2015 Ford Mustang / Shelby GT350 Official - 5.2L FPC with 500+hp/400+ lb-ft

[Wes B.]

Originally Posted by jaynutter2

It was originally a pony car, but I would personally classify the new Mustangs, Camaros, and Challengers as pure muscle cars. IMHO they are muscle cars with the pony car heritage. Regardless, I still love the look and feel of the large coupes with monster V8s.

I'm just saying the Mustang should revisit it's roots in spectacular fashion.

Originally Posted by rice_classic

Sub 2500lb Mustang?!?! Hell, I'll take a brand new Sub 2500lb anything that's not a lotus or an ariel atom type vehicle.

Whatcha got against Lotus? Just kidding...but seriously, the purest car I've ever driven was an Elise.

[Miniata]

I'd be very happy with the next Mustang being the size and weight of the Fox body Mustangs. I had two, and while Mustang has come a long way in both the power and handling departments since then, they've also grown in size and weight with every subsequent generation. Time for a reset. Kinda like how Mustangs grew in size and weight with every redesign from 1965-1973, then got smaller for the Mustang II and Fox.

[ftc~brz]

Originally Posted by Miniata

I've had four Mustangs over the last 25 years, and plan to get a new one when the next generation Mustangs come out. I couldn't wait though, it will probably be at least another year until the next one is available, and it would have been close to two years from the time I picked up my BRZ. Not sure at this point if I'll get rid of my BRZ and/or my current Mustang GT for it, but if it is everything I hope it will be, I might. I'll probably go for a GT with the V8 again (assuming it is offered that way). I like the idea of a higher hp turbo 4 and V6, but all of my Mustangs have had V8's, and for me, that is just a part of the Mustang experience.

If it's less than 8cyl it's a pony not a mustang

Originally Posted by Rampage

I hope they have better luck then they did the last time they tried to do a major revamp of the Mustang line and install a turbo 4. Anyone remember the dark ages of the Mustang II and then the Fox bodies?

The styling looks promising and I would love to see the Mustang, Camaro and Challenger all downsize and lose about 500Lbs each.

I remember, what a mess! It looks nice, I like it better than what it is now. I hated the last 2 body styles personally.

[SubieNate]

Originally Posted by jaynutter2

As far as the power of those old muscle cars, wasn't HP rated differently back then? I can't remember where, but I read somewhere that those cars would be rated much lower today. Not to mention their 0-60mpg and 1/4 miles times are being produced by cars with much lower HP.

Yeah, once they actually started regulating how they rated horsepower almost every car had a massive drop in advertised power.

The '78 base model Corvette only made 185 hp from it's 350 cu small block.

It took a while for manufacturers to get back to "big numbers" with the combo of the change in rating system and early smog tech.

Nathan

[Miniata]

Originally Posted by SubieNate

The '78 base model Corvette only made 185 hp from it's 350 cu small block.

I got that beat. My first Mustang was a 1981 Mustang Cobra that made 120 hp from its V8. Crappy little 4.2L engine that Ford only used for 2 years before going back to the 302/5.0 (which is what I swapped in after a couple of years).

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Morg

And be realistic here, the 64 was more or less a 65... And the mustang had already reached modern Mustang weights by 69-71. (Much sooner than 2005)

The light weight lasted 2ish years? And then jumped nearly 500 lbs. And then by 69-71 they were already in the 3100-3500+ neighborhood. They shed a little weight in the 80's but jumped right back up to modern weights for the redesign.

Mustang weight has moved all over the scale over the years. The original '64 1/2 - '66 were small and lightweight. '67-'73 the bloat and weight piled on...
'74 was much smaller and lighter, but a pretty gross-looking and performing car.
Fox body Mustangs weren't much to look at, but were fairly light for a while. Going to SOHC/DOHC V8s in the mid-90s added some weight, though.
'05+ got much bulkier and heavier of course.

Not sure what the FR-S/BRZ has to do with Pony/Muscle cars. The ft86 is related to the ae86... Not the old Mustang. The 64-66 stangs were really nothing like the FR-S/BRZ. I'd say comparing them based on weight alone is a stretch.

All I said was that the original Mustang was the FR-S/BRZ of its day. It *was*. I never said an original Mustang handles like an FT86!
Anyway, the FT86 got its name from the AE86, but it is *much* more of a modern S13 240SX/Silvia than anything else. AE86 Corolla was cruder, smaller, lighter, and rocked a live axle. Quite a different machine from the FR-S/BRZ. But the S13 is practically identical on most points.

The '64 stang as well as the modern Muscle exist for a culture that likes to stack absurd amounts of power and go fast in a straight line.

The original Mustang appealed to a VERY broad cross-section, not just straight-line speed freaks. You don't sell 100k cars in the first 3 months and over 300k in the first model year by being narrowly-focused. There were much quicker straight-line cars available when the Mustang came out.

The FT86 is not about that whatsoever. You'd be hard pressed to get one to move quick in a straight line... It is about the handling/balance...(If anything the rear seats were the after thought for insurance purposes... more so than DD purposes. )

The "back seat for insurance" story is a bit of a myth. The back seats are there for utilitarian purposes. Far from being an "afterthought", they resulted in quite a compromise in terms of F/R balance. 55/45 is no better than the Mustang. But it was important for the car to be at least a bit more utilitarian than, say, a Miata or S2000, to appeal to a broader market.

I think it is interesting that people seem to take issue with those of us who enjoy the retro styling influences that have always existed in Mustang designs throughout it's history...

What was "retro" about the '64 1/2? '79? '94? None of those were styled to evoke an older car from a bygone era.

Personally, I'm not necessarily against "retro", but in the '05 Mustang's case, I think it looks a little sterile relative to the original, and is quite high and boxy. A mid-90s era Mustang looks like a small sports car next to it!

And as I already stated, late 60's early 70's they already reached modern Muscle car weights. It's not such a new development.

The '74+ cars and the Fox-body up to the mid-90s were a good 400-500 lb. lighter than the current monstrosity.

But yeah, the Mustang has pretty much always been influenced by it's roots.

How was the '64 1/2 influenced by its roots?!

To me, "retro" can do something of a disservice to an original design. I think a good, clean, great-looking, fresh, new design would pay better homage to the original Mustang than trying to evoke that car's styling, which was new and fresh in its day.

[rice_classic]

Originally Posted by Wes B.

Whatcha got against Lotus? Just kidding...but seriously, the purest car I've ever driven was an Elise.

Lotus makes damn fine cars but they didn't fit the hypothetical comparative.

[JoeBoxer]

If it looks anything like this and is closer to 3k pounds i will consider one. They are saying the 3.7 will still be the base engine with the 2.3 Ecoboost being optional and of course the 5.0 for the GT. It would be awesome to bring back the SVO nameplate and package the Ecoboost with some nice euro style mesh wheels, and maybe some different styled lighting or fascias.

I saw the current V6 Performance Pack car weighs 3500 pounds and after owning the FR-S i wouldn't want my next performance car to weigh anywhere near that.

[mact]

This would be an awesome car if they managed to get the weight back down to near 3k lb like Mustangs were in the early 90's.

[JoeBoxer]

The Focus ST made over 300 ft lbs of torque to the wheels with the Cobb tuner that RallySport Direct just dyno tuned, thats with the 2.0 if it gets the 2.3 we could see some nice numbers for sure and the Ecoboost has more potential to upgrade than the V6.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by SubieNate

I don't think the Fox bodies looked anything like the original Mustangs. They seemed to sell okay.

That said, I'm personally less worried about the styling and more hoping they scale it down to about 8/10ths it's current size. It's just too massive. The thing is as long and big as most 4 door sedans.

As far as the 64-68's being about power, yes, they did get power a few years after the introduction, but you'd be hard pressed to call the original 289 a real power monster even when compared to the competition of the day.

Nathan

Wasn't the original a 260?

[Allch Chcar]

The Coyote is going to be a tight fit in the new chassis.

The Duratec 2.3L was a popular swap for kit cars and such, so I'm hoping the new 2.3L is good so I can swap one into a Foxbody Mustang. If it's still a Duratec bolt pattern that would mean the NC MX-5 6spd will bolt right up.

[JoeBoxer]

Originally Posted by Dimman

Wasn't the original a 260?

yeah first year had it and straight six base, both engines got bigger in 65.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

The Coyote is going to be a tight fit in the new chassis.

The Duratec 2.3L was a popular swap for kit cars and such, so I'm hoping the new 2.3L is good so I can swap one into a Foxbody Mustang. If it's still a Duratec bolt pattern that would mean the NC MX-5 6spd will bolt right up.

I started looking in to Duratec bolt patterns a while ago but got confused. Are they all the same, or is there old and new?

I had an idea that involved a 3.4L Yamaha 60° V8 from the Gen 2 SHO, and a Supra. If the Miata 6M could work, that would be awesome. I was speculating that the 5M from the V6 Lincoln LS might work.

New 2.3, in a Fox body could be interesting.