So what's it going to be?

Discussion in '2015+ (S550) Mustang -General/Talk' started by Noobz347, Nov 29, 2012.

  1. Agreed. I thought that Ford should have offered the Supercharged V-6 from the T-Bird Super Coupe in the Mustang as an option. It was lighter made good power and would have been a hell of a car. But as mentioned it would have cost more than the 5.0 and sales would have suffered.
  2. Something that I think "might" fly would be a motor akin to the older Taurus SHO motors. Might be a niche for a high output, ultra revving N/A motor in a Mustang for folks who road race.

    That niche might be too small.... just a thought as I was reading through your guy's comments.

    I have a 95 SHO that I bought not long ago. It's kind of a POS but that motor is something special.
  3. idk i think if the new pic looks like the accsual mustang in 2015 then ill might be a lil mad i apsolutley love every style of mustang :) but making classical mustang all futuristic idk about that
  4. My hope is that the car looses about 200-300 pounds for starters. As for looks, I think there may be subtle cues from some of the renderings working into the actual design, but overall, I think the actual design will be quite a bit different, and hopefully better, than most of the speculative renderings.

    As for engines, the GT will probably have a 5.0L V8 with direct injection. There is a lot of additional potential engineered into the engine that is not currently being utilized. I doubt Ford will scrape it and leave that all on the table. This engine was planned to live for more than one generation.

    The platform itself may have both Eco-Boost 4s and a NA V6. Ford says this will be a "world" car that has to sell in markets outside the US. Given the taxation on displacement in Europe, Mustangs over there will definitely have an Eco-Boost 4, and probably no NA V6. I suspect US Mustangs will at least offer the Eco-Boost 4, and may or may not offer a NA V6 as well. I just hope that if they offer both, they don't artificially raise the NA V6 price to make room for it, or to "encourage" buying behavior.

    An EcoBoost V6 is harder to say. I don't think the V8 is going anywhere at least not for 2015. The Eco-Boost V6 may be pretty close to the 5.0L V8 in power and torque though. Maybe Ford will see a business case for offering both (as in the F-150), but given the lower volumes the Mustang sells in, maybe not...and if they only offer one in the GT, I suspect at least this time around, it will be the V8.

    I've heard rumors of an EcoBoost 5.0L V8 for the next GT500. We'll see.....
  5. I am greatly concerned about the price. A premium GT right now can easily run $40,000. When the Mustang made its debut, it was very price competitive. I know if the 50th anniversay GT is $45,000 or more, I won't be buying.
    95BlueStallion likes this.
  6. i look forward to a day when Mustangs become Hybrid or Electric lol
    As long as the HP of the GT maintains the same and keeps a good sound..
  7. Agreed.
  8. When the Mustang first came out, there was no "premium" anything. The mustang is a pony car. It's an engine with a frame and seats. That's it. You can get a 300A GT for under 30k. That's your Mustang. Anything else you add as far as comfort and technology, is just where the car industry has gone. You don't need that stuff, but you're free to shell out to get it, or do it yourself. Lastly, as far as it not being price competitive, name a car that offers the combo that a mustang (or Camaro/Challenger) does for less. The closest competitor is the M3. It's really not much of a competition there, as far as price per unit awesome (my favorite summary stat) goes. Performance and luxury don't often go hand in hand. In the situations where they do, it's gonna cost you. It's the triple constraints theory at work. Performance. Luxury. Price. Pick two.
  9. OK. I agree, but I want it all and at a cheap price. I guess I am an American.
  10. Enjoy the Chinese made parts, then. Americans are losing jobs to outsourcing because we want it all and at a cheap price.
  11. There's nothing at all wrong with demanding more for less as a consumer. That said, the whole US/Chinese manufacturing drain is a topic much too deep to be discussed here (without writing a novel no one wants to read lol), but suffice to say, it's not something to be blamed on the individual consumer or worker in either territory.

    Something I'd like to see is a low cost, low frills option with track ready suspension, brakes, and a healthy 300-450hp (sort of like the Boss 302 without the upcharge over the GT). I'm thinking no nav, spartan sound system if any at all, perhaps no A/C or one designed to be easily deleted, no back seats and maybe a roll bar/tool and fire extinguisher rack in their place? I'm just thinking out loud, but I think this might interest quite a few people.
  12. I'm not trying to make the US vs Chinese argument. "Chinese" was to imply outsourced. What I'm getting at is that the Mustang is already at the top of the list as far as bang for the buck goes. What you want exists. It's the Brembo package on the GT. The Brembo package consists of more than just the wheels, tires, and brakes. It's closer to a Boss than a base GT. Ford just underadvertised it as it would cut into sales of the Boss. If you hit up you'll see just how awesome the Brembo package really is. A rear seat delete with X-brace from AM is $1400. Throw on another $1500 for some stiffer springs, control arms, and a roll bar and you have a 420hp track car under 35k. If that's not an absolute steal of a deal, I don't know what is.
  13. I'd like stuff at a cheap price, but I'd rather have stuff that worked. I think most of us would agree that Ford's little experiment with Chinese transmissions has not worked out.

    A part of me would really love to see a "stripper" GT, but in reality, it will probably never happen. When checking option boxes on a GT, yes, it can quickly add up to many thousands of dollars, but adding that stuff to one car only actually costs Ford a very tiny fraction of that in parts and materials. The majority of the cost is a combination of development costs and profit, depending on the specific option.

    What that basically means is the only way any serious savings comes about by having a de-contented car is if the they don't offer any of that removed content on any trim of the car at all. Basically, on a car with $5000 worth of features, the development costs of those features might be $3500 per car on average once the whole production run is over, and the actual hard materials costs per unit after that might only be a few hundred. That small amount is the best you could ever expect to save on a stripper model if offered, because that is all the actual cost to build that specific car goes down by. And Ford is not going to subsidize, or even be willing to break even on something that will divert sales away from higher profit models, because that's just bad business.

    The best example of this is when Toyota offered a work-truck version of the Tundra a few years ago. You could opt for a "cheaper" work truck Tundra, that removed things like power windows, power locks, maybe the radio, cruise control, all chrome body trim, floor mats, and other stuff for a grand total savings of $195 off the sticker. Add cruise control back on as a stand-alone option, and that would cost an extra $200 or so. Again, they make most of their money on options, while they have relatively little cost in those options.
  14. Redesign the car to not have any rear seats. Design the seats out of the car and have it lose some weight.

    Turn it into a 5.0 version of the Genesis Coupe. Now that would be sexy.
  15. ^It would be more expensive to insure as a 2-seater.
  16. Maybe build it with a roll bar and a removable passenger seat for track day:cool:

  17. Believe it or not, the new Hyundai Genesis is getting up there with its 348 hp v6
  18. I've wondered about this before. Why aren't extra seats in sports cars quick-release? Is a modular roll cage an actual possibility? Or would play in the anchor points cancel out the effectiveness?
  19. They could surely do it. The top bar could be stationary and firmly secured.