Changes I'd Make To The 2011 GT

On 2010-07-29, Rich > wrote:
> Brent > wrote in news:i2qtmi$s87$1
> @news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> On 2010-07-28, Rich > wrote:
>>> Brent > wrote in news:i2g4pm$5lv$1
>>> @news.eternal-september.org:
>>>
>>>> On 2010-07-25, NoOp > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Weight: (Disclaimer -- It could weigh 3,200 pounds and I'd like to
> see
>>>>> 3,000; 3,000 and I'd like to see it under 3,000, etc.) But the
>>>>> current 3,600 is too chunky. Pony cars, IMO, should never exceed
>>>>> 3,500... ideally less than 3,200. Please Ford, in the coming years
>>>>> look for ways to cut the poundage.
>>>>
>>>> It is going to be difficult to achieve that without making the car
>>>> unsellable to most people spending enough to buy the car. It won't
> make
>>>> it all that much cheaper from a manufacturing POV either.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then make it smaller, that'll cut weight.
>>
>> It's not all that big. Once you get it down to 7/8th's, focus size, the
>> weight hasn't even dropped below 3000.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Then I'd do a radical re-design of the fundamentals of the body since
> that is where the weight is. My Mach-1 has two metal rails "tacked
> on"the underside to stiffen it. There has to be a better way. Also, an
> all-aluminum engine would help, though with the Chinese buying up every
> scrap of base metal on the planet, the cost would be high.

The new 5.0 is AL block and heads.

On 2010-07-30, NoOp > wrote:
> On Jul 28, 11:33 pm, Brent > wrote:
>
>> > On Jul 27, 10:23 pm, Brent > wrote:
>> > Don't needs: P/W, P/L, P/M, P/S, C/C, 6-speaker stereo, fuzzy interior
>> > carpeting, under-hood insulation and engine cover. And, if I could,
>> > stability control and air bags would go.
>
>> The number of people who'd buy that to save peanuts would be close to
>> zero.
>
> I don't know about that. Enough people signed up to buy the stripped-
> down 90's R models. And plenty liked the less-optioned LX V8 models.
> And there's a market for motorcycles without all the fairings --
> "naked biked".

The 1980s were a long time ago and galaxie far far away. Even so, the
difference between a 5.0L LX and a GT was mostly missing trim. They
didn't have power brakes or PS removed or AC deleted etc and so forth. R
models have never been significant production volume.

>> >> > Like I said earlier, build a smaller Mustang -- 7/8s the current
>> >> > size. Trim it up like Chevy did with the Vette.
>> >> Last time Ford did that you got mustang ii
>> >> Now to see what 7/8ths of a mustang is:
>>
>> >> 7/8* 1970 Focus
>> >> 2011 1965 1971 1974 1979 2011 Pinto 2 door
>> >> WB 107.1 108.0 109.0 96.2 100.4 93.7 94 103
>> >> OL 188.1 181.6 189.5 175.0 179.1 164.6 163 174.9
>> >> OW 73.9 68.2 71.3 70.2 69.1 64.66 69.4 66.9
>>
>> >> What you want is a V8 pinto or focus.
>
> Your chart isn't easy to read. So here it is again:

How could be using something that doesn't support tab characters?

> '65 Mustang
> W/B = 108
> OL = 181.6
> O/W = 68.2

> '79 Mustang
> W/B = 100.4
> O/L = 179.1
> O/W = 69.1
>
> '11 Mustang
> W/B = 107.1
> O/L = 188.1
> O/W = 73.9

>> > The current styling of the current car scaled down an 1/8, to 7/8s,
>> > will make it look like, or a a combination of, the Mustang II, a V8
>> > Pinto or Focus? Really? So how does Revell make model cars 1/24 the
>> > original size and it still retain the original design?

>> Where did I bring up styling? I didn't. I'm talking size. Size wise you
>> want a mustang ii or pinto or focus.

> Or you could say a car closer in dimensions to the Fox cars -- 7"
> reduction in wheelbase, 9" in length, 5" in width from the current
> car. Sure a cut like this would result in some weight loss.

Could just keep building 80's five oh's forever?

>> You want more than that above. To build the platform you're talking some
>> good sized molds. at least 150K.

> I wouldn't want anything extravagant. Something to cover the metal
> floor pan with a few ribs to help prevent things from sliding around
> too much.

I'm not talking extravagant. I'm talking a couple big molds to produce
some rather blah nylon 6 pieces to make a platform. Now if you want the
weight of metal, then stampings are somewhat cheaper.

>> I doubt the magnum was using any kind of supportive seat... I'd guess it
>> would be like an old full size.

> The point is better seats can be engineered and done without any added
> cost. In other words, just make a well designed seats from the get-
> go.

>> >> I know. very very very little.

> Yet most factory cars have their engines breathing from somewhere
> other than in the hot engine compartment (behind the grill, inside the
> front fender, etc.)

By that statement it's pretty clear you don't understand what ram-air
consists of. It's not just a place to get fresh colder air. Inside the
fender works for that.

>> > And races are won by .001s.

>> 99.9% of mustang buyers are not buying race cars.

> Question) What was one of the primary reasons the Mustang retained
> it's straight axle?
> Answer) Drag racers prefer a straight axle.
> Conclusion) The percentage seems to be a little bit larger than .
> 1%.

Wrong. Cost. That above is the excuse ford gives. And drag race scoring
is done such that you're not winning races by .001s.

> Buying a Mustang/sporty car means you're willing to sacrifice some
> ride quality.

what the axle does on a frost heave is not ride quality. In poor
conditions it's downright 'is this car going to have the ass end come
around?'. Now I really know you just don't understand.

As far as sporty car sacrifice, even ford has realized they couldn't
keep things the way they were.

"NoOp" > wrote in message
...
> I don't know about that. Enough people signed up to buy the stripped-
> down 90's R models. And plenty liked the less-optioned LX V8 models.
> And there's a market for motorcycles without all the fairings --
> "naked biked".
>
suzanne (suzanne???) remarked that there was a market for motorcycles
"without all the fairings" Some of them are called "cruisers" and we buy
them without tupperware because we like our bikes to be without
tupperware... We buy V twins ( you can already tell I ride a Harley, yes?)
because we like V twins.

They didn't build a bike for me... my taste suited a bike they already built
(well.... that and a few extra bucks for deviations from the norm.... ).

I bought a 2005 Mustang with a nearly unusable back seat... Having it or
not having it wouldn't be a big deal for me... (well that may be stretching
it) but lacking it would likely be a deal breaker for some.

If a specialty car is what you seek.. buy a specialty car.... (a friend has
a Viper for sale 2006 with about 2000 kms on it) but do not pretend to turn
a car I would buy into a car I wouldn't buy.

Matter of fact... I can take your Mustang and get rid of the back seat...
get rid of the power windows.. make all manner of changes. And do it quite
handsomely, I might add..

Bring your credit card.....

If you want a Vette........

****... isn't that kind of obvious?

Fat people are fat..... what does that have to do with Mustangs?

I'm 6 foot.. my loving bride is 5 11 . Building a car smaller is going to
solve what? We are both hovering around 60 years of age... neither of us
are exactly svelt but neither are we ummmm, overly porky. We both seem to
fit in the 2005 vert quite easily.. we can even include two or three Pepsi
Cubes, a jug for the old fart and dinner...

What is really remarkable is that if I <GASP> decide to drive it to work....
I can drive it to work.... Now THAT is ****ING AMAZING!!!

Sorry.. what was your question again?

On Jul 29, 11:58*pm, Brent > wrote:

> >> > Don't needs: P/W, P/L, P/M, P/S, C/C, 6-speaker stereo, fuzzy interior
> >> > carpeting, under-hood insulation and engine cover. *And, if I could,
> >> > stability control and air bags would go.

> >> The number of people who'd buy that to save peanuts would be close to
> >> zero.

> > I don't know about that. *Enough people signed up to buy the stripped-
> > down 90's R models. *And plenty liked the less-optioned LX V8 models.
> > And there's a market for motorcycles without all the fairings --
> > "naked biked".

> The 1980s were a long time ago and galaxie far far away.

I think there's still has to be a sizable market for budget
performance cars. Surely, I can't be the only one left in
America.

> Even so, the
> difference between a 5.0L LX and a GT was mostly missing trim. They
> didn't have power brakes or PS removed or AC deleted etc and so forth.

IIRC, the GT came standard with A/C. The LX didn't. I special
ordered my '87 5.0 LX without A/C, power windows, locks, mirrors.
Mine weighed just under 3,000 lbs. Most GTs at the time weighed about
3,300 and many of their owners couldn't understand why my LX was
faster than their GT.

> R models have never been significant production volume.

Granted, but they did show the appeal a stripped-down racer carries.

> >> >> > Like I said earlier, build a smaller Mustang -- 7/8s the current
> >> >> > size. *Trim it up like Chevy did with the Vette.
> >> >> Last time Ford did that you got mustang ii
> >> >> Now to see what 7/8ths of a mustang is:
>
> >> >> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 7/8* * *1970 * *Focus
> >> >> * * * * 2011 * *1965 * *1971 * *1974 * *1979 * *2011 * *Pinto * 2 door
> >> >> WB * * *107.1 * 108.0 * 109.0 * 96.2 * *100.4 * 93.7 * *94 * * *103
> >> >> OL * * *188.1 * 181.6 * 189.5 * 175.0 * 179.1 * 164..6 * 163 * * 174.9
> >> >> OW * * *73.9 * *68.2 * *71.3 * *70.2 * *69.1 * *64.66 * 69.4 * *66.9
>
> >> >> What you want is a V8 pinto or focus.
>
> > Your chart isn't easy to read. *So here it is again:

> How could be using something that doesn't support tab characters?

> > '65 Mustang
> > W/B = 108
> > OL = 181.6
> > O/W = 68.2
> > '79 Mustang
> > W/B = 100.4
> > O/L = 179.1
> > O/W = 69.1

> > '11 Mustang
> > W/B = 107.1
> > O/L = 188.1
> > O/W = 73.9
> >> > The current styling of the current car scaled down an 1/8, to 7/8s,
> >> > will make it look like, or a *a combination of, the Mustang II, a V8
> >> > Pinto or Focus? *Really? *So how does Revell make model cars 1/24 the
> >> > original size and it still retain the original design?
> >> Where did I bring up styling? I didn't. I'm talking size. Size wise you
> >> want a mustang ii or pinto or focus.
> > Or you could say a car closer in dimensions to the Fox cars -- *7"
> > reduction in wheelbase, 9" in length, 5" in width from the current
> > car. *Sure a cut like this would result in some weight loss.

> Could just keep building 80's five oh's forever?

Nope, just 80's dimensions with the latest car's styling and power.
Now THAT would be magic!

> >> You want more than that above. To build the platform you're talking some
> >> good sized molds. at least 150K.
> > I wouldn't want anything extravagant. *Something to cover the metal
> > floor pan with a few ribs to help prevent things from sliding around
> > too much.
>
> I'm not talking extravagant. I'm talking a couple big molds to produce
> some rather blah nylon 6 pieces to make a platform. Now if you want the
> weight of metal, then stampings are somewhat cheaper.

No metal. Maybe just use vinyl matting like what's in my wife's
[Honda] Element. Even better use that type of vinyl matting over the
entire floor and get rid of all the carpeting.

> >> I doubt the magnum was using any kind of supportive seat... I'd guess it
> >> would be like an old full size.
> > The point is better seats can be engineered and done without any added
> > cost. *In other words, just make a well designed seats from the get-
> > go.
> >> >> I know. very very very little.
> > Yet most factory cars have their engines breathing from somewhere
> > other than in the hot engine compartment (behind the grill, inside the
> > front fender, etc.)

> By that statement it's pretty clear you don't understand what ram-air
> consists of.

You got me... I'm clueless... been a car enthusiast for nearly 40
years and haven't learned a thing.

> It's not just a place to get fresh colder air.

I think you're right. And isn't it true you can also get a little ram-
air effect at speed from a ram-air setup?

> Inside the fender works for that.

So it appears we agree cooler air is better. And can we agree outside
air [from a scoop] could be a bit cooler than air being pulled from
inside a fender [at very low speeds]? And air being pushed down a
tube and into the motor at 40, 50, 60+ mphs could also reap some
performance benefits? After all, scores of drag racers, who run ram-
air hood scoops, couldn't be wrong, could they? I mean it all amkes
sense to me me, but you're the expert.

> >> > And races are won by .001s.
> >> 99.9% of mustang buyers are not buying race cars.
> > Question) What was one of the primary reasons the Mustang retained
> > it's straight axle?
> > Answer) Drag racers prefer a straight axle.
> > Conclusion) The percentage seems to be a little bit larger than .
> > 1%.

> Wrong. Cost. That above is the excuse ford gives.

That's the way you read it. I read it that Ford knows Mustang buyers
like to drag race. And drag racers prefer straight axles.

> And drag race scoring
> is done such that you're not winning races by .001s.

Good catch and my bad math. Remove a zero.

> > Buying a Mustang/sporty car means you're willing to sacrifice some
> > ride quality.

> what the axle does on a frost heave is not ride quality. In poor
> conditions it's downright 'is this car going to have the ass end come
> around?'. *Now I really know you just don't understand.

Yep, you got me again. I only grew up in the always-balmy state of
Michigan and used to love playing in the slick stuff, but don't know
what you're talking about. Because I don't recall ever seeing/running
over frost heaves.

> As far as sporty car sacrifice, even ford has realized they couldn't
> keep things the way they were.

I'm not asking for things to stay the same. If that were true, I'd
keep my '93 Cobra and cancel my special-ordered '11 GT (Note: The
dealer found the same exact car as the one I'm ordering, except it was
white, in the Ford inventory. Hmm.. maybe there are others out there
who like less-optioned cars.) I'm only asking that in the futu

Ford reduces the dimensions/weight of the Mustang.
Ford _offers_ a functioning ram-air hood.
Ford offers a less-optioned V8 Mustang. (Like a modern V8 LX.)

Patrick

On 2010-08-02, NoOp > wrote:

>> The 1980s were a long time ago and galaxie far far away.
>
> I think there's still has to be a sizable market for budget
> performance cars. Surely, I can't be the only one left in
> America.

V6 mustang. 305hp. That's what a cobra got you way back when.

>> Even so, the
>> difference between a 5.0L LX and a GT was mostly missing trim. They
>> didn't have power brakes or PS removed or AC deleted etc and so forth.

> IIRC, the GT came standard with A/C. The LX didn't. I special
> ordered my '87 5.0 LX without A/C, power windows, locks, mirrors.
> Mine weighed just under 3,000 lbs. Most GTs at the time weighed about
> 3,300 and many of their owners couldn't understand why my LX was
> faster than their GT.

You want a stripped down 400hp car. 400hp costs. The vast majority of
people who can buy a new 400+hp car are not going to live with a
stripped bear bones piece of otherwise basic transportation.

>> R models have never been significant production volume.

> Granted, but they did show the appeal a stripped-down racer carries.

But they cost more than loaded GT.

>> > reduction in wheelbase, 9" in length, 5" in width from the current
>> > car. *Sure a cut like this would result in some weight loss.

>> Could just keep building 80's five oh's forever?

> Nope, just 80's dimensions with the latest car's styling and power.
> Now THAT would be magic!

not sellable. You can't get many people to pay for four hundred
horsepower and the drivetrain and suspension to deal with it and live
without what are basic things found in even entry level cars these days.

>> > Yet most factory cars have their engines breathing from somewhere
>> > other than in the hot engine compartment (behind the grill, inside the
>> > front fender, etc.)
>
>> By that statement it's pretty clear you don't understand what ram-air
>> consists of.
>
> You got me... I'm clueless... been a car enthusiast for nearly 40
> years and haven't learned a thing.

You're acting like you don't know what the mechanisms are.

> So it appears we agree cooler air is better. And can we agree outside
> air [from a scoop] could be a bit cooler than air being pulled from
> inside a fender [at very low speeds]? And air being pushed down a
> tube and into the motor at 40, 50, 60+ mphs could also reap some
> performance benefits? After all, scores of drag racers, who run ram-
> air hood scoops, couldn't be wrong, could they? I mean it all amkes
> sense to me me, but you're the expert.

This is at best tenths of a horsepower. You can't be putting on a
mechanism prone to getting dirty, jamming up, gaskets to
deteroriate, exposed to all sorts of crap for tiny fractions of
horsepower on a car that is for 99.9% of drivers a STREET CAR, one the
vast majority will drive all year in all conditions. One of the reasons
to get a mustang instead of a lot of other cars is they aren't as
sensitive to every little thing. They can be put out in the weather.


>> > Answer) Drag racers prefer a straight axle.
>> > Conclusion) The percentage seems to be a little bit larger than .
>> > 1%.

>> Wrong. Cost. That above is the excuse ford gives.

> That's the way you read it. I read it that Ford knows Mustang buyers
> like to drag race. And drag racers prefer straight axles.

very few percentage wise actually drag race. I know this, ford knows
this. If more than 3% of all mustangs made see a drag strip I'll be
surprised.

>> And drag race scoring
>> is done such that you're not winning races by .001s.

> Good catch and my bad math. Remove a zero.

Drag racing is scored to my knowledge by consistancy between runs.

>> > Buying a Mustang/sporty car means you're willing to sacrifice some
>> > ride quality.

>> what the axle does on a frost heave is not ride quality. In poor
>> conditions it's downright 'is this car going to have the ass end come
>> around?'. *Now I really know you just don't understand.

> Yep, you got me again. I only grew up in the always-balmy state of
> Michigan and used to love playing in the slick stuff, but don't know
> what you're talking about. Because I don't recall ever seeing/running
> over frost heaves.

Come to IL. the recently resurfaced bishop-ford freeway (formally
calumet expressway) had many frost heaves for the first couple miles on
the south end of the NB side.

>> As far as sporty car sacrifice, even ford has realized they couldn't
>> keep things the way they were.

> I'm not asking for things to stay the same. If that were true, I'd
> keep my '93 Cobra and cancel my special-ordered '11 GT (Note: The
> dealer found the same exact car as the one I'm ordering, except it was
> white, in the Ford inventory. Hmm.. maybe there are others out there
> who like less-optioned cars.) I'm only asking that in the futu

> Ford reduces the dimensions/weight of the Mustang.
> Ford _offers_ a functioning ram-air hood.
> Ford offers a less-optioned V8 Mustang. (Like a modern V8 LX.)

The number of people who wanted a 400hp stripper were always very few.
Cars like '69 hard tops with 428SCJs and dog dish hub caps on steel
wheels are very rare.

Brent wrote:

> Drag racing is scored to my knowledge by consistancy between runs.
>

Thats bracket racing, not drag racing.

On 2010-08-02, Hasse K > wrote:
> Brent wrote:
>
>> Drag racing is scored to my knowledge by consistancy between runs.
>>
>
> Thats bracket racing, not drag racing.

regardless, putting in a ram air system with all it's downsides on a
modern street car because 1% of 1% might see a benefit to 'win' by a
tiny fraction of a second is silly.

Sure, ram air doesn't have much problem for a trailered car that only
sees sunny days at the race track... but that isn't the great majority
of mustangs. Even as an option it wouldn't be useful to enough buyers to
justify the tooling and development cost.

On Aug 1, 10:42*pm, Brent > wrote:
> On 2010-08-02, NoOp > wrote:
>
> >> The 1980s were a long time ago and galaxie far far away.
>
> > I think there's still has to be a sizable market for budget
> > performance cars. *Surely, I can't be the only one left in
> > America.

> V6 mustang. 305hp. That's what a cobra got you way back when.

Good point. (Though those Cobras were a bit lighter.) However, how
many would jump at 412HP Mustang with a sticker at around $28K? I for
one have a few friends who love the new 5L GT, but balk at the thought
of paying over $30G to get one, and also think the V8 version has
become too pricey. I know a couple grand less isn't much when you're
financing, but for some a sales person saying a price a few under
under $30 is more appealing, much like a store using .99 price
tag.

> >> Even so, the
> >> difference between a 5.0L LX and a GT was mostly missing trim. They
> >> didn't have power brakes or PS removed or AC deleted etc and so forth.
> > IIRC, the GT came standard with A/C. *The LX didn't. *I special
> > ordered my '87 5.0 LX without A/C, power windows, locks, mirrors.
> > Mine weighed just under 3,000 lbs. *Most GTs at the time weighed about
> > 3,300 and many of their owners couldn't understand why my LX was
> > faster than their GT.
>
> You want a stripped down 400hp car. 400hp costs. The vast majority of
> people who can buy a new 400+hp car are not going to live with a
> stripped bear bones piece of otherwise basic transportation.

In these economic times, I wouldn't be so sure about that.

> >> R models have never been significant production volume.
> > Granted, but they did show the appeal a stripped-down racer carries.
>
> But they cost more than loaded GT.

But that was marketing, not reality pricing.

> >> > reduction in wheelbase, 9" in length, 5" in width from the current
> >> > car. *Sure a cut like this would result in some weight loss.
> >> Could just keep building 80's five oh's forever?
> > Nope, just 80's dimensions with the latest car's styling and power.
> > Now THAT would be magic!

> not sellable. You can't get many people to pay for four hundred
> horsepower and the drivetrain and suspension to deal with it and live
> without what are basic things found in even entry level cars these days.

Note: I only said dimensions of the 80's Mustang. Not the old
suspension and trans.

> >> > Yet most factory cars have their engines breathing from somewhere
> >> > other than in the hot engine compartment (behind the grill, inside the
> >> > front fender, etc.)

> >> By that statement it's pretty clear you don't understand what ram-air
> >> consists of.
>
> > You got me... I'm clueless... been a car enthusiast for nearly 40
> > years and haven't learned a thing.
>
> You're acting like you don't know what the mechanisms are.

I simply listed one of the benefits of ram-air -- cooler air. Rest
assured I understand the mechanisms.

Another benefit is adding a little macho. And real is better. I've
heard many "car guys/girls" who commented on how cool a scoop looks,
but after closer inspection see it's non-functional/no opening then
change their opinion to something like "oh, that's cheesy".

Reminder: I only want a ram-air scoop to be an option.

> > So it appears we agree cooler air is better. *And can we agree outside
> > air [from a scoop] could be a bit cooler than air being pulled from
> > inside a fender [at very low speeds]? *And air being pushed down a
> > tube and into the motor at 40, 50, 60+ mphs could also reap some
> > performance benefits? *After all, scores of drag racers, who run ram-
> > air hood scoops, couldn't be wrong, could they? *I mean it all amkes
> > sense to me me, but you're the expert.

> This is at best tenths of a horsepower. You can't be putting on a
> mechanism prone to getting dirty, jamming up, gaskets to
> deteroriate, exposed to all sorts of crap for tiny fractions of
> horsepower on a car that is for 99.9% of drivers a STREET CAR, one the
> vast majority will drive all year in all conditions. One of the reasons
> to get a mustang instead of a lot of other cars is they aren't as
> sensitive to every little thing. They can be put out in the weather.

Options = potential profits.

> >> > Answer) Drag racers prefer a straight axle.
> >> > Conclusion) The percentage seems to be a little bit larger than .
> >> > 1%.
> >> Wrong. Cost. That above is the excuse ford gives.
> > That's the way you read it. *I read it that Ford knows Mustang buyers
> > like to drag race. *And drag racers prefer straight axles.

> very few percentage wise actually drag race. I know this, ford knows
> this. If more than 3% of all mustangs made see a drag strip I'll be
> surprised.

Have you been to a local drag strip lately? Late-model Mustangs seem
to pretty popular.

> >> And drag race scoring
> >> is done such that you're not winning races by .001s.
> > Good catch and my bad math. *Remove a zero.

> Drag racing is scored to my knowledge by consistency between runs.

Commented corrected by another poster.

> >> > Buying a Mustang/sporty car means you're willing to sacrifice some
> >> > ride quality.
> >> what the axle does on a frost heave is not ride quality. In poor
> >> conditions it's downright 'is this car going to have the ass end come
> >> around?'. *Now I really know you just don't understand.
> > Yep, you got me again. *I only grew up in the always-balmy state of
> > Michigan and used to love playing in the slick stuff, but don't know
> > what you're talking about. *Because I don't recall ever seeing/running
> > over frost heaves.

> Come to IL. the recently resurfaced bishop-ford freeway (formally
> calumet expressway) had many frost heaves for the first couple miles on
> the south end of the NB side.

The last time I drove into Michigan the difference between the Ohio
side and Michigan side of the interstate was startling. The Michigan
side looked/felt like military jets had used the Michigan interstate
to practice bombing runs.

> >> As far as sporty car sacrifice, even ford has realized they couldn't
> >> keep things the way they were.
> > I'm not asking for things to stay the same. *If that were true, I'd
> > keep my '93 Cobra and cancel my special-ordered '11 GT (Note: The
> > dealer found the same exact car as the one I'm ordering, except it was
> > white, in the Ford inventory. *Hmm.. maybe there are others out there
> > who like less-optioned cars.) *I'm only asking that in the futu
> > Ford reduces the dimensions/weight of the Mustang.
> > Ford _offers_ a functioning ram-air hood.
> > Ford offers a less-optioned V8 Mustang. *(Like a modern V8 LX.)

> The number of people who wanted a 400hp stripper were always very few.
> Cars like '69 hard tops with 428SCJs and dog dish hub caps on steel
> wheels are very rare.

And I must note: Very cool!

I still say trim the dimensions of the next generation car back to Fox
numbers. And offer a less-optioned V8 car.

As for wish 1. Trimming pounds is the manufacturers next frontier.
Better mileage numbers have been mandated, so cutting the fat is next
logical choice.

As for wish 2. Ford officials have been hinting a less-optioned V8
car is in discussions.

Patrick

On 2010-08-05, NoOp > wrote:
> On Aug 1, 10:42*pm, Brent > wrote:
>> On 2010-08-02, NoOp > wrote:
>>
>> >> The 1980s were a long time ago and galaxie far far away.
>>
>> > I think there's still has to be a sizable market for budget
>> > performance cars. *Surely, I can't be the only one left in
>> > America.
>
>> V6 mustang. 305hp. That's what a cobra got you way back when.
>
> Good point. (Though those Cobras were a bit lighter.) However, how
> many would jump at 412HP Mustang with a sticker at around $28K? I for
> one have a few friends who love the new 5L GT, but balk at the thought
> of paying over $30G to get one, and also think the V8 version has
> become too pricey. I know a couple grand less isn't much when you're
> financing, but for some a sales person saying a price a few under
> under $30 is more appealing, much like a store using .99 price
> tag.

I'd love a brand new aston martin vantage for $10K, but it isn't going
to happen. Today's regular V8 mustang is now operating in areas that
are beyond many of the most special mustangs of the past.

>> You want a stripped down 400hp car. 400hp costs. The vast majority of
>> people who can buy a new 400+hp car are not going to live with a
>> stripped bear bones piece of otherwise basic transportation.

> In these economic times, I wouldn't be so sure about that.

In these economic times you get customers who can buy it all or nothing
as per the article on ford limiting GT500 to maintain 'exclusivity'.

>> >> R models have never been significant production volume.
>> > Granted, but they did show the appeal a stripped-down racer carries.

>> But they cost more than loaded GT.

> But that was marketing, not reality pricing.

Welcome to ford products. But we don't know the breakdown. In any case
the production was very low.

>> > Nope, just 80's dimensions with the latest car's styling and power.
>> > Now THAT would be magic!

>> not sellable. You can't get many people to pay for four hundred
>> horsepower and the drivetrain and suspension to deal with it and live
>> without what are basic things found in even entry level cars these days.

> Note: I only said dimensions of the 80's Mustang. Not the old
> suspension and trans.

That's what I wrote. Buy a four hundred horsepower car with all needed
to deal with it... Nobody is going to buy that in a package with roll up
windows, no sound deadening, cheaply made interior, no AC, no PS, etc
and so forth. It's not going to work. All that money to have a powerful
car and cut out the little things, which are cheap commodity stuff these
days? it's not worth it for the very tiny percentage of people who want
that.

>> You're acting like you don't know what the mechanisms are.

> I simply listed one of the benefits of ram-air -- cooler air. Rest
> assured I understand the mechanisms.

And how are you going to justify the tooling, development, and warranty
costs on it? You're getting just about nothing in HP to appeal to the
cosmetic desires of a small group of buyers. It doesn't make sense or
cents.

> Another benefit is adding a little macho. And real is better. I've
> heard many "car guys/girls" who commented on how cool a scoop looks,
> but after closer inspection see it's non-functional/no opening then
> change their opinion to something like "oh, that's cheesy".

So it's just a gaget. nothing more. Like countless others over
automotive history. You might as well argue for a turn table poping out
of the dash to play 45rpm records. Sure it's cool but technology passed
it by a long time ago.

> Reminder: I only want a ram-air scoop to be an option.

Which drives up the per unit costs and makes it even harder to
justify the development work & costs. And instead of the EPA testing of
one engine, now you have to do it TWICE!

>> This is at best tenths of a horsepower. You can't be putting on a
>> mechanism prone to getting dirty, jamming up, gaskets to
>> deteroriate, exposed to all sorts of crap for tiny fractions of
>> horsepower on a car that is for 99.9% of drivers a STREET CAR, one the
>> vast majority will drive all year in all conditions. One of the reasons
>> to get a mustang instead of a lot of other cars is they aren't as
>> sensitive to every little thing. They can be put out in the weather.

> Options = potential profits.

Would you pay say, $1000 for it? Because for ford and its stealerships
to make the profits on it that's about what it would need to cost.
You're looking at a quarter million dollars easy to offer that option.

>> very few percentage wise actually drag race. I know this, ford knows
>> this. If more than 3% of all mustangs made see a drag strip I'll be
>> surprised.
>
> Have you been to a local drag strip lately? Late-model Mustangs seem
> to pretty popular.

Ford makes roughly 150,000 mustangs a year. How many of those owners do
you think are serious enough about drag racing to care? 5000? Think
about it. If 5000 people for each model year drag race, that's hundreds
of thousands of people, yet it's only a very tiny percentage of mustang
owners/buyers.