|
Elephanthead posted:Oh yeah, ford probe 2 coming our way built in Mexico. Stop being a dick, if you want cars to stay fun in this era of high gas prices they have to get smaller and lighter. There's no reason for a sports car to be pushing 2 tons and most people here have been saying it for years. Cars need to get smaller, end of story. Nobody is talking about a Mustang III.
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 15:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 09:39 |
|
|
kronix posted:Stop being a dick, if you want cars to stay fun in this era of high gas prices they have to get smaller and lighter. There's no reason for a sports car to be pushing 2 tons and most people here have been saying it for years. The mexico comment was dumb, but comparing it to the Mustang II is dead on. The mustang isn't a sports car, it's a muscle car and it's heavy because it's holding up a large displacement 8 cylinder engine. Gas prices are subject to speculation as always, acting like there's no room in the market for big powerful cars is retarded. Not to say the prospective new stang won't sell well, the Mustang II did, but I bet we won't look back on it and say "man, that was the car to have."
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 16:25
|
|
|
I think the muscle car excuse died with the 2012 Boss. There's very little reason the Mustang can't make the leap to full sports car status.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 16:42
|
|
|
RockSmart posted:it's heavy because it's holding up a large displacement 8 cylinder engine.  Right, the Corvette Z06 is so heavy cuz of its huge displacement 7.0L engine.Sure the new 5.0 is relatively heavier because of its DOHC heads. But the engine obviously doesn't have final say in how heavy the car is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 16:56
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:
Are you trolling or just stupid? It's got an aluminum frame, titanium engine parts and two less seats and it still weighs three thousand pounds. Killbot posted:I think the muscle car excuse died with the 2012 Boss. There's very little reason the Mustang can't make the leap to full sports car status. Yeah, and if you shrink its wheelbase, make the interior even more cramped, and give it a weaker four cylinder engine, it will finally have "full sports car status." EDIT: Also it's weird that you think "sports car" is a title the car could earn, given some level of performance. "Sports Car" is a style of vehicle and the Mustang's style is a pony car or muscle car. Apples to oranges. Locobono fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Jun 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 17:02
|
|
|
RockSmart posted:Are you trolling or just stupid? It's got an aluminum frame, titanium engine parts and two less seats and it still weighs three thousand pounds. Let's look at your original statement once more: RockSmart posted:it's heavy because it's holding up a large displacement 8 cylinder engine. How do you want me to address that? You're making a blanket statement that is clearly misleading. A large V8 adds maybe 200lbs to a car. It's NO reason for a car to be heavy. Also, 3000lbs is pretty drat light for most cars making 300hp+ these days. I was floored when I found out the Audi TT is more than 3000 lbs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 17:10
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:Let's look at your original statement once more: I don't know what point you're trying to make, if there is one, because you're making these snarky replies and then posting things that agree with my sentiment, aka this post that I replied to: kronix posted:There's no reason for a sports car to be pushing 2 tons and most people here have been saying it for years. which is dumb because the mustang only weighs a ton and a half which is really, really good since it has a power to weight ratio that rivals cars that cost twice as much. And you apparently agree, saying that 3000 lbs is good for a car making 300hp+, only three quarters of the mustang's power. So I guess if you can show me a car that makes amazing power but doesn't weigh a lot or cost a loving mint then your replies might make some kind of sense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 17:24
|
|
|
RockSmart posted:Are you trolling or just stupid? It's got an aluminum frame, titanium engine parts and two less seats and it still weighs three thousand pounds. An FI four cylinder turning out 300 hp is not "weak" Also V8's will still be available Smaller cars can have nicely sized interiors, the front will probably be the same size, if you're bitching about the rear seats I think you should look at another car And yes "sports car" is a title a car could earn given some level of performance, are you about to call a Mitsubishi Eclipse a "sports car" here in AI? Killbot fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Jun 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 17:31
|
|
|
kronix posted:I bet we'll see it in 2014, but it won't be a 2014 model. The 2015 is going to be the new Mustang and I'd bet money on it. I just don't see ford only going 3 years on the current Mustang. The original SN-95 was only 4 but the new edge went for 6 and the 2005's had until 5 years. I say this model will get 4 years at the least. I think there will at least be a refresh, 2014 is the Mustang's 50-year anniversary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 17:31
|
|
|
RockSmart posted:I don't know what point you're trying to make, if there is one, because you're making these snarky replies and then posting things that agree with my sentiment, aka this post that I replied to: quote:So I guess if you can show me a car that makes amazing power but doesn't weigh a lot or cost a loving mint then your replies might make some kind of sense. I disagree with your claim that a car is heavy if it needs to support a "large displacement V8," which is what your original beef is claiming, without any add-ons about cost or engineering or size.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 17:41
|
|
|
I do hope they go with this for 2014 if only because I will take great delight in the backlash from all those die-hard muscle car fans who are afeared of the Mustang getting fancy, which is good because by then I'll have a 2008 GT to sell.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 17:43
|
|
|
RockSmart posted:The mexico comment was dumb, but comparing it to the Mustang II is dead on. The mustang isn't a sports car, it's a muscle car and it's heavy because it's holding up a large displacement 8 cylinder engine. The big problem with the Mustang II wasn't that it was smaller, it was that even the high end motors were castrated and it lost a lot of it's edge. This new Mustang will still be rocking a big V8 but with some smaller, higher tech options too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 17:46
|
|
|
A MIRACLE posted:I think there will at least be a refresh, 2014 is the Mustang's 50-year anniversary. Ford is going to do the same thing they did for the 40th anniversary. An appearance package on a mature platform to sell some cars in the model year before a big redesign. Bump the output to 450hp and call it a day. We're going to see a major overhaul in the 2015 model year. There were even rumors a few months ago which pointed to not seeing anything until the 2016 model year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 17:53
|
|
|
A MIRACLE posted:I think there will at least be a refresh, 2014 is the Mustang's 50-year anniversary. It'll probably be mid-year '15 car in the summer of '14. There were no "64 1/2" Mustangs. That was something enthusiasts made up because of all the differences with the earliest cars; e.g. Generator vs. alternator, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 18:41
|
|
|
It's not like a physically smaller Mustang is that foreign of a concept. The Fox ('93 LX 5.0 Coupe) is 8.5" shorter in overall length and 6.6" shorter in wheelbase, 5.6" narrower, and 3.6" shorter in height, than a Boss 302. It's also about 600lb lighter, but I'd peg most of that on the increase in features and safety in the past 20 years. Interestingly the 302 has about a foot smaller turning diameter than the Fox, but the GT coupe claims a 7' smaller turning diameter than either!
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 18:43
|
|
|
I hope they don't make the car much smaller, or, if they do, sacrifice the backseat instead of front-seat legroom. I love that I can drive for 6-8 hours in the Mustang with only minimal breaks without feeling cramped. All my tall friends have similarly commented on how not-cramped it feels. If that goes away, even in the name of slightly better performance, it will be a significantly less attractive car to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 19:17
|
|
|
I don't think the mustang is heavier than it needs to be.Killbot posted:An FI four cylinder turning out 300 hp is not "weak" loving whatever, the Mustang isn't a sports car by design intent or execution. It's great that they've improved the handling to a competetive level, it's still minus an IRS and is styled after the pony cars that the model was founded on. Nobody's stopping you from buying one, but a four cylinder that comes stock with a power adder will never be as cool. Sorry. Also anyone implying I said ford shouldn't produce a four cylinder needs to reread some posts
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 20:30
|
|
|
RockSmart posted:I don't think the mustang is heavier than it needs to be. But are you asserting that it is "it's heavy because it's holding up a large displacement 8 cylinder engine"? That's the only thing I took issue with. A hypothetical turbo-4 Mustang (which I have no problem with) might be what, 200lbs lighter? Still heavy, with assuredly less power.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 20:38
|
|
|
I put a scan of a news article from this week's Auto Express (UK) in the other Mustang thread. Short version: full redesign for the 50th anniversary in 2014, available in all markets including RHD (ie, UK/Australia/Japan), engines ranging from EcoBoost 2.5l turbo 4 to 5.4l V8, slightly smaller and a lot lighter than the current model,  independent rear suspension .How accurate it is I don't know, but if it is true I'll sure as hell be buying one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 20:48
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:But are you asserting that it is "it's heavy because it's holding up a large displacement 8 cylinder engine"? That's the only thing I took issue with. You wouldn't need an engine bay that size for a little motor like that. You also wouldn't need as beefy transmission or rear end. That's why I think you lose either way. A car built from the ground up for a four cylinder wouldn't easily mount the 5.0, and a car built for the 5.0 would be heavy for a four cylinder.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 20:57
|
|
|
Guys, a large displacement v8 needs bigger holes for the pistons so that makes it lighter. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 22:38
|
|
|
RockSmart posted:You wouldn't need an engine bay that size for a little motor like that. You also wouldn't need as beefy transmission or rear end. That's why I think you lose either way. A car built from the ground up for a four cylinder wouldn't easily mount the 5.0, and a car built for the 5.0 would be heavy for a four cylinder. This isn't true at all. If Chevrolet is any indication it looks as though we're moving towards smaller, higher revving V8's with all sorts of high tech goodies like DI. I suspect the car we'll see will be a tight fit around the 5.0 and will be a little roomy for the I4 but the old foxes had a 4 cylinder option alongside the 5.0. Think a Fox body sized car brought up to date with a wide variety of engines. I think in the next 10 years we'll be seeing a ton of engine choices in the Mustang lineup and a bunch of boost.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 22:59
|
|
|
frozenphil posted:Guys, a large displacement v8 needs bigger holes for the pistons so that makes it lighter. I was gonna use that one, but I figured you might lose with different heads or pistons, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 23:02
|
|
|
kronix posted:This isn't true at all. If Chevrolet is any indication it looks as though we're moving towards smaller, higher revving V8's with all sorts of high tech goodies like DI. I suspect the car we'll see will be a tight fit around the 5.0 and will be a little roomy for the I4 but the old foxes had a 4 cylinder option alongside the 5.0. You're holding up the l4 pinto-powered mustang as a good example of drivetrain optioning? Give me a break. They were crap and the turbo that came out later only competed because the V8s were poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 23:39
|
|
|
Changed the oil on my 2002 V6 today and the old oil filter slipped out of my hand as I was taking the fucker off. I covered myself in oil. God damnit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 23:48
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:I was gonna use that one, but I figured you might lose with different heads or pistons, etc. Can't speak to blue ovals, but the heads on a 4.8L Vortec V8 are pretty much the same weight as the ones on the 7.0L LS7
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 23:57
|
|
|
Didn't (as someone pointed out earlier in the thread) the first mustang come out in 1964 as a 1965 model year? Wouldn't that make MY2015 the 50th?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2011 00:36
|
|
|
Raluek posted:Didn't (as someone pointed out earlier in the thread) the first mustang come out in 1964 as a 1965 model year? Wouldn't that make MY2015 the 50th? Technically, it was a '64 1/2
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2011 01:24
|
|
|
SlimManFat posted:Changed the oil on my 2002 V6 today and the old oil filter slipped out of my hand as I was taking the fucker off. I covered myself in oil. God damnit. At least it is easily accessible. I did this several times on my 2004 V6. You learn really quick to have the firmest grip possible when taking it off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2011 01:24
|
|
|
RockSmart posted:loving whatever, the Mustang isn't a sports car by design intent or execution. It's great that they've improved the handling to a competetive level, it's still minus an IRS and is styled after the pony cars that the model was founded on. Nobody's stopping you from buying one, but a four cylinder that comes stock with a power adder will never be as cool. Sorry. You're right, the current one isn't, but we're talking about the next one. And I personally will be buying the V8 (the rumor is 500 hp) but I won't look down on turbo 4's. I figure that kind of engine must be offered if the Mustang is ever to succeed globally, and good global Mustang sales can only be good for the car and for Ford. Then again I've heard something like this rumor before (the S197 was supposed to share things with the Falcon) and will believe it when I see it but as a Mustang owner I really want it to come true. But that's just me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2011 01:28
|
|
|
kronix posted:I bet we'll see it in 2014, but it won't be a 2014 model. The 2015 is going to be the new Mustang and I'd bet money on it. I just don't see ford only going 3 years on the current Mustang. The original SN-95 was only 4 but the new edge went for 6 and the 2005's had until 5 years. I say this model will get 4 years at the least. Technically the "new edge" was an SN-95 with an updated body; which is the same as our current platform. 2014 would give the current platform a nine-year run, which is pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2011 01:36
|
|
|
Oh this is grand: 2014 Mustang stuff
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2011 01:38
|
|
|
That rendering cracks me up, it's like someone welded a Giugaro Mustang concept's front to a Camaro rear and put GT500 wheels on it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2011 01:46
|
|
|
Devyl posted:Technically, it was a '64 1/2 Really? All the semi-authoritative Mustang sources I've read say that it was sold as a 1965. I understand there were early/late 1965 differences, but I was led to understand that the vins all had a 5, not a 4.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2011 01:55
|
|
|
Yeah, it was sold as a '65, but most people refer to the early 1964 production models sold in 1964 as a 1964 1/2.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2011 02:01
|
|
|
I'm pretty partial to this one: 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2011 02:17
|
|
|
kronix posted:This isn't true at all. If Chevrolet is any indication it looks as though we're moving towards smaller, higher revving V8's with all sorts of high tech goodies like DI. Funny this should come up. I've talked about this before, but I think you're seeing the future GT500 engine right here. Such a short stroke and large bore is going to allow for a 351ci (5.8L), DOHC, modular v8 to rev to 8500RPM and put something around 500hp to the tires naturally aspirated. You get all that fun inside a regular 5.0 sized wrapper. Add in the twin turbos, that I also said they were going to do and now we have seen pictures of, I think we're looking at a 650+hp rating on the next GT500. Ford's ready for the Z/28, I do believe. oRenj9 posted:Technically the "new edge" was an SN-95 with an updated body; which is the same as our current platform. 2014 would give the current platform a nine-year run, which is pretty good. We are not starting this poo poo again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2011 03:28
|
|
|
Bulk Vanderhuge posted:I'm pretty partial to this one: That giant gaping maw is too much, but if they just painted that middle piece the same color as the body (and didn't run the stripes into the black on the top edge), that would be a pretty drat awesome looking Mustang.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2011 04:30
|
|
|
Hey, Frozenphil. Remember when I mentioned the possibility of a 5.8L Coyote w/ a blower as the next GT500 motor, and you shot it down saying there was no way the next GT500 motor would be based on anything but the 6.2 BOSS motor? Or are we gonna pretend that never happened, since you seem to have changed your tune?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2011 05:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 09:39 |
|
|
Q_res posted:Hey, Frozenphil. Remember when I mentioned the possibility of a 5.8L Coyote w/ a blower as the next GT500 motor, and you shot it down saying there was no way the next GT500 motor would be based on anything but the 6.2 BOSS motor? Or are we gonna pretend that never happened, since you seem to have changed your tune? I think there's a good chance it could be either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2011 05:39
|
|