new mustang

this article made me laugh.....the lowlight I think was when they noted this upcoming mustang would be the first with ind rear suspension.

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/spy-photos-reveal-details-2015-mustang-6C9692324

WTF is an air exhaust?

I have no idea about an "air exhaust"

They prolly mean some manner of vent in the coachwork.

Actually it wasn't the "first of the pony cars" as they stated, the Barracuda beat it by a month or more.

I just want to know if it's smaller. Please make it smaller. And lighter. Keep the motor though, I like that part.

In reply to carguy123:

That's true, but the Mustang is often given credit for that because it vastly outsold the Barracuda, so it arguably had a much larger impact.

Had the barracuda been a bit more prominent, we'd be talking about fishycars, not ponycars.

93EXCivic wrote: WTF is an air exhaust?

I'd assume it's a heat extractor, or some other vent pulling air out from inside the car.

I'm prepared to have my hopes dashed with the '14.5 Mustang. I think the current car is just way too big and have heard rumors the next model will be downsized to about the same exterior dimensions as a '65. BUT, all the test mules have been the same size as the S197.

I'd really like to really like to buy one new.

ReverendDexter wrote: I think the current car is just way too big and have heard rumors the next model will be downsized to about the same exterior dimensions as a '65.

I want a smaller Mustang too, but that seems optimistic. The 65 was tiny compared to modern cars. Take a look at one next to a new Camry. You'll be shocked, especially at how narrow the Mustang was.

I've seen it written numerous times that to meet modern day rules & regs, both here & abroad, the cars will never be as small or as light again.

That article made my head hurt so bad.

The mustang is the lightest muscle car around right now.

That article made my head hurt so bad.

The mustang is the lightest muscle car around right now.

DirtyBird222 wrote: That article made my head hurt so bad. The mustang is the lightest muscle car around right now.

And that somehow makes it alright?

carguy123 wrote: And that somehow makes it alright?

Kinda... who knows. So far we haven't seen any concrete info other than some rumors: it'll be smaller, lighter, more Euro-focused, have IRS and the styling will ditch the retro-theme while still retaining major Mustang cues (side scallops, long nose/short trunk, 3-part tail lamps).

I am hopeful as I could be in the market for a new car in a couple of years.

On the IRS, they maybe are referring to it being the first Mustang with IRS on all models, including the base one. Previously it was only available on Cobras.

Saying the Mustang is the lightest muscle car doesn't mean alot, when the competitors are at 2 tons, give or take a little. Now get it down to the early Fox weights and that would be great, around 2900-3100 lbs.

Streetwiseguy wrote: Had the barracuda been reasonably attractive, we'd be talking about fishycars, not ponycars.

Ian F wrote:

carguy123 wrote: And that somehow makes it alright?

Kinda... who knows. So far we haven't seen any concrete info other than some rumors: it'll be smaller, lighter, more Euro-focused, have IRS and the styling will ditch the retro-theme while still retaining major Mustang cues (side scallops, long nose/short trunk, 3-part tail lamps). I am hopeful as I could be in the market for a new car in a couple of years.

Since we all (with the possible exception of Eric) can only speculate if it's crash tests, stability, marketing, handling, or some other factors which drive cars up in weight and up in size, it's a useful comparison to check out the competition. if the Mustang was 500 lb more than its competitors, I'd say Ford was doing something wrong. Since, instead, it's several hundred pounds less than its competitors, they are probably doing something right, even if that numbers seems high to most of our tastes.

Considering the Lambo Aventador vert weighs about 4200lbs-the Mustang at 3700 or so doesn't look too bad.

Woody wrote:

Streetwiseguy wrote: Had the barracuda been reasonably attractive, we'd be talking about fishycars, not ponycars.

I think the Barracuda is better looking then the original Mustang...

93EXCivic wrote:

Woody wrote:

Streetwiseguy wrote: Had the barracuda been reasonably attractive, we'd be talking about fishycars, not ponycars.

I think the Barracuda is better looking then the original Mustang...

And the first gen Thunderbird looked better than the first gen Corvette and was better built, and even sold better. See how that worked out? I think this is a case of the victor writing the history books.

Streetwiseguy wrote: Had the barracuda been a bit more prominent, we'd be talking about fishycars, not ponycars.

I'm much happier to share my birthday with a ponycar rather than a fishycar.

tuna55 wrote:

93EXCivic wrote:

Woody wrote:

Streetwiseguy wrote: Had the barracuda been reasonably attractive, we'd be talking about fishycars, not ponycars.

I think the Barracuda is better looking then the original Mustang...

And the first gen Thunderbird looked better than the first gen Corvette and was better built, and even sold better. See how that worked out? I think this is a case of the victor writing the history books.

Yup- the TBird clearly won that battle- making many, many more millions of dollars. Sure, the Vette has lasted this long, selling cars the entire time, and bringing some kind of image to GM. But sometimes, it is about money. (I do applaud GM for keeping the Vette- it's expensive to have a single plant pushing out so few cars).

Some of you need to remember that the sporty car market is pretty small. The muscle car market is 5-10x bigger. Mustang/Camaro>>> Vette>miata, etc. And for many of those years, T-bird>mustang.

I'm not sure why an OEM would change a significant car model to a smaller market (and I'm still at a loss why the last T-bird coupe was stopped at 100k/yr to make a car that never sold more than 30k/yr).

Sorry if you think you guys are somekind of signficant market, but we are not.

alfadriver wrote: Sorry if you think you guys are somekind of signficant market, but we are not.

Now look here, I happen to believe that every OEM would jump at the chance to corner the market currently consisting of 20 year old Jeep Cherokees, Miatas, Yugos and BMWs. We all are willing to drop every penny of a thousand dollars (maybe even two) on a vehicle right now, if only it would:

Autocross better than a Miata or E30 with any level of modifications currently in existence

Score five stars on all crash tests

Seat seven

Be less than 2000 lbs

Make more than 600 hp

Be available with any tire size from 13" to 22", any width from 185-275

I, for one, don't see what the issue is, get those lazy OEMs off their buts and we'll come. They could possible sell tens, maybe dozens of these during the first year or production.

In reply to tuna55:

While you jest- the Mustang is almost like a BMW, in terms that people get one just for the sake of getting one. Even through the odd years of the Fox mustangs, the basic cars so much outsold the sporty ones that they kept the car alive.

Much like how BMW lives off of preception more than the reality- BUT the pretenders do know what BMW's can do. It's just that most of them never bother to find out. So you get M(#) cars that are more for image.

IF a smaller pony car can be sold to the pony car masses, it would be a great idea.

As for the trend to small cars, the CAFE requirements are real. What that really means for size and weight will be interesting (I don't actually know- I'm a powertrain person).