RE: Ford ships new Mustang

RE: Ford ships new Mustang

Tuesday 28th September 2004

Ford ships new Mustang

American muscle car hits the streets


Ford has started shipping the 2005 Mustang in the US. The steel-bodied, 1,600 kg car comes in two flavours, GT and V-6. The GT features an aluminium 4.6 litre V8 delivering 300 bhp at 5,750 rpm and 320 lb/ft of torque at 4,500 rpm. Ford reckons that’s over 50 per cent more power than the small-block 289-cu. inch V8 found in the classic 1964 model, though it doesn't mention performance figures. Redlined at 6,500 rpm and powering through a five-speed gearbox, the car is suspended using Macpherson struts at the front, and an antediluvian solid axle with coil springs at the rear.

Explaining the solid rear axle, Ford reckons that, "all the horsepower in the world doesn’t mean a thing if you can’t get the power to the ground. With that in mind, Mustang engineers developed a solid, new rear axle design with three-link architecture and a Panhard rod, for better off the line performance, and other advantages. Solid axles are robust, maintain constant track, and keep body roll under control. The solid axle pumping out torque to the rear wheel is an especially inviting feature for performance enthusiasts."

It rides on 17-inch wheels housing 12.4-inch vented discs at the front, and 11.8-inch rears. Performance figures are hard to come by but one source estimates a distinctly average 14 seconds for the standing quarter mile.

With retail orders for this classic American muscle car running 60 per cent higher than expected, according to Ford, company boss Jim Padilla congratulated the 3,600 employees of the car-builder, AAI, on "building the new model of America's favourite car with great precision and pride."

"America, your car is ready," Padilla told the cheering crowd. "Mustang is the exclamation point of Ford's product onslaught. There is no other car like it. And here at AutoAlliance, the 2005 model has found a great home. This plant, with its all-new flexible system, stands as a world-class plant in advanced automotive manufacturing systems and processes."

Ford invested nearly $700 million in AAI's flexible manufacturing system, which makes the plant capable of building up to six different models on two vehicle platforms.

This investment includes a new body shop with 380 robots and flexible tooling as well as an upgraded stamping operation with 38 new die sets capable of stamping 52 critical body parts. Major upgrades to the final assembly area include programmable platforms, or skillets, that hold the body on a scissor lift and adjust to the operator's height for improved ergonomics.

"The new technology in our plant means we can make a great car even greater," said Phil Spender, AAI president. "With quality a top priority, the 2005 Mustang is built with extreme precision and attention to detail on an all-new platform."

The car sells for $24,995 in the USA.

Author
Discussion

Cotty

Original Poster:

39,542 posts

284 months

Tuesday 28th September 2004
quotequote all
"The car sells for $24,995 in the USA"

So add a bit for shipping and odds and sods then chuck on £20k to rip of UK buyers and your sorted

twin turbo

5,544 posts

266 months

Tuesday 28th September 2004
quotequote all
So that's about £13/14k in the 'States then

And "gas" is still a 1/4 of the price it is here......

shagga

199 posts

244 months

Tuesday 28th September 2004
quotequote all
Bring one in as a personal import. Add shipping,Insurance, duty, VAT and SVA and you might even have change from £20000.
Now what could you get for £20000 in the UK?

stringer_m

152 posts

250 months

Tuesday 28th September 2004
quotequote all
I like Ford's attitude to the solid rear axle thing - obviously all that fiddly engineering that other companies do to get power down is a waste of time and they should all revert to cart springs and a solid axles!

It will almost inevitably end up costing way more than 20k if/when it reaches our shores and then there will be the slight issue of it drinking petrol like a Hummer H2.

vetteheadracer

8,271 posts

253 months

Tuesday 28th September 2004
quotequote all
:stringer_m said:
It will almost inevitably end up costing way more than 20k if/when it reaches our shores and then there will be the slight issue of it drinking petrol like a Hummer H2.



The 2004 Mustang does 17 mpg around town and 24 mpg on the highway and that is the 390bhp SVT Cobra. The 2005 won't do any worse than this.



>> Edited by vetteheadracer on Tuesday 28th September 14:10

cdp

7,459 posts

254 months

Tuesday 28th September 2004
quotequote all
I had a lift in a 1996 Mustang convertible last week and was appalled by the scuttle shake. It seemed like the front and the back of the car were joined by a piece of elastic. Then the owner told me that it had been re-enforced shortly after he bourght it to stiffen the structure! One can only imagine what it was like before.

thirsty

726 posts

264 months

Tuesday 28th September 2004
quotequote all
I think it's a shame that Ford missed a chance to make this a driver's car with a modern rear suspension. No one is buying the company line about the solid rear axle. The Corvette, with 400 bhp doesn't seem to have an issue with getting power to the ground with it's independent rear suspension... ??

Having said that... this is definately horsepower for the masses. The new platform should be light years ahead of the old Mustang which was really showing it's 20 plus year age.

I would also suspect that the GT will still get fairly good fuel mileage, but only if you can keep your right foot under control.

As for the price... that is not "on the road", (in California, add 10%)and it will go up dramatically once you start loading it up with creature comforts....

GregE240

10,857 posts

267 months

Tuesday 28th September 2004
quotequote all
cdp said:
I had a lift in a 1996 Mustang convertible last week and was appalled by the scuttle shake. It seemed like the front and the back of the car were joined by a piece of elastic. Then the owner told me that it had been re-enforced shortly after he bourght it to stiffen the structure! One can only imagine what it was like before.
Wonder if the fuel tank is still right behind the rear bumper, as per current model?

Thats why I won't hire a 'Stang ragtop Stateside. Much prefer the all round better build quality and tactility of the Chrysler Sebring (cough)

danmangt40

296 posts

284 months

Tuesday 28th September 2004
quotequote all
yeah, that scuttle issue most likely won't be a problem. The new mustang platform has already seen roofless duty under the thunderbird, and the mustang won't have as much mass outside the wheelbase as that car, and the holes in the structure ought to be fewer and smaller, to say the least. The coupe should be very tight. I love my Lincoln LS, and that's on the same platform as well....

phase90

85 posts

274 months

Tuesday 28th September 2004
quotequote all
I love my LS too, but the T-bird and Mustang are different chassis. The bird is a slightly modified DEW-98 but lacked body rigidity afforded by a full roof and pillars. This caused it's handling to be less than ideal.

The stang is heavily modified from the DEW-98 (solid rear axle and struts). Word is it performs very nicely, but it is not the same chassis.

smele

1,284 posts

284 months

Tuesday 28th September 2004
quotequote all
thirsty said:
I think it's a shame that Ford missed a chance to make this a driver's car with a modern rear suspension. No one is buying the company line about the solid rear axle. The Corvette, with 400 bhp doesn't seem to have an issue with getting power to the ground with it's independent rear suspension... ??

Having said that... this is definately horsepower for the masses. The new platform should be light years ahead of the old Mustang which was really showing it's 20 plus year age.

I would also suspect that the GT will still get fairly good fuel mileage, but only if you can keep your right foot under control.

As for the price... that is not "on the road", (in California, add 10%)and it will go up dramatically once you start loading it up with creature comforts....


I have a 2002 V8 Mustang and I will tell you now, that it is terrible to drive and does not do corners. But it does sound nice and was very cheap.

I thought the same thing, why would one want a solid rear axle? But apparently Ford surveyed it's market and the majority of owners wanted the solid rear axle. Over here in the US most people drag race their cars and a solid rear axle is very important. It does not cost that much to get 500BHP out of a mustang. So it seems that Ford is only answering customer demand.

smele.

Dan_The_Man

1,059 posts

239 months

Tuesday 28th September 2004
quotequote all
Might as well buy a Holden, at least the steering wheel is on the right side and you get 30 to the gallon on the Mway, plus you get a 5.7 not a puny 4.6 and fully loaded & warranted for under 30k

thirsty

726 posts

264 months

Tuesday 28th September 2004
quotequote all
smele said:


I thought the same thing, why would one want a solid rear axle? But apparently Ford surveyed it's market and the majority of owners wanted the solid rear axle. Over here in the US most people drag race their cars and a solid rear axle is very important. It does not cost that much to get 500BHP out of a mustang. So it seems that Ford is only answering customer demand.

smele.


That's the company line and they are sticking with it. However, having read numerous articles in Car and Driver, Motor Trend, etc, everyone wants to know who they surveyed. Fact is .. it was a money issue and Ford did not want to pony (no pun intended) up the money for an independent suspension. If there is a benefit, it's that the car will cost less. I suspect that they will offer an independent suspension on an SVT / Cobra version as they did on the current model.

Guibo

274 posts

265 months

Wednesday 29th September 2004
quotequote all
It's well known that a live axle is the way to go in dragracing. Check out any of those Finnish dragracers using BMW's, Volvo's, and such. They almost always go with a Ford rear end.
The Corvette is known to have worse traction than Mustangs. Even though its double wishbone suspension exhibits less toe and camber change than, say, lateral links or trailing arms, the Mustang's live axle on the other hand has basically zero camber change. And this means the tires stay square with the road, and thus there's more traction. The Corvette's unyieldingly stiff sidewalls (thanks to runflats) only compounds this problem.
On top of that, the live axle is incredibly stout; once you start modifying things to 7-800 hp of lb/ft, you need to have some very heavy duty halfshafts. And even then...Quite a few 8-second street legal Mustangs out there, while equally quick Corvettes are hard to come by.
Ford's survey sample seems to have included a large proportion of dragracers. I suspect most people who buy Mustangs wouldn't care either way; I think the V6's actually outsell the V8's. As mentioned, for those who want the IRS, they'll hold out for the inevitable SVT offering.

>> Edited by Guibo on Wednesday 29th September 01:48

LuS1fer

41,135 posts

245 months

Wednesday 29th September 2004
quotequote all
I think the "it's got a live axle, so it must be sh*t" argument is a little jaded. Frankly, a good, well-located rear axle is perfectly adequate for 95% of the time and sorry to yawn so much but my Camaro has a live rear axle and all the irs technology in the world won't help you keep up. If it was so crap, I'd be floundering every day. I recall one road test some years back which said "A good live axle setup is always going to be better than a cra IRS design". When car makers make their IRS designs, they do it as cheaply as possible too. If not, they charge you for it.

Secondly, how can you all miss such an obvious point about a live axle. Why the hell do you think it's so cheap? If it had IRS, it would cost more. Duh!

Finally, the live axle does offer better traction for straight line drags. Both rear wheels remain upright keeping the tyres at 90 degrees to terra-firma thus keeping maximum tyre contact. IRS "squats" onto the insides of the tyres as the suspension moves in an arc. On corners, the IRS has the advantage but it's nothing power can't overcome.

FestivAli

1,088 posts

238 months

Wednesday 29th September 2004
quotequote all
All this whinging about live axles and IRS! Who gives a toss? The point of the matter is that its the buyer who will decide whether or not it handles properly or has enough traction for their needs, and with such lovely looks I'm sure ford will have no problem with people coming in for a test drive. And what of cost?

My own car is a 1993 ford festiva 1.3, which is a kia pride badged as a ford. It was built for the sole purpose of allowing ford to reach emissions averages so it could sell thirsty suvs and make buckets of profit - meaning that my car was made as cheaply as possible and probably engineered by the PR guys 3 yr old son. I don't give a toss! It's fun to drive around in, I enjoy it and I never bore of driving it, and as far as I know the only thing suspending the rear wheels is a pair of slinkys. Plastic ones.

What I'm trying to say is that cheap does not always mean crap, and I'd give the new mustang a go before I judged it. Looks nicer than my festiva too...

LuS1fer

41,135 posts

245 months

Wednesday 29th September 2004
quotequote all
Dan_The_Man said:
Might as well buy a Holden, at least the steering wheel is on the right side and you get 30 to the gallon on the Mway, plus you get a 5.7 not a puny 4.6 and fully loaded & warranted for under 30k


All very well but the last "puny" 4.6 Mach 1 ran a 13.8 over the quarter, same as my Z28 and is therefore faster than the Holden. Weight has it's penalties.
The VXR is also nearer £40k to match that sort of performance. The Mustang is also drop dead gorgeous.

mrkipling

494 posts

256 months

Wednesday 29th September 2004
quotequote all
Even a stock 4.6 would deal with the Monaro, let alone a Mach 1 or Cobra (one on Autotrader for Monaro money at the moment)

Not sure about the new retro styling yet, will wait until I get to see one in the metal. Very keen price in the US though, the first ones will be well over list as the delivery time increases.

tvralfagtv6

141 posts

254 months

Thursday 30th September 2004
quotequote all
there seems to be a little usa / euro misunderstanding about the car. I spent a little time in the usa and came to the conclusion, things are always cheap for a reason.
we uk /euro buyers will look at the mustang thru our eyes and say wow want one. (now i have never seen the new one) but hazzard a guess when you lived with it
for an hour or so the cheap suspension, plastics
driving dynamics and dare say rattly crahing ride if the z28's etc are anything to go buy, and sheer price reduction engineering will really come home to you. I found american cars like listening to a cheap jap stereo listen to enough of them and they seem alright. however in the context of American straight roads no roundabouts lack of on slips or exits with bends that can be taken at 90mph+ no where to go for a weekend trip on the autobahn and 140+ for hour after hour. they make sense. would I have an excellent handling mx 5 (miata) in the states? no way! whats the point the mustang is cheap and cheerful horses and for that it should be commended.However get into a sorted eurobox at 3 times the price and you will have more fun, but what can you get in england for 13k£ and would I have one yes , I'll drive across the roundabouts at that price!

LuS1fer

41,135 posts

245 months

Thursday 30th September 2004
quotequote all
This would all be true if we could dispense with the myth that because it has a live axle, it doesn't handle and that Euro cars have superior interiors. Frankly, that's the biggest myth on Earth, European cars have the same sh*t interiors pound for pound, it's just that becasue the car has a V8 and performs like an expensive European car, motoring hacks like to compare the interiors to far more expensive "comparable" cars. For what it's worth, there's nothing wrong with the Z28's interior or the Z06's interior and they're way better than the vast majority of Euro rubbish where even a decent engine is an optional extra.