what would you like to see for future mustangs

Discussion in '2005 - 2009 Specific Tech' started by Eos, Dec 10, 2003.

  1. Sure compared to mmodern cars the 60's had problems. But many people would point out the styling was better. Cars had individual looks. For instancec the nova didn't look like a chevlle or a camaro. Nowadays cars are resembling each other too much. Look at all the different seddans being made today. They are not as identifiably as the 60's. In years will you be saying that the 2005 sucked in handing and hp?
  2. SVTdriver,

    I agree with you 100%. All the $hitbox cars which are built today ALL resemble each other. The cars which were built all during the 60's and early 70's had MUCH BETTER styling to them than most of the cars which are all built today. Most of today's cars are too rounded looking and are too bland looking. All manufacturer's car look alike. That's what I have been trying to explain to everyone in here all thruout this thread. But I guess that some people are braindead or just plain stupid. They don't realize and see this problem. The styling was 1,000 times better during the 60's and early 70's. And not only that, but Ford wasn't afraid to add more horsepower to their engines back then. There were no restrictions with the EPA and with the environmentalists back then and Ford was able to build more powerful engines. But that changed with all the socialists and all the idiots at the EPA during the mid 70's and afterwards. The EPA and the communist environmentalists nowadays dictate to the auto manufacturers how to build a car. That's wrong.The EPA and the environmentalists have ruined the American way of life and the prosperity of American auto manufacturing businesses in this country. They are nothing but a large thorn in our economy. I hope that the auto manufacturing companies STOP listening to the communist EPA and to the environmentalists who are also communists. These two groups of people have been the true traitors to the United States for the past 30 years.
  3. We agree on some parts. But I disagree with you on th 94-98 mustang. Ihappen to like my 97 better than any of the current body style. Though I would like an 03 Cobra motor in my 97. Unfortunately only the individual citizen can stop the people creating these laws. And very few seem to want to. I personally don't care what powers a car in the future. As long as they go fast. And the future should hold that. Composite technology is just getting started really. That's why it is so expensive. And a lighter car will definately be faster.
  4. SVTDriver,

    I 100% agree with you about the lighter materials. If Ford can build the Mustang with lighter composite materials they solve the problem with the weight of the car. What bothers me is if the materials would be good quality and not the type that would break, crack or fall of the car with age. Ford would have to make sure that the lighter composite materials that they use on the Mustang is decent. I would hate to see the Mustang fall apart because of its bad quality composite body materials.
  5. It depends on the type of composites they use. There are a lot of materials that can be used to build a light car. Carbon fiber prices are coming down slowly. And it is very durable.
  6. It may have been said already, but I REALLY WANT the IRS to be an option on the GT. I can't afford the Cobra and I am not big on Drag racing. What I really want is a better handling daily driver.

    Are you listening FORD??????
  7. I think you'll find with the new chassis the handling will be improved.

  8. I'm with you. I live in the great white north with our wavy, cracked and bumpy frost heaved roads. It doesn't matter how much better the unibody is or the live axle suspension is, it won't be as good as IRS on our less than perfect roads.

    I really don't need more than 300 HP. I want a GT with IRS! If you're listening, Ford, I won't be buying a new Mustang until I see how this IRS stuff shakes out. I can wait..........
  9. 351CJ, I'm with you. I live in Northern California in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada and roads are less then perfect around here. They also have corners.

    Much as I love the new Mustang. I won't buy one until I can get IRS. And 300hp is more than enough for the driving I do.

  10. :D Long live the original 5.0!

    Attached Files:

  11. I still admire the 60's for all of the breakthroughs in music *rock* and all the rights movements and protests going on back then. It must have been exciting times. I would have been a flower child :D
  12. Here are some sales #'s for recent years. You can't compare today's sale #'s to the 60's as it is a different world. Import sales were almost insignificant in the 60's and the only people who bought trucks back then actually used them as trucks.

    Sales #'s by calander year, for the US only, you didn't say what your #'s were. You can add about 10% for Canadian sales to the #'s below.

    2003: 138,500 estimated sales were 128,101 through Nov 30
    2002: 138,356
    2001: 169,198
    2000: 173,676
    1999: 166,916
    1998: 147,587
    1997: 119,795
    1996: 127,464
    Sorry, but I couldn't find 1994 & 1995 #'s.

    Production #'s by Model Year:
    2003: ??
    2002: 142,404
    2001: 155,563
    2000: 215,693
    1999: 133,907 - Short production year, prod. didn't start until Dec 98 or Jan 99
    1998: 170,642 - This was a long production year becasue the 1999 was late.
    1997: 100,254
    1996: 126,483
    1995: 165,037
    1994: 123,598

    As you can see the 1999 - 2003 Mustangs have done better than the 1994 - 1998 model, with the 2000 model year slipping into #9 on your top 10 list.

    I can remember back to 1998 when all the nay-sayers were whining about the SN95 Mustang and how ugly it was and how horrible the Mod motor was, and how the Mustang was dead. If Ford can manufacture enough of them, I'll bet they will sell 200,000+ Mustangs in 2005.

    These #'s are not perfect, I checked a couple of sources and found a good 5% variation between them. It may be that one set of #'s included export models the other was US only.
  13. Let's hope that the Mustang will sell over 200,000 units in 2006. I think that this will happen because its popularity in 2005 will sell more units in 2006 and 2007 than in 2005.
  14. Yea, but the day you showed up with your 1967 Mustang GT, 390 4 BBL, with Hurst T-handle shifter, Craiger SS wheels, traction bars and glass packs, you would have been kicked right out of your commune. :rlaugh:

    Flower children were the original PC police, and were required to drive a VW beetle or Microbus. :p
  15. That list was the top 10 selling models based on totals by model year. production totals I only have for the II's:

    sales totals/production of II's

  16. Yeah, i missed the 60's by a few years too. i was born in '83. but yeah, i did just like you and got a '65 fastback:nice:
  17. I missed it by less years than you did. I've been 21 for the last 13 years. Someday I'll get it right. And move on to 22.
  18. I would like to see near future versions have these (without $$ in mind):

    - GTS versions available (i.e. almost like a drag pack that is mentioned) like in 95
    - at least 3.27 gears stock
    - Standard short throw shifter (unless new ones will have one??)
    - Cobra equipped with turbo system instead of roots blower
    - GT standard with 3 valve 5.4 (thus at least standard ~350fwhp)
    - IRS/Live axle option in GT and Cobra
    - HID headlights standard in GT and Cobra (eg. focus is moving to this)
    - Cobra is 2 seater
    - better stock internals on GT to handle boost better as 4.6 block is descent

    Thats off the top of my head
  19. That would be nice when money no longer becomes a factor.
  20. Stock HID lighting would be nice. Hell I'd even take it as an option!