Get a gander before Ford gets this pulled.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~themustangsou...ER%20GUIDE.PDF

 

Great info!!!

Any word on price?

 

You are exactly right!
You know this first showed up on Brad's site a few weeks ago, and they made him take it down...
They've been chasing it all over the net now for weeks, and YES, they DO want it removed. They are going to have problems with updates and revisions to the order sheet because of this internet proliferation (or so they think anyways ).

Interesting note in the spec sheet...
3.55:1 mandatory axle ratio on ALL GT's with TR-3650 5spd...
That won't hurt 0-60 or quarter times at all!
Gosh, I'm gonna miss the ol' 2.73 and 3.08 gears... not!

 

Interesting...they suggest a retail stock of 68% V-6ers.

 

Wonder when the 18" wheels will be available.

 

I hate to look this "gift horse" in the mouth, especially considering how much I like the styling of the 2005 'Stang, but...

1. The Mustang still won't have stability control, not even as an option. Perhaps it's just as well. Ford would have probably slapped a $1,200+ pricetag on an optional stability control system, then dropped it for lack of demand. That was what the greedy morons at FOMOCO did with the Focus. With the Porsche sized cost of the option, it's no wonder that entry-level buyers didn't shell out for this safety feature.

In reality, VW's $280 pricing for stability control is a far more accurate assessment of what such as system really costs the manufacturer.

2. Ford wasted a large amount of money on engineering a "color-configurable instrument cluster." Who asked for 125 different instrument backlighting colors? If this is the sort of thing that gets 'Stang buyers all hot-to-trot, the target demographic must be adults with the mental age of 8.

Perhaps Mustang buyers will enjoy playing with the instrument backlighting as they skid sideways off a slippery road?

3. I hope that the 2005 Mustang stays cheap, because it will remain a vehicle that is only fit for the sunbelt. Daimler-Chrysler's new LX cars show that affordable pricing, RWD and active safety aren't mutually incompatible.

 

Why does it need stability control? 5, 10...20 years ago there was no such thing. Heck...there was no ABS or traction control either and drivers managed.
IMO, if you're enough of a moron driver, and lack the cognizance that you're driving a (relatively) powerful RWD vehicle, stability control isn't going to save your @ss anyway. If a driver can't control the vehicle on a slippery road, maybe they should buy a 4-cylinder FWD that'll drive straight into the trees instead of doing a pirouette before eating some bark.
I don't buy into all these intrusive safety measures. I remember the automatic seatbelts on my T-bird SC, and the ABS that still didn't prevent me from sliding into a parked van on the ice. ABS and TC are as much as I'd care to have on any of my vehicles. There is no replacement for common sense behind the wheel.
S.

 

I agree with the general thinking of this (no replacemtn for common sense) , but I am all for any sort of safety stuff.

If some moron cuts me off in poor weather (out of my control), and that stability control keeps me from losing it... it may have saved my life.

Power brakes and steering weren't around long ago too... same with airbags, and even seatbelts.... technology moves forward...

 

Personally, I'd enjoy have a technological "edge" when I'm in a blizzard or ice storm. Stability control actually works and it isn't very expensive (less than the $300 Ford saved by keeping the live rear axle). It's not the fault of the technology that ABS didn't save you from an accident. Perhaps brake assist, a 4-channel set up or even studded snow treads might have helped. Maybe you were unlucky and were doomed no matter how much skill and active safety equipement you might have had.

Right or wrong, RWD cars are perceived as being bad in northern climates. A 300C (with standard ESP) could put that perception to rest, but Ford missed a similar opportunity with the new Mustang.

 

Maybe they missed it on the Mustang, maybe not.
The soon to arrive 500 and all the other newbies like the Freestar and Freestyle can burden the cost of development and refinement.

When you only offer a handful of models like VW does, you pretty much roll out everything you have in those few models. When you have as many models as Ford or GM, there are obviously better models to debut certain features. The Mustang is basically an economy-class sport unit, aimed at those who want a good basic car at a low price - not necessarily all the bells and whistles even if they are cheap too.

My folks (especially the old man) was dead against all the power windows, door locks, and "gadgetry" that cars were getting in the 70s and 80's. He'd say,"The more sh1+ they put on 'em, the more sh1+ they can sell you when it stops working or charge you to fix." He wasn't really wrong either, but their Town Car has as much crap on it as any car on the road. He's not a hypocrite, it's just that's how the car is packaged these days - there IS no option. (Man, you guys should hear this Navy sailor cussing when a door lock motor goes out... he makes up NEW cuss words you've never heard before )

Like Darth says, technology is moving... we can't stop it.

 

1. Yes, they did miss the boat with the new Mustang. Hopefully, buyers will notice the styling and exquisite interior detailing, not the dated approach towards active safety.

2. The 500 is already looking pretty weak ($22-30K) compared to the new competition from Chrysler. Both the 500 and the Freestyle will be seriously slow as well. The launch should have been delayed until the 3.5 liter Duratec V6 was ready.

3. The Freestar is cramped, crude sounding and dated compared to the Toyota Sienna. Perhaps that's why the Sienna is such a hot seller.

VW has a very extensive model range, and it's getting more complex. The reason why the safety content is available across the range is because European buyers demand it.:box:

Most of the industry assumes that mainstream American buyers are more concerned with cupholders. Perhaps they're right.


Great, keep it cheap. However, there is no reason why stability control shouldn't at least be an affordable option.

Yeah, and I can show you a car in my driveway where the ABS system has lasted 14 years, but every other braking component has been replaced. Oh, and all of the power accessories work just fine.

If his Town Car has issues with the power door locks, that doesn't pertain to the issue of stability control. The Town Car, despite the hefty price tag, is one of the few luxury cars without stability control these days. The truth of the matter is that all of the "electronic driver aides" are reliable and reasonably inexpensive.

You wouldn't know this by looking at the Mustang's spec sheet.

If companies like Ford and GM would rather invest in retiree benefits than in product content, it's fine by me. Just don't expect me to buy American.

 

those poor 235/55/17 tires will be holdin' on for dear life

 

That's a really strange size. Unless my numbers are wrong, that's actually going to be a 27" tire.
With a that much sidewall, and 3.55's, it actually might hook pretty well. Of course, weight transfer and balance won't be able to be assessed until somebody gets ahold of one.
S.

 

good point...handling being another issue. I guess it's just a tire change...

 

The greatest saftey feature ever?

Your eyes, ears, hands, and feet.

Stability control and Traction control, and ABS, and airbags...Whatever. They're great, but if the dumbass behind the wheel is completely oblivious to the basic physics of driving ANY vehicle, let alone a RWD one, then no technological wonder on the planet will save them.

Despite what the government would care to tell you, vehicle safety starts with the driver, Not the car.