Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Ford Mustang (2005 and Newer)

2456794

Comments

  • The mustang is scheduled to go on sale in the summer of 04....the price range will be about the same or justa little higher then any other new release for a mustang(i.e. a new 04 coupe was about $18k+ in 2003)..the price will range from $18k+ to $39k+ (MSRP)...The regular coupe however is not the one i am looking forward to. I cant wait for the Shelby and SVT editions. Those are what have me looking forward to the 04 release. If you are wondering if my information is accurate, It is....i have been reasearching this car for months now.My love of the 67 shelby mustang(Eleanor) is what lead me to do all this research. Since i wont be able to maintain one ever if i could afford to buy it i had to find an alternative...and this 05 mustang will do just that for me. If there are anymore question feel free to ask if i dont know off hand i'll get the info for you.
  • The 05 is on "DEW-Lite", a less expensive version of the DEW98 used for the Lincoln LS/Jag S.

    The biased auto press will hate the live axle, but then what Asian car sold here has a V8 and RWD besides the luxo boats??
  • z9z9z9z9z9z9z9z9 Posts: 101
    Pretty much anyone (with the exception of drag racers) who understands suspension design will hate the live axle, especially in the northern parts of the US where roads are so bad.

    Ford's explanation that IRS costs too much is really lame. Even KIA and Hyundai use IRS. To be fair, RWD IRS costs a bit more, but even stamped steel semi-trailing arms would be better than a live axle.
  • The only good reasons I can see for keeping the live axle set up are for durability, reliability, simplicity, cost and weight concerns. Unfortunately, that is quite a list.

    An independent rear suspension would be a welcome addition, but given the current bean counter mentality a live axle seems all to predictable.
  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    True, but live axles make tail-out fun sooo easy! And what's more ponycar than that? : )
  • "Even Kia and Hyundai use"... a lame-axx IRS. No way would they hold up to V8 torque.

    If you don't like live axle, get a Kia or Hyundai then and watch everyone ignore the car.
  • z9z9z9z9z9z9z9z9 Posts: 101
    weight concerns:
    The real issue here is UNSPRUNG weight, which is one of the reasons a live axle handles so badly on broken pavement. Not only are the wheels moving, but the entire axle and differential is along for the ride too.

    V8 torque:
    The IRS on the Dodge Viper seems to be able to deal with 525 ft/lb torque, so I don't see reason why Ford can't deal with the 325 ft/lb or so that the V8 Mustang will produce.

    Final thought: are there _any_ other vehicles currently being manufactured with a live rear axle other than taxi cabs and pickup trucks? Very few. If a live axle is inadequate for midsize family sedans, what business does it have on the back of a "performance" car?
  • Regarding weight concerns - it appears that the new Mustang, even with a live axle is going to weigh around 3700 pounds. I fear that the Cobra version (with IRS and a supercharger) will start to brush up against the two ton figure.

    I understand the importance of keeping unsprung weight down. However, some pony car fans may appreciate measures to keep overall weight under control. Keep in mind that I find an IRS superior to a live axle in most instances, including this one.

    For those of you concerned about durability, it doesn't seem to be an issue for the current IRS equipped 390hp Cobra.
  • What is really annoying is that the Pontiac GTO will have IRS, and it has a lot more power than what Ford is planning for the GT. However that car weighs over 3800 pounds, and costs about 35000. Ford should never let GM get ahead of them again. (Like they did with the last F bodies)
    Why in the world would Ford build the all new Mustang with a solid rear axle? Forget about all the excuses like weight, cost etc etc, and build the car in the modern idiom. Ford, Are you there? Are you listening?
  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    Ford didn't exactly "let GM get ahead of them" re the F-bodies. There's a reason why the F-bodies aren't made anymore, but the Mustang is still going strong.

    Mustangs have rarely been the pinnacle of pony car performance...rather, they succeed by being good at a number of things, rather than great at just one.

    I like my Mustang precisely because it is such a dinosaur...there are plenty of very good sport coupes out there, but there's only one choice if you want to experience the musclecar ethos of old.

    Perhaps Ford does have the right idea after all: if total performance is your goal, pick up a Cobra and you've got it. But if you want performance combined with some nostalgia, get the GT. That's what I did...
  • "let the F bodies get ahead"

    In the race that counts in the real world, the sales race, the F bodies were killed.

    Armchair magazine racers scream alot, but don't put down $$$ to buy the machines they so ferociously defend.

    Also, the GTO is meant to compete with the Cobra, which has IRS by the way. There is no "base V6 GTO" at all.

    No matter how much some scream, Mustang buyers are not looking for a Celica or Eclipse clone.
  • OK, why not make the IRS an option?? That way cheapskates can bounce around on the solid axle, and the rest of us can decide if IRS is worth its cost. Seems like that would satisfy everyone, and I can not understand why Ford would not do just that. Seems logical to me.
  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    Yeah, I agree...esp. since it's not like Ford is going to have to fabricate one from scratch (since the Cobra will have one).

    I think it unfortunately comes down to economics and manufacturing. Same reason you can't get a DOHC 4.6 as an option on your GT. : (
  • Now that you mention the DOHC 4.6 as an option on the GT. It is stupid that one cannot order such on the GT. I would think that Ford is in the business of making autos and why would they not make what the customer wants. If you go to a restaurant and want ice cream on your hamburger why not get it??? In my opinion there are too many not availables in the car business. If a customer is patient enough to order a car, why can he not have it the exact way he wants it. I would be willing to pay the price to get just what I want. What think??? Also do you think that Ford will ever make a Mustang without all those fake scoops and mandatory wings??? I want mine low key plain.
  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    I know what you mean. I've looked at car option sheets from the 1960s, and back then you could get just about *everything* piecemeal. So you could say get the drag suspension without having to order the super cobra jet engine.

    I suspect the we can't do that anymore due to production economics. Ford probably has to keep things as streamlined as possible in assembly, otherwise the costs get prohibitively expensive. So we have to get option "packages" not
    picking and choosing what we want.

    On the plus side, just as in the 1960s, you can get pretty much any Mustang feature over-the-counter from Ford to install yourself. Including the DOHC engine. Reading through the Ford Racing catalog is a hoot, just to see all the stuff available.

    I agree with you re the scoops/wing, but we should consider that fake scoopage has been a part of Mustangs since the early days. The 1969 GT has a very prominent hood scoop that is, alas, fake. Nobody minded then...

    Best you could do now would be to find a Bullitt edition: no wing, no side scoops, just the hood one. Plus Bullitts are the coolest-sounding Mustang of recent years (yes, that includes the Mach 1)...
  • i like all the scoops on the gt even if they arent functional. they help to differentiate(sp?) between the v6/gt/mach/cobra. they also make it look more sporty...in my opinion anyway
  • "I suspect the we can't do that (order peicemeal) anymore due to production economics"

    Also to maintain quality. The Japanese learned that restricting options reduces complexity in production.
  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    Yeah...though I complain about the options situation, I realize it's the best solution over the long run.

    For most people, the packaged groupings are just fine, and as pointed out, I'd definitely hate to have Mustang quality drop *further*... ; )

    And it seems to me that with the advent of leasing, and the general affulence of the avg. new car buyer, everybody simply gets the "loaded" package anyway. I think the avg. GT out there is a premium edition with leather, the Mach stereo, etc. I bought a "regular" GT because those things mean nothing to me...but I'm in the minority I know.
  • I agree with you. Every car that I have ordered has been the plain jane looking car with the best available performance options. My l989 LX 5.0 was a coupe with all of the performance options Ford made, and that car was a hoot to drive around as at that time the only way anyone could tell that it was really a GT was the very small 5.0 badge on the fenders. Surprised most everyone. Through the years I have had several such cars, and I have always enjoyed the sleeper versions. Forget wings and scoops and other cop baiting add ons. Why advertise that you might just break the speed limit??
  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    '89 LX 5.0, eh? Cool! Those have to be up there in the all-time "bang for the buck" competition. I miss the LX V8 models, and wish Ford would bring them back. But unfortunately, that's unlikely I think.

    Seems most people want all the luxury comforts in addition to performance these days. I see way more Infinity G35 Coupes than Nissan 350Z track models on the road, new Porsches have cupholders, and Jaguar hasn't built a sportscar since the early 1970s. It's enough to drive a semi-purist crazy (there was a great discussion here not too long ago about what constitutes a "sportscar" and therefore a "purist")
  • NSORICNSORIC Posts: 33
    Did someone say '89 LX 5.0 in a "Bang For The Buck" Competition? If you wanna see how it turned out, go to...

    http://www.stangbangers.com/89_LX5-0_vs_Competition.htm
  • I remember that article like it was yesterday. What I don't remember was the cost of the 20th Anniversary TransAm. Oh my!! That thing cost $30,000 in 1989 dollars. That's about $63,000 in 2003 dollars. Yikes.
  • Like I said, sleeper cars are the way to go.
  • The LX 5.0 was a popular car, don't know why they didn't keep that combo for the 94+ cars.
  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    I think Ford briefly did through 1996 (not sure about the date though). It was called the "GTS" model; basically base trim with the V8 and other performance goodies. Cool stuff.

    NSORIC, that's a great article; I'd never seen it. My comments on the Mustang were purely my guess... : )
  • Oh, yeah, the GT-S was a low production run, should have called it LX.
  • Just imagine the base Mustang with the mach l equipment. No scoops, no wings, no tape stripes. Jeez, I would buy one of those and the cops would look through that car, but never notice it. Would'nt that be a great thing for Ford to do with the new 2005's. They would sell everyone they could mfg.
  • z9z9z9z9z9z9z9z9 Posts: 101
    Has anyone heard which V6 the '05 Mustang will have?

    An early MT article said that it might be the 4.0 from the Explorer if emission requirements could be met, but I've also heard that it might be a version of the Duratec30. Since the '05 Mustang will be built at the same facility as the Mazda 6, it could be the 3.0 VVT, which is both good (decent hp) and bad (not much torque).

    I'd rather have the 240+ ft/lb torque from the 4.0 and give up the extra 10 hp. The 3.0 VVT doesn't get that great of mileage anyway, and a non-VVT Duratec30 would be totally uninspiring.
  • Ford could drop the 205hp/265lbs-ft 4.2 liter V6 from the Freestar in the new Mustang. It sounds like rock tumbler and doesn't rev much past 5000rpm, but it has a glorious torque curve. In fact, those numbers are very close to the first 4.6 modular V8 equipped Mustangs.

    It would likely provide decent performance with an automatic, while the 3.0 liter would struggle to get the car moving from a stand still.
  • is an oxymoron, and an oxymoron is not an acne preperation for an idiot. Why would anyone except a secretary want a 6 cyl. stang????? Begin screaming now.
Sign In or Register to comment.