They should make a new Cougar using the new Mustang's chassis.

Cougar (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=413417)

The Messenger would be a hell of a lot better than the current Mustang if it was built true to its concept form instead of being dumbed down like the new Mustang.

If I remember right it was based off of the DEW98 platform which is sadly now banished from all Ford’s line ups outside of Jaguar due to cost cutting. That would mean it would have a 4-wheel independent double wishbone suspension instead of the less sophisticated and outdated high-mounted MacPherson struts, lower wishbones, and rear the trailing arm is carried over from the C1 platform (Mazda3) that the new Mustang has.

God I wish Ford would have stayed true to the Mustang concept and made it a real sports car for once.
http://www.fast-autos.net/ford/gtconcept4.jpg
*** Notice the shock tower brace. This would make it easy to do a coil over conversion for the IRS the concept had since it was also built off of the DEW98 platform.***
http://www.fast-autos.net/ford/gtconcept11.jpg

Are you saying that the new Mustang has the Mazda 3 chassis?

The next Jaguar S-Type might use the new XJ's aluminum chassis.

The Mustang NEVER was a sports car.

WOW!!
I've missed alot! I've been off for a week or so, and everyone gets mad and THIRTEEN PAGES!
Someone on an earlier page mentioned Fords lineup not being that great. I do have to agree...kind of. Look at GM, if I want a midsize sporty, FWD 2-door v6 I can get a Monte or Grand Prix. But I'm a Ford guy, what does Ford have in that lineup? Well they have the Mustang v6...oh, but wait, it's RWD not FWD. NO I DO NOT WANT THE MUSTANG TO BE FWD! I'm just saying, If I want a daily driver FWD (for snow) midsize 2 door v6, Ford has nothing for me. WHY DIDN'T THEY MAKE A 2 DOOR TAURUS OR NOW FUSION? I know they made SHO's but, still a 4 door. Plus, look at Chevy's S-10 4x4 Z72(?). It had a slight lift, and big tires, stock! They also had the Extreme s-10 (lowered 2WD). Sometimes I feel that GM listens to the customer more and gives them things stock that they are doing w/the aftermarket. While Ford just gives us whatever is left in the parts bin. Don't get me wrong, I still love Ford, I just wish they gave us more choices.

WOW!!
I've missed alot! I've been off for a week or so, and everyone gets mad and THIRTEEN PAGES!
Someone on an earlier page mentioned Fords lineup not being that great. I do have to agree...kind of. Look at GM, if I want a midsize sporty, FWD 2-door v6 I can get a Monte or Grand Prix. But I'm a Ford guy, what does Ford have in that lineup? Well they have the Mustang v6...oh, but wait, it's RWD not FWD. NO I DO NOT WANT THE MUSTANG TO BE FWD! I'm just saying, If I want a daily driver FWD (for snow) midsize 2 door v6, Ford has nothing for me. WHY DIDN'T THEY MAKE A 2 DOOR TAURUS OR NOW FUSION? I know they made SHO's but, still a 4 door. Plus, look at Chevy's S-10 4x4 Z72(?). It had a slight lift, and big tires, stock! They also had the Extreme s-10 (lowered 2WD). Sometimes I feel that GM listens to the customer more and gives them things stock that they are doing w/the aftermarket. While Ford just gives us whatever is left in the parts bin. Don't get me wrong, I still love Ford, I just wish they gave us more choices.

The fusion is a midsized sedan, and it does have a v6. apparently its not 2 door though. the focus is 2 door and FWD though.

The ranger sport package gives the truck a slight raise and bigger tires just like that S10. id know cause i have one. and 4x4 is available for that package.

another thing i think is a mistake that is made all to often is people always say gm does this, and they talk about all of gm. but when people say ford doesnt do something or they do they talk about ford and ford only, not the rest of the companies that ford owns like they do with gm.

[QUOTE=01L2Cobra]The Messenger would be a hell of a lot better than the current Mustang if it was built true to its concept form instead of being dumbed down like the new Mustang.
QUOTE]

Well it would have been a lot more expensive to make. I agree the concept does look better but I think affordability was a driving factor.

Are you saying that the new Mustang has the Mazda 3 chassis?
Yes it’s nothing more than a modified version of the Mazda3's C1 platform that happens to use some of the very same parts.

The D2C's high-mounted MacPherson struts and lower wishbones are identical to the front-drive C1, and even in the rear the trailing arm is carried over from the C1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_D2C_platform

The Mustang NEVER was a sports car.
If it had stayed true to concept it would have been. It's too bad that Ford will more than likely never have a true sports car in the blue oval line up.

The fusion is a midsized sedan, and it does have a v6. apparently its not 2 door though. the focus is 2 door and FWD though.
Here is a little tid bid of info the SVT Fusion has already been said to be nothing more than a MazdaSpeed6.

Well it would have been a lot more expensive to make. I agree the concept does look better but I think affordability was a driving factor.
Yea it would have but I would have gladly paid $35K for it if it was built on the DEW98, with an IRS, and the 03 Cobra engine. Hell they could have put the new 3 valve in it called it the new GT and still not gone all that much up in price. Its not like they would have had to completely redesign that much between the T-bird, LS, and S-Type almost all of the parts were there.

Yea it would have but I would have gladly paid $35K for it if it was built on the DEW98, with an IRS, and the 03 Cobra engine. Hell they could have put the new 3 valve in it called it the new GT and still not gone all that much up in price. Its not like they would have had to completely redesign that much between the T-bird, LS, and S-Type almost all of the parts were there.

true i wouldnt mind 35k for it also including the 4v...

Here is a little tid bid of info the SVT Fusion has already been said to be nothing more than a MazdaSpeed6.

hmm well thats actually kind of neat. the mazdaspeed6 is a nice car, id own one. this is nothing new though, companies including gm and for that matter toyota just to name a couple do that all the time. ford has been doing it with mercury for years. and every gm v6 is practically the same car now with the 3.8v6, unless its one of the few with the 3.1. you ever hear of a toyota cavalier? oh yeah it the exact same thing, with toyota symbols on it.

so i dont mind it being the same thing as a mazdaspeed6. but SVT could change something up so they can say they actually did something. bottom line is for me that ford is in financial trouble right now, and if they can do something that the majority of people dont know about, that makes money, i think they should.

It's too bad that Ford will more than likely never have a true sports car in the blue oval line up.

So the current mid-engine GT is not a sports car?

The lack of a Dodge Challenger, Chevy Camaro, and Pontiac Firebird help sales of the Mustang right now, but there will be more performance version of the new Mustang.

If you want a fun coupe/convertible for under $30,000, the new Mustang is hard to beat. In fact, Car & Driver ranked the chassis rigidity ON PAR WITH A BMW 3 SERIES CONVERTIBLE. WHAT IS SO WRONG WITH THAT?

check here

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=9480

The new Mustang GT won a spot on Car & Driver's "Ten Best" for 2006.

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=33&article_id=10360

http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/download/0601_10best_ford_800x600.jpg

It won the same award for 2005.

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=33&article_id=8921

The fusion is a midsized sedan, and it does have a v6. apparently its not 2 door though. the focus is 2 door and FWD though.

The ranger sport package gives the truck a slight raise and bigger tires just like that S10. id know cause i have one. and 4x4 is available for that package.

another thing i think is a mistake that is made all to often is people always say gm does this, and they talk about all of gm. but when people say ford doesnt do something or they do they talk about ford and ford only, not the rest of the companies that ford owns like they do with gm.

True, any 4x4 is lifted a little, but the s-10 Z72 4x4 was raised quite a bit more than the base 4x4 and the BFG's were tall.

I do agree that we should look at the other Companies under the Ford name but, I really only consider Lincoln/Mercury as the same cars as Ford. I know that Mazda has been joint w/Ford for years just like Toyota w/Chevy, Mitsubishi w/Chrys. I know the Mazda 6 and Fusion share the same platform. I'm going to contradict myself but, if I had to buy a Fusion or a Mazda 6, I would buy the 6. It just looks so much cooler. The Fusion is cool, but it doesn't look mean like the 6 does. As for Volvo, Audi and all the others Ford owns they are just too expensive and mostly ugly.

True, any 4x4 is lifted a little, but the s-10 Z72 4x4 was raised quite a bit more than the base 4x4 and the BFG's were tall.


no i mean the sport package on the ranger is the same thing, taller tires and lifted more than normal. i know what ur sayin, and i have a ranger sport so i also know what im sayin...

So the current mid-engine GT is not a sports car?
No its a supercar not a sports car. You can't put a $150K+ car in the same kind of grouping as say a C6, S2000, or Lotus Elise.

The lack of a Dodge Challenger, Chevy Camaro, and Pontiac Firebird help sales of the Mustang right now, but there will be more performance version of the new Mustang.
Yea and the new "performance" versions will all still have the outdated Mazda3 front suspension. We know at least the Challenger will use a SLA front suspension. I don't care if Ford was the first to use the MacPherson front suspension. Its not the 1950's anymore get with the program and build a Mustang that can compete in the corners.

If you want a fun coupe/convertible for under $30,000, the new Mustang is hard to beat. In fact, Car & Driver ranked the chassis rigidity ON PAR WITH A BMW 3 SERIES CONVERTIBLE. WHAT IS SO WRONG WITH THAT?
1. MacPherson front suspension
2. No IRS
3. It's too heavy

1. MacPherson front suspension
2. No IRS
3. It's too heavy

Here is a little tid bid of info the SVT Fusion has already been said to be nothing more than a MazdaSpeed6.



Not to be rude, but have you driven a new Mustang GT?

Also, thanks for the "official" information with sources.

Not to be rude, but have you driven a new Mustang GT?
Yes I have thats why I have an 01 Cobra.


Also, thanks for the "official" information with sources.
One SVT insider also has hinted that they're eyeing the turbocharged, all-wheel-drive Mazda Speed6 to yield its powertrain and suspension upgrades to create an SVT Fusion.
http://www.motortrend.com/future/spied/112_0503_news_shelby/index1.html

i also researched last night and found that the speed6 will be atleast a starting point for the SVT fusion. however i dont mind that at all, i mean comon, a turbocharged AWD midsized car that should corner well. i cant complain. should be a lot better than SVT contours.

How can anyone bash the new GT500 that hasn't even come out yet? Nobody has driven it. I don't see how a car with the motor from a supercar and the suspension of a race car can be all bad. I also never thought I would see the day when someone called a car that will likely run a low 12 and has 450+ horsepower, underpowered. As for the new GT, I am jealous. I have driven it and its much better than my own GT. Every car on earth is only getting heavier with all the safety and rigidity people are demanding.

I don't see how a car with the motor from a supercar and the suspension of a race car can be all bad.
Thats not true. It doesn't have the Ford GT engine and the suspension is not the same as the FR500C. 450hp in a 2 ton car is underpowered. Just look at the 300C SRT-8 that what it will be like with maybe 25hp more.

Come on, they may not be identical parts but they are reasonably close. I am however aware of the differences so there is no need to point them out. I am glad that they made it a solid rear personally, if it was only an option than we would be stuck with a poor solid rear or a poor IRS. I mean as it stands its going to have a great solid rear. Coming from where the mustang was 2 years ago (not so good solid rear, not so good IRS in the cobra)everyone should be happy. Correct me if I am wrong, most of the last IRS's benefit really came from the balast weight it added in the rear to balance the car (not to mention smoother around corners). I really can't judge the car yet being that its not on the road, but I am sure it will be the fastest mustang ever.

The last IRS was on a platform that was never intended to have one. The new 3link is on a platform intended to have an IRS. In other words an IRS would be better than what is on there now.

Yeah but most people buy mustangs for straight line speeds anyway, its a muscle car. According to the tests ive seen just in magazines the solid rear on this car is really great for a solid rear.

While the pulley situation is a setback on modding, i know the engine has a lot of potential, and it shouldnt be too difficult to get some more power out. its probably underrated too. did you know that the Ford GT actually had about 600 crank hp when motor trend dynoed it? (im not saying magazines are always right, but thats all we have to go off that i know of).

The last IRS was on a platform that was never intended to have one. The new 3link is on a platform intended to have an IRS. In other words an IRS would be better than what is on there now.

I agree with you there. I was just saying that I appreciate the fact that they made an acceptable compromise to me in that they used the 3 link rather than the clumsy 4 link or offer another retrofitted IRS. It really has to be one way or another, at least this time they picked one and did it correctly.

Graham Bell, a European reviewer for pistonheads.com, liked the Roush 420RE. He probably would have like it more with the interior upgrade package (IUP).

http://www.pistonheads.com/doc.asp?c=47&i=12670

big deal have you ever seen the Top Gear review of the 05? They give the car the thumbs up but not by much in fact Clarkson even says its "it's not a very good car". Even when they reviewed it they had to take it out on the longest straight flat road they could find.

http://cec.wustl.edu/~ljm1/personal/car/vids/Mustang4-2.avi

In my opinion any "new" mustang is better than the old foxbody style

In my opinion any "new" mustang is better than the old foxbody style


Oh No You Didn't!! Sorry, I need a beer. I know the Fox body Mustangs were not the best looking, most aerodynamic, most powerfull, didn't have the best brakes/suspension. BUT, you have to admit that the Fox body Stangs are what got us this far! They had plenty of power-225, tons of torque-300. They were also very lightwieght. And most of all, fun as hell to drive!! For dragracing they have to be the best, because of their lightwieght. And if you upgrade the brakes/suspension, they would be great for the roadcoarse aswell. As for the looks of them, I like the clean lines of the Fox, kind of like the 1979 or 1980 Chevy Malibu, just a clean looking car, but with the right wheels/tires or the right setup they look mean. Don't get me wrong the 94 and up Stangs are better braking/suspension, aero, power (99-05), and they do look mean. And don't forget, the Fox's are alot easier to work on and their is a TON of aftermarket for the Fox 5.0!! But come on man, how can you dog the Fox??

Why is it the Fox even after all of it's sucess some people just don't give them the respect they deserve? It's not like they are the Mustang II (Pinto) from 74-78!!

Why is it the Fox even after all of it's sucess some people just don't give them the respect they deserve? It's not like they are the Mustang II (Pinto) from 74-78!!

despite how pathetic the power may have been, i really like the mustang II

The power to weight ration in the Fox 5.0 in very impressive. One ride in one and I was immediately hooked.

Well let just look at a few very important things between the 05 GT, 01 Cobra, 93 Cobra.

Weight distribution
05 GT: 54/46
01 Cobra: 55/45
93 Cobra: 63/47

Power to weight ratio
01 Cobra: 0.093294460641399
05 GT: 0.087591240875912
93 Cobra: 0.071556350626118

Now the SC Cobra numbers
Weight distribution
03 Cobra: 56/43
GT500: 57/43

Power to weight ratio
GT500: 0.11688311688312
03 Cobra: 0.10641200545703

If you look at the numbers the power to weight ratio has seen a good increase however it has been at the cost of weight distribution which is not a good thing at all.

well dont foreget that the 03/4 and 93 cobras werer really under rated. ive seen 93's dyno stock closer to 250crank hp and 03/4 closer to 425crank

despite how pathetic the power may have been, i really like the mustang II


You disapoint me Stang00.
I'll go stick my head in the snow now.

You disapoint me Stang00.
I'll go stick my head in the snow now.

:lol: i think the cobra looks sweet. comon its just SLIGHTLY underpowered...

:lol: i think the cobra looks sweet. comon its just SLIGHTLY underpowered...


SLIGHTLY UNDERPOWERED??!!

I can KIND OF understand you liking the way they look (even though they are a Pinto) especially the King Cobra because it had all the decals and ground effects. They make me think of the Trans Am from that time. But come on man, slightly underpowered??!! Didn't the 302 in them have about 150hp?? It may have been even less than that with since it was only a 2bbl carb. and with all the emmissions crap they had back then. Oh well, I guess it's all preferance. And they did keep the Mustang going.

I'M STILL STICKING MY HEAD IN THE SNOW. Especially after that comment......"slightly underpowered".....hmm. Oh well, Merry Christmas.

:lol2: :lol: slightly underpowered... i was useing a bit of sarcasm there, i know its very underpowered. just jokin with ya

well dont foreget that the 03/4 and 93 cobras werer really under rated. ive seen 93's dyno stock closer to 250crank hp and 03/4 closer to 425crank
True but then agian I could have added info about the 1985.5 SVO. The 1985.5 was the most powerfull of the SVOs not the 86 like most people think. During its day the SVO was a good compeditor.

true. I have a 86 in my yard im restoring i was gonna get a 85.5 but it was TO beat.

Two things not wrong now.

canadiandriver.com

December 23, 2005

Ford to save U.S.$650 million annually with new union health care agreement

Dearborn, Michigan - Ford Motor Company announced that its tentative agreement with the United Auto Workers (UAW) to reduce the Company's health care costs has been ratified by the Ford-UAW membership.

The agreement, which is currently pending court approval, calls primarily for modifications to the Company's hourly retiree health care plan, while continuing to allow Ford to provide a competitive benefits package for hourly employees and retirees.

Much like the recent General Motors health care agreement with the UAW, Ford's agreement includes contributions to an independent Defined Contribution Voluntary Employee Benefit Association (VEBA) that will be used to subsidize the cost of retiree benefits.

Overall, the agreement is expected to provide an average annual net corporate savings of about U.S.$650 million on a pre-tax basis, including reduced health care expenses and the impact of the VEBA contributions. Cash savings are projected to be about U.S.$200 million per year. Ford estimates the agreement will result in an overall reduction in its retiree health care (OPEB) liability of about U.S.$5 billion.