RHD Ford Mustang Spotted

[skyrover]

kambites said:

Indeed and the mk4 Mondeo is an absolute monstrosity - fine for motorway mile munching and probably OK for fast, flowing A-roads but not a car I'd want to try to hustle down a narrow B-road which is where most of my driving takes place.

If you treat the thing as a GT I'm sure it's fine, but I don't really feel that long distance cruising will be its forte in other ways? If it comes to the point where I'm in the market for a 2+2 sports car I'll certainly test drive one but I'm moderately confident I'll end up rejecting it on that basis.

Edited by kambites on Friday 22 January 09:42

Would it be fair to say though, looking at your garage... that you tend to go for tiny roadsters/ 2 seaters, ergo the mustang is probably not aimed at people such as yourself?

[kambites]

skyrover said:

Would it be fair to say though, looking at your car history... that you tend to go for tiny roadsters/ 2 seaters, ergo the mustang is probably not aimed at people such as yourself?

When buying fun cars, I go for a car whose size suits my requirements; or I suppose more precisely the smallest/lightest car which suits my requirements. Whilst I've had no need for four seats, they've obviously been quite small but it's slightly annoying that if I need a second row of seats, I seem to have to buy a wider car to get it.

[skyrover]

I would imagine physics dictates that longer car's must also be wider to maintain balance when cornering hard. Proportionally the mustang seems fine with respect to modern surrounding traffic and competitors in it's class.

Lets also not forget how much tougher crash testing is today compared to say what your Elise and MG were designed to withstand.

Sorry for explaining to granny how to suck egg's

[kambites]

True, although there are still a handful of substantially narrower 2+2s out there; the 911 being the obvious one which actually has vaguely useful rear seats; the GT86 and Evora being other examples if you don't actually want to be able to put humans in the back.

There certainly are good reasons for making cars wider - it makes them ride better, increases interior space, allows better crash protection, reduces body roll, etc. and I suspect in the States where space isn't at such a premium there are no particular downsides... but on the roads I drive on, I just can't get past the fact that things of this sort of size simply don't fit properly.

Edited by kambites on Friday 22 January 10:02

[skyrover]

911 has almost zero room in the back though. The mustangs back seat is at least usable.

[kambites]

skyrover said:

911 has almost zero room in the back though. The mustangs back seat is at least usable.

I've been in the back of one.

It's certainly not comfortable but in the modern ones the rear seats are just about usable for adults for short trips and are fine for children. There's certainly more space in the Mustang (at least in the previous generation, I haven't been in one of these).


If I was after a coupe I could actually fit adults comfortably in the back of, I can't really see past the RX8 which is six inches(!) narrower than the Mustang. As you say though, expectations of crash safety have come on a bit since those days. I suspect the RX8 wouldn't fair too well if it was put through NCAP now.

Edited by kambites on Friday 22 January 10:06

[skyrover]

kambites said:

I just can't get past the fact that things of this sort of size simply don't fit properly.

I see where your coming form... and then I don't

Living in rural Northumberland, our roads tend not to be brilliant from an engineering perspective, however they are a hoot to drive down fast.

A small, lightweight 2 seater is the best way to do this (I have a 2 seater locost for this duty), apart from a motorbike, but they are hopelessly impracticable for everyday use.

The roads are not too narrow for larger car's, they simply require an adjustment of driving style and i'm 100% sure you can wring the neck off a mustang down my local country roads.

They aren't too small for the 4x4's and pickup trucks which race them every day, so the mustang shouldn't be an issue either.

It's also worth noting the New Jaguar F-type is almost exactly same width as the mustang

[kambites]

Many of the "two lane" roads around here are narrow enough that for two Range rovers to pass they have to stick their wheels onto the verge. I've seen buses have to reverse because they met on a bit of road too narrow for them to pass each other.

Obviously I don't mean that something like this actually wouldn't fit on the roads if driven sedately, I just don't enjoy driving a car with no margin for error; what's the good in having a car whose line can be controlled with the throttle if there's no actually space to do so?

Edited by kambites on Friday 22 January 10:10

[skyrover]

kambites said:

Many of the "two lane" roads around here are narrow enough that for two Range rovers to pass they have to stick their wheels onto the verge. I've seen buses have to reverse because they met on a bit of road too narrow for them to pass each other.

Not familiar with your local area i'm afraid, most of my hooning experience comes from Northumberland and the border regions.

[kambites]

skyrover said:

kambites said:

Many of the "two lane" roads around here are narrow enough that for two Range rovers to pass they have to stick their wheels onto the verge. I've seen buses have to reverse because they met on a bit of road too narrow for them to pass each other.

Not familiar with your local area i'm afraid, most of my hooning experience comes from Northumberland and the border regions.

I suppose in large part it comes down to my specific commute; both the shortest path and the longer trips I take when I feel like a drive. Most of my driving is done on a mixture of B-roads and unclassified (often single track) roads. If my drives were longer and more A-road biased, I'm sure it'd be fine.

As I said, I'm fully accepting of the fact that for the huge majority of people it's simply not an issue.

[PanzerCommander]

kambites said:

I've been in the back of one.

It's certainly not comfortable but in the modern ones the rear seats are just about usable for adults for short trips and are fine for children. There's certainly more space in the Mustang (at least in the previous generation, I haven't been in one of these).


If I was after a coupe I could actually fit adults comfortably in the back of, I can't really see past the RX8 which is six inches(!) narrower than the Mustang. As you say though, expectations of crash safety have come on a bit since those days. I suspect the RX8 wouldn't fair too well if it was put through NCAP now.

Edited by kambites on Friday 22 January 10:06

Difficult comparison to make, it weighs 300kg less (at least, possibly more) and should be a bit more crisp on the corners because of its weight/balance advantage and really if its that lightweight crispness you want - the Mustang is not the car for you.

As far as the width goes is the measurement the right one. Us car width measurements often include the mirrors.

People seem to comment on the width of these cars quite a bit. I've not had an issue with the 2006 model (nor with the LHD drive but that’s a separate rant) and its width even on B roads.

[kambites]

PanzerCommander said:

As far as the width goes is the measurement the right one. Us car width measurements often include the mirrors.

The Mustang is 1915mm wide excluding the mirrors it's nearly 2090mm including them. The narrow-body 991 is 1806mm excluding mirrors, 1978mm including them. The RX8 is 1770mm excluding mirrors, not sure of the width including them.

Anyway this is getting off topic - it's a lovely car and a great addition to the UK market place.

Edited by kambites on Friday 22 January 10:47

[Zyp]

I parked next to 5 Mustangs at the dealers yesterday and was quite taken aback at how wide they looked.

Admittedly, I was in my Exige.
But when I noted the cars parked behind the Mustangs (Mondeo and I think a B Max(?) ) they actually weren't that bad.

[PanzerCommander]

kambites said:

The Mustang is 1915mm wide excluding the mirrors it's nearly 2090mm including them. The narrow-body 991 is 1806mm excluding mirrors, 1978mm including them. The RX8 is 1770mm excluding mirrors, not sure of the width including them.

Anyway this is getting off topic - it's a lovely car and a great addition to the UK market place.

Edited by kambites on Friday 22 January 10:47

Fair enough, just wondered

It is indeed.

I also think it looks even wider than it is because of the optical illusion created by the large areas of metal like the bonnet. Similar to how runways of varying widths appear to a pilot, a narrower runway than expected can create the illusion that you are too high and vice versa.

I haven't seen any on the roads yet, only the ones at the local dealers that I went to have a poke around.

[kambites]

PanzerCommander said:

I haven't seen any on the roads yet, only the ones at the local dealers that I went to have a poke around.

It looks surprisingly compact on the road. It actually looks smaller than a 4-series/A5/whatever although it isn't.

[VeeFource]

PanzerCommander said:

I also think it looks even wider than it is because of the optical illusion created by the large areas of metal like the bonnet. Similar to how runways of varying widths appear to a pilot, a narrower runway than expected can create the illusion that you are too high and vice versa.

Very true, I've always thought that about the GT86. It looks massively wide due to it's low height but is in fact only 1775mm wide.

[mat205125]

All that jazz said:

mat205125 said:

Whilst a V8 seems like the most appropriate engine for the car, I can't help thinking that the 2.3 Ecoboost would be the one to have ...... There will be loads of RS tuners about releasing big power, and the lighter engine might make it a sweeter handler.

Once the 2.3 version leaves the showroom it'll be worth £2.50 on the used market. People buy Mustangs for the V8 muscle not some eco-friendly hairdryer engine.

I'll wait until then in that case ..... I've got a fiver in my pocket, so I'll take two

It'll be interesting to see which engine actually becomes the aftermarket muscle car for owners and tuners. Time will tell.

[Centurion07]

The vast majority at the moment are V8's. Expect that to change as they become more widespread and the general public realise they don't have to have one with a V8.

[Centurion07]

That's kind of the point I was making.

The people that want a V8 are Mustang/car people, but as the general public start seeing more of them on the road and they start to do some research and find they can get a 2.3, the Ecoboost orders will start catching up with the V8's.

[skyrover]

The thing is... there is sod all difference in fuel economy between the 2.3 turbo and the V8 in the real world.

When tax is harmonized at £140 per year... why on earth would anybody buy the ecoboost?