limit handling drops and ride degrades. Take the same skill that has turned the solid axle into a gem, and the Mustang would put Nissan's GT-R, the Porsche 911 GT2, and all the other on the boat home.

Mach 1000 with the electronics package.

Memory function for seats/mirrors

Rear seats can stay or go - for me, they'll never get used. I say drop the weight.

DO NOT add "Hill Start Assist"...have it in the Porsche, curse it every time it operates. I KNOW HOW TO DRIVE A STICK! STOP INTERFERING!

My $.02

 

Wow, you bought a Boxter over a GT500 'vert because of the hood latches?

All good points, otherwise, although Moostang's avatar is actually a rendering of the new Taurus. Not sure if you realised that or were just inferring the next-gen Mustang should use design cues from that front end

 

+1. When I saw the '10 (or '11) compaired to the '73 my jaw dropped. I didn't think any mustang was bigger than the '71-'73. Was I wrong !

 

I did realize it was an early Taurus sketch, but I can see the design transferring to a Mustang very well. Take the inverted ridges along the outside edges of the hood and make them progressive steps down, effectively creating a shoulder line that would carry through to the hips at the rear.

In the grill, taper the front lines over the head lights down, pulling in SN95 cues and 64-66 cues. Plus, it ties in the trapezoidal lower section, unifying Ford's design language.

As far as the Boxster, my plan was/is to pick up a GT500 when the design is at what I consider to be a peak. The aluminum 5.4 may get it there, but I'm waiting for the new tri-coat paint colors, and hopefully more options for the performance pack stripes. I want a black metallic paint option. Absent that, sterling gray, but something other than the red stripes. The seat options would make me buy today if they were available.

 

telescoping wheel

 

first time mine was parked next to my 69, I thought the 69 shrank...thats nothin though- look at them compared to our 1965 4 door LTD...it looks like a pedal car. its un freaking real that the S197 says 'subcompact' on the window sticker...

 

Wow, that '71 -- '11 side-by-side was a stunner. I've always thought of the '71-'73 as being a ridiculous pinnacle of corpulence that would never be repeated again.

Wrong.

The current Stang is pretty much every bit a big, fat and bloated as the '71-'73 leviathan. A much better car in every way, to be sure, but simply as oversized. The rear end especially looks simply massive, towering over the '71 with rolls of lard to add to its visual immensity. The whole '11 just has a soft, obese look compared to the slimmer, trimmer '71 (I never dreamed I'd describe a '71 Stang as slimmer or trimmer than anything other than a Greyhound bus.)

I truly think the NextStang should be designed to a 1965 box rule -- no bigger in any major dimension than a '65 Stang -- awright, I'll budge and inch or two on width, but that's it.

 

The '10 is not longer or wider than the '73 -- it's just a heck of lot taller. It's like a 4X4 in a height when compared to the '73. Of course the '71 -73 was also probably had the lowest height of any Mustang body style as well.

The S197 body is about six inches too tall. If they would only get rid of the current huge rocker panel molding and the giant seam underneath it and bring the body down to where it should be on the next gen body style...

Jeez, all cars these days are too tall and stubby looking. What ever happened to "lower, longer, wider"? It's now "taller & stubbier"!

 

So here's the skinny (or fat)

1971-1973
wheelbase 109
Track F/R 61.5/61.5
height 50.1
width 75
length 187.5-190 (depending on year and model)
weight 3560 (351 CJ)

2011
wheel base 107.1
track F/R 62.3/62.9
height 55.6
width 73.9
length 188.1
weight 3483

So...Why does the 2011 look narrow and tall...because it is. compared to a 1971 standard mustang the 2011 is taller and barely longer, compared to a 1973 mach 1 it is slightly shorter (front bumper regulation change or something like that).

I would like to see it keep the 107 W/B or increase an inch or two, shorten length to 180 or so, move to the 71-73ish width 75", and drop height to around 51-52" tall. That would allow the interior to remain similar legroom, add to the hip/shoulder room (maybe even a 5th seatbelt), and, if the seats were designed correctly, only marginally change the headroom.

 

That works for me

 

And here are some specs for a '65:I like these more the the '71 and '11, especially the non-panel van height. I'd spot it an inch or two in width and three or four inches in track, but otherwise, I like these trimmer, tidier dimensions and look. Aesthetically, I also like the '65's much lower belt line (my standard, can you hang your elbow, comfortably, out the window when cruising about) and airier cabin with a lot more glass area, kind of the anti '10 Camaro in that regard and all the better for it.

 

Lower belt line, heck yes! Height and length i am with you, but I like the low and wide look and stability. 73-74" minimum for width. Though I really like the idea of 75" and have ford add a third belt in the back. That way, if necessary my wife, three sons, and myself could all squeeze in for a fun drive on Sunday after noon. Though it is not all bad, right now we have to leave the wife at home

 

just for kicks I thought I'd see how the dimensions stack up against a 2010 Camaro, I was surprised. I thought it was larger.

2010 Camaro
wheel base 112.3
track F/R 63.7/63.7
height 54.2
width 75.5
length 190.4
weight 3860

2011 Mustang
wheel base 107.1
track F/R 62.3/62.9
height 55.6
width 73.9
length 188.1
weight 3483


Aesthetically speaking height is shorter, length is slightly longer but with far less hangover, and definitely wider. But with virtually no greenhouse it looks much moosier. The extra 400 lbs doesnt help it's cause.
But a mustang that was 180-185 X 75 X 51" (l x w x h) would look much more svelt and more lean and mean than the mustang's leading competitor. Doable?...I would think so, but who knows. All I know is that my father at 6'1" 325lbs can fit comfortibly into his 73 mach 1.

 

5yr bumper-2-bumper
:P