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)

1235794

Comments

  • I don't know guys. The "production" photos seem an awful lot like a current-gen Mustang with a "body kit" on it. Are we certain were not looking at some decoy "mule" Ford is trotting around? The roofline is different but easy enough for a company with Fords resources to do. The concept T-Bird was almost spot-on with the production version, and we've been told by everyone in and out of Ford that, at least on the exterior, there would be extremely little difference between the production model and the concept. Heck, last night on Hot Rod TV a Ford spokesmouth was talking about how the new stang would retain the hood scoops etc, all this while standing in front of and pointing at the concept.

    Hold the phone.....

    Well, now that I'm looking at a side view the difference is a little more pronounced. Interesting how Ford was able to lower the hood profile while keeping the 4.6.

    On third thought....

    I don't know....there's something a little too familiar about the car in these pics.....
  • thats the production model. look at the forums at brads mustang site and they have the concept and production versions side by side. they are almost identical.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,668
    All the Feburary rags have huge articles on it. They are supposed to be embargoed until after the Detroit Auto show unveiling but copies leaked out and have been scanned and posted. That IS the production car. The V6 will use the 4.0L explorer SOHC engine until the new 3.5L is available.
  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    Keep in mind too that the autobuying public tends to be fairly conservative when it comes to styling.

    Though people go ga-ga over radical concept cars, when it comes to actual purchasing, they like things that aren't so totally divorced from what they're used to (esp. when the current style is pretty pleasing by most accounts...)

    So it fits that the production 2005 Mustang would look something like the current model.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,668
    I've seen the concept and production side by side and overlaid and they're VERY close. Remember the concept was actually built on a Lincoln LS/Tbird platform - not the actual production platform. A lot of other changes are necessary to allow it to be built on an assembly line. All things considered I think they came as close as possible and I think it turned out great.

    Rumor also has it the Cobra IRS rear end would be an easy swapout on the GT. It may also show up on a model between the GT and Cobra.
  • Looks like based on the 2004 february issue of MotorTrend the 05 Mustang wheelbase is about 7 inches smaller and the overall car length is ~ 7 inches shorter when compared with the LS, however what is so great about the Mustang is the 300 hp V8 with 5-speed manual and the price tag! Can't wait to see the official Detroit auto show pictures!
  • Just one more question, GT and V6. What type of auto insurance increase can you expect? If you know. Just want to know what I'm in for!!!
    Thanks, again. Also, keeping in mind I am a bit older not a youngster, but I have made a mistake or two let's say.

    Thanks again.
  • Just not AS good. I'll reserve final judgement when I acualy get to see one in person. If I get one, which is probable, I would either get one in Black and just drop it a bit, or with any other color I'd start looking for a new hood ala the concept, amybe a new decklid with a molded in spoiler ala the California special circa 1968, and some Shelby style side scoops and some skunk stripes running the length of the car. For sure I'd take it the body shop to get those headlamp buckets color matched to the body. Looks too much like a raccoon with them black. (One reason black will probably be the desired color for this car. Hopefully Ford will not slap silver buckets on the black models.)

    Actualy, with black racing stripes on a red car those black headlamp buckets would be a nice touch.

    By the way, this car has it's own platform. That comes staight from the horses mouth so to speak. Some time back, about 2 or 3 months, we had one of the Ford guys on a conference call at one of our Mustang Club meetings (guest speaker). He said to forget about all that talk about a shared platform with the LS and the T-Bird. That was all a PR smokescreen. According to him the car rests on a Mustang specific platform with no interchangeable parts. (That's a first) We peppered him with a lot of questions he wouldn't answer, but when I asked him if there would be a Mach 1 version he said no. Boy was I dissapointed. He also quashed our hopes that a 5 liter modular would be available. And the horsepower range he "hinted at" was more in line with the current gen 4.6, and definately not close to the magical 300 HP level. I don't know the guys name ( I can get it) but he did have "hands on" in the design of the car.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,668
    There is very little of the dew98 platform left. Some of the floorpan and the fuel tank and a few other bits and pieces. Dew98 is a great platform but a) it's way too expensive and b) it's not rigid enough for a convertible with rear seats. Since the Tbird has no back seat they added bracing to compensate but you can't do that on the mustang.

    I don't understand the comment about power being on par with current 4.6L mod motor. The base V8 will have 300 hp and 315 lb ft of torque on regular gas. That's more than the current base 4.6L engines. That's even more than the highly tuned, premium burning DOHC 4V 4.6L in my Aviator.

    Don't believe everything you hear......
  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    My thoughts:

    - An "old school" insurance company (i.e. Allstate, State Farm) will probably give you better rates than a GEICO. That's what I surprisingly found when I bought my GT. Plus GEICO was quite pushy (even called back the next day to try to get me to insure with them), whereas the others were perfectly happy to let me get back to them at my leisure. One guess which I chose.

    - The insurance differential between the V6 and the GT probably isn't as big as you might think. When I ran the numbers with my agent before buying the car, we found it was only slightly more to insure the GT. My agent theorized that it's because though the GT has more power, it also has more standard safety features (traction control and abs). He did however add "you're not thinking of getting a Cobra, are you?" ; )

    In short, yeah with a Mustang you'll pay more than if you're driving a Camry (my insurance went up about $400 a year over my old Chevy Beretta), but it's not nearly as bad as popular perception would lead you to believe...
  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    Interesting re the platform. If so, this will be the first time in Mustang history that the car rides on a platform of its own...

    I guess I had always believed the platform would be "dew-lite", basically a modified dew-98 made of steel.

    280-300 hp for the V8 is what I've always predicted. The fanboys sneered "no way...it'll have at least 400 hp!" Wishful thinking I suppose.

    Still, things are still pretty sketchy right now. Perhaps I have a lack of faith, but I'm waiting until it's on the Ford website before I really believe anything...
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,668
    No way the GT would get 400 hp. You need a logical progression from the V6 to the base V8 to the 'tweaked' V8 models (bullit, mach1, boss, etc.) to the Cobra (or Shelby?). 300 hp is perfect for an entry level V8 and there's plenty of headroom for higher performance models. Remember Ford has a naturally aspirated 5.0L Cammer based on the 4.6L block sitting on the shelf that makes 400 hp.

    Also remember that Ford has been underrating their engines since the Cobra fiasco. So the GT may really be more like 320 anyway.
  • I'll believe 300 HP on "regular" for the 4.6 when I see it. With "premium", maybe, but there isn't a car on the road today making 300 hp (or even 280) running "regular". I test drove the Z-28 in 99 before buying the 'Stang. No way my GT is making anywhere near the kind of power of that Chevy 350. (which uses "premium" by the way)

    Nosirree Bob. Mark my words. The new GT will run on regular and have hp ratings only moderately higher than the current GT. The ability to run on "Regular" pump gas is paramount. The GT will need to appeal to the broadest possible customer base. I'm afraid "Premium" fuels would hamper it's appeal. Not to worry though. We all know there will always be a "Top End" variant for those who want big HP numbers.

    One last thing. I notice that a few previous posters lamented the fact that the car still has a live rear axle Hey, that's a plus bro'. Thank God Ford still listens to the enthusiast. So what if it skips out from under you on rough paved curves. It kicks butt when merging and passing
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,668
    4.6L SOHC 3V V8
    9.8 compression ratio - regular fuel
    Variable Cam Timing (VCT)
    300 HP @ 6000 rpm
    315 lb ft torque @ 4500 rpm
    6250 rpm redline

    It's already been published in Motor Trend and all the other rags. I just read the scanned images to get that data. They're embargoed until after the unveiling at the Detroit Auto Show but some copies leaked out.

    This is a totally new engine. It shares 40 percent with the new 5.4L truck engine, 30 percent with the old 4.6L and 30 percent is specific to the mustang.

    Read it and weep.
  • Seems like a lot of compression for regular. Again, I'll believe it when I see it. Great if it's true.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,201
    I agree, 9.8:1 is too high for regular gas. Maybe my thinking is too conventional, though. We'll see what happens. Typically, though, anything over 8.5:1 requires higher than regular to get full power to the best of my knowledge.

    '13 Stang GT; '86 Benz 300E; '98 Volvo S70; '12 Leaf; '14 Town&Country

  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    What sort of gas did the classic high-performance Mustangs (Mach 1s, Boss 302s) require?

    I'm assuming premium...wasn't the Boss' compression around 10:1?
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,668
    The article clearly says 87 octane and 9.8:1 compression. Could be a misprint but I doubt it. They probably just retarded the timing to compensate. If so I bet using premium would allow the timing to be advanced automatically yielding more power.

    My Lincoln LS 3.9L V8 has a 10.5:1 CR and you can use 87 without damaging it although performance and mileage will suffer.
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHPosts: 16,595
    Any of those classic HiPo Mustangs required premium fuel (@ about$.40/gal in 1968-69)

    2000 BMW 528i, 2001 BMW 330CiC

  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    That's what I figured, but wasn't sure.

    .40 (1969) works out to about $2.00 in today's dollars, so shouldn't be too much of an issue if the new GT requires premium.

    Of course, the public gets all up in arms when the NOMINAL price of gas creeps toward $2.00, not realizing that they're paying more per gallon for the bottled water they drink...

    But people who buy Mustangs probably have a higher willingness-to-pay than your average Taurus driver... : )
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHPosts: 16,595
    20 gallons of bottled water per week :^)

    Your point is a valid one, tho.

    2000 BMW 528i, 2001 BMW 330CiC

  • I had my compression set lower so that I could run on tap water
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,668
    This looks like the official press release out a bit early. It talks about getting 300 hp with a higher than normal compression ratio with regular fuel.

    http://www.car-data.com/xpage.preview/pre.template.asp?mfg=ford&a- mp;model=mustang
  • My agent, State Farm, said that it makes no difference how fast the car is, but such things as theft of vehicle, price, and safety equipment are usually the items that determine rates. When I traded my Mustang GT (01) for a Z28 (02) the premium only changed 30.00 per year. Of course your driving record and claim experience also make a difference. I think that the difference between the 6 and the V8 in the Mustang would not amount to enough to influence a decision. Get the V8, you will love it. Remember, you can always drive a big engine slow, but you cannot drive a little engine fast. (:
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHPosts: 16,595
    Far more so than any Fox-platform 'Stang.

    2000 BMW 528i, 2001 BMW 330CiC

  • ambullambull Posts: 255
    I've read MotorTrend and skimmed the HotRod article at the library yesterday, and it's much improved all around. Looks to be the most bang for the buck out there. I'm impressed with 300 hp on regular gas, the exterior, interior, stiffness, the whole package! Much improved in all areas. It'll be a very popular car - nearly as popular as the original!
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHPosts: 16,595
    as much as I look forwqard to the '05 Mustang, that's highly doubtful in today's competitive world. It's like imagining another music act as popular as the Beatles.

    2000 BMW 528i, 2001 BMW 330CiC

  • ambullambull Posts: 255
    Okay, I'll grant you that, considering the HUGE popularity of the original, and the number of competitive models, but it'll sell a lot more than the current model.
  • ambullambull Posts: 255
    Ford says the current production is 140,000/yr and the 2005 will be 180,000. I say that will not be enough. I think there are a lot of people out there who would buy a decent modern GT car built in America.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,668
    just maybe they won't have to introduce a new vehicle with incentives. The closest competion is the new GTO and it's butt ugly compared to the new stang. I think Ford just hit a homerun.
Sign In or Register to comment.