Mustang Concept, first pictures
12-05-2002, 12:38 PM
#46
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: oshawa,ontario,canada
Posts: 3,597
Originally posted by guionM
Took another look at those supposed body stampings. If the next Mustang is to be built off the LS platform, then I think those pics are the real thing. The pic has very little front overhang, yet alot of overhang in the rear...... just like Lincoln's LS. Also, the way the front wheel arch blends into the lower crease for the side scoops is identical to the concept car. It's also known that the new Mustang will have round lights behind a clear rectangular cover, and old style door handles is one of the small touches a couple of people who has seen it mentioned.
I'm now pretty certain it's genuine.
Check out this photoshop picture someone did based on the stampings (you'll have to scroll down a couple of posts, seem the link doesn't work): http://warnerrobert.com/ubb/ultimate...c;f=2;t=001011
It's going to be hard to avoid getting one if that's it. Looks pretty good!
Took another look at those supposed body stampings. If the next Mustang is to be built off the LS platform, then I think those pics are the real thing. The pic has very little front overhang, yet alot of overhang in the rear...... just like Lincoln's LS. Also, the way the front wheel arch blends into the lower crease for the side scoops is identical to the concept car. It's also known that the new Mustang will have round lights behind a clear rectangular cover, and old style door handles is one of the small touches a couple of people who has seen it mentioned.
I'm now pretty certain it's genuine.
Check out this photoshop picture someone did based on the stampings (you'll have to scroll down a couple of posts, seem the link doesn't work): http://warnerrobert.com/ubb/ultimate...c;f=2;t=001011
It's going to be hard to avoid getting one if that's it. Looks pretty good!
12-05-2002, 01:10 PM
#47
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
Look at this one:
http://warnerrobert.com/ubb/ultimate...c;f=2;t=001012
He increased the wheelbase and shortened the rear overhang.
I don't think that I really like the front fascia....but the rest looks much nicer to me.
http://warnerrobert.com/ubb/ultimate...c;f=2;t=001012
He increased the wheelbase and shortened the rear overhang.
I don't think that I really like the front fascia....but the rest looks much nicer to me.
Last edited by Z284ever; 12-05-2002 at 01:13 PM.
12-05-2002, 02:30 PM
#48
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: At car shows and cruise nights!
Posts: 3,647
Nah, no overhangs make it look like a regular car too much. Styling that catches attention is a must for these kind of cars. I gotta say though, this car lacks innovation. There is practically no new in it and any new there is doesn't look too good. The entire car is a 60's M*****g. That might not be good, we need this car to succeed. Yo F**d, be more inventive in the design.
12-05-2002, 06:55 PM
#49
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Commerce, mi, USA
Posts: 2,139
The convertible looks pretty good to me... except for the wheel surrounds looking a little too circular/regular. And it would need some protection from parking lot dings... sides have no protection, like the 350Z.
The coupe, if the artificial renderings are to be believed, looks very nice. I have been a fan of the earlier concept drawing that had been floating around of the blue fastback, and hoping that's the real 05 Stang. Looks like it might be and if so I believe it will be a success, despite being such a throwback to the Mustangs of the 1960's. It's a shame Ford can't seem to create many striking and genuinely new designs like they did with the current F150 and the Focus. But this is retro done right if it comes out the way the coupes have been drawn so far by the various volunteer photoshop geeks.
I really like the greenhouse and roofline of the coupe if that's how it really is. I don't mind the significant rear overhang, it looks natural since the old Mustangs had it too. I like the front end too, it looks mean and macho. I was worried the new Mustang was going to have en effeminate design tone like the new Tbird, but that does not appear to be the case.
That said, I still probably won't buy one! If my TA gets stolen/wrecked, I'm going after a new GTO. If not I'm saving for an 07 Camaro
The coupe, if the artificial renderings are to be believed, looks very nice. I have been a fan of the earlier concept drawing that had been floating around of the blue fastback, and hoping that's the real 05 Stang. Looks like it might be and if so I believe it will be a success, despite being such a throwback to the Mustangs of the 1960's. It's a shame Ford can't seem to create many striking and genuinely new designs like they did with the current F150 and the Focus. But this is retro done right if it comes out the way the coupes have been drawn so far by the various volunteer photoshop geeks.
I really like the greenhouse and roofline of the coupe if that's how it really is. I don't mind the significant rear overhang, it looks natural since the old Mustangs had it too. I like the front end too, it looks mean and macho. I was worried the new Mustang was going to have en effeminate design tone like the new Tbird, but that does not appear to be the case.
That said, I still probably won't buy one! If my TA gets stolen/wrecked, I'm going after a new GTO. If not I'm saving for an 07 Camaro
12-07-2002, 10:58 PM
#50
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,954
Originally posted by Z284ever
Look at this one:
http://warnerrobert.com/ubb/ultimate...c;f=2;t=001012
He increased the wheelbase and shortened the rear overhang.
I don't think that I really like the front fascia....but the rest looks much nicer to me.
Look at this one:
http://warnerrobert.com/ubb/ultimate...c;f=2;t=001012
He increased the wheelbase and shortened the rear overhang.
I don't think that I really like the front fascia....but the rest looks much nicer to me.
Overall, the real new Mustang is a great improvement on the current model. The only thing I don't like is the overly conservative fastback - why not extend it and give it a hatch. The '79-93 Mustangs were great looking cars in hatchback form, expecially before 1988 when T-tops were an option. I'm not a FOMOCO fan, but I still miss the days when a 5.0 could burn any IROC-Z, and when a GT was a real looker.
12-07-2002, 11:36 PM
#52
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: At car shows and cruise nights!
Posts: 3,647
Originally posted by redzed
but I still miss the days when a 5.0 could burn any IROC-Z, and when a GT was a real looker.
but I still miss the days when a 5.0 could burn any IROC-Z, and when a GT was a real looker.
L98 cars 87-92 beat plenty of 5.0's, they still do today from what I see. 
I know of a few that could take early LT1 Auto's also, yes stock or really near stock too.
12-08-2002, 12:05 AM
#53
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,954
Originally posted by IZ28
L98 cars 87-92 beat plenty of 5.0's, they still do today from what I see. I know of a few that could take early LT1 Auto's also, yes stock or really near stock too.
L98 cars 87-92 beat plenty of 5.0's, they still do today from what I see. I know of a few that could take early LT1 Auto's also, yes stock or really near stock too.
The fact remains that L98 F3s were a bit heavy, but the motors were slightly torquier than the LT1. What's the effect of giving up 20lb/ft of torque for 30 more horsepower, especially with an automatic tranny?
In any case, I just miss the old 5.0 Mustangs. There was alot to be said for those cars.
12-08-2002, 10:05 AM
#54
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: At car shows and cruise nights!
Posts: 3,647
[QUOTE]Originally posted by redzed
The fact remains that L98 F3s were a bit heavy, but the motors were slightly torquier than the LT1.
They had more TQ than the LT1 and the 5.0 and I think the early LS1's at 330-345 ft. lbs. depending on year. The best performing years for the 5.0 were 87 and 88 but the L98 got better year by year. When Speed Density was introduced to the M*****g, people that bought them actually went back to MAF because it made better power. Third Gens heavy?? Not really IMO, not as heavy as a 4th Gen or 2nd Gen. They are pretty close to 1sts. An unoptioned 87 IROC-Z 350 TPI is 3,341 lbs. That was lighter than the 350 GTA and even the Formula believe it or not. And a 5.0 5-Speed IROC has a 3,250 base weight.
In any case, I just miss the old 5.0 Mustangs. There was alot to be said for those cars.
Sure, like how they didn't handle as good as a Third Gen, brake like a Third, look as good as a Third ext. and int., sell like the Thirds, and so on. The only thing they had going for them was ease of modding with good results and good power stock. But any SBC including the L98 has that even more over and TPI is the setup for low-mid RPM TQ and good HP, but its the TPI itself that is expensive. I'm seeing them more and more in cars from back in the day at car shows, 1 of the best, if not the best looking setup ever, especially when polished or chromed. 
The fact remains that L98 F3s were a bit heavy, but the motors were slightly torquier than the LT1.
They had more TQ than the LT1 and the 5.0 and I think the early LS1's at 330-345 ft. lbs. depending on year. The best performing years for the 5.0 were 87 and 88 but the L98 got better year by year. When Speed Density was introduced to the M*****g, people that bought them actually went back to MAF because it made better power. Third Gens heavy?? Not really IMO, not as heavy as a 4th Gen or 2nd Gen. They are pretty close to 1sts. An unoptioned 87 IROC-Z 350 TPI is 3,341 lbs. That was lighter than the 350 GTA and even the Formula believe it or not. And a 5.0 5-Speed IROC has a 3,250 base weight.
In any case, I just miss the old 5.0 Mustangs. There was alot to be said for those cars.
Sure, like how they didn't handle as good as a Third Gen, brake like a Third, look as good as a Third ext. and int., sell like the Thirds, and so on.
The only thing they had going for them was ease of modding with good results and good power stock. But any SBC including the L98 has that even more over and TPI is the setup for low-mid RPM TQ and good HP, but its the TPI itself that is expensive. I'm seeing them more and more in cars from back in the day at car shows, 1 of the best, if not the best looking setup ever, especially when polished or chromed.
Last edited by IZ28; 12-08-2002 at 11:15 AM.
12-08-2002, 02:09 PM
#55
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
I lived and worked with 5.0 Mustangs for 11 years.
They warped brakes yearly, the front struts needed constant adjusting to avoid wearing out the front tire edges, before Ford went to one piece seals, they wore out around 120K miles, the power brake booster went out around 100K, and they could get squirrelly on turns that weren't glass smooth. But the engine & drive train were flawless, never ever overheated (very important when consistantly running high speed in SoCal's 110 degree summers), they were very fast and very fun to drive. And until Chevrolet brought back the 350 in Camaros, 5.0 Mustangs did outrun pretty much every same year Z28 or IROC.
Camaros tended to overheat under the same conditions (why CHP stuck with SS Mustangs). The 350 in the final 3rd gen Z28s do have more torque than the LS1, and did outrun 5.0s, but it took 48 more cubic inches to do it, and at the time, 5.0s got better fuel economy.
They warped brakes yearly, the front struts needed constant adjusting to avoid wearing out the front tire edges, before Ford went to one piece seals, they wore out around 120K miles, the power brake booster went out around 100K, and they could get squirrelly on turns that weren't glass smooth. But the engine & drive train were flawless, never ever overheated (very important when consistantly running high speed in SoCal's 110 degree summers), they were very fast and very fun to drive. And until Chevrolet brought back the 350 in Camaros, 5.0 Mustangs did outrun pretty much every same year Z28 or IROC.
Camaros tended to overheat under the same conditions (why CHP stuck with SS Mustangs). The 350 in the final 3rd gen Z28s do have more torque than the LS1, and did outrun 5.0s, but it took 48 more cubic inches to do it, and at the time, 5.0s got better fuel economy.
12-08-2002, 03:14 PM
#56
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,873
Originally posted by redzed
On the plus side, the tail lights in the photo of the convertible are pure Shelby GT350/500. I even like the chrome fuel filler cap mounted in the middle of the rear end. I always thought this feature was convenient, but it also serves as an indicator of the continued use of a REAR-MOUNTED FUEL TANK. (More evidence of a carried-over Fox platform - unless the Australian Falcon also has a rear mounted tank. Does anyone know for sure?)
On the plus side, the tail lights in the photo of the convertible are pure Shelby GT350/500. I even like the chrome fuel filler cap mounted in the middle of the rear end. I always thought this feature was convenient, but it also serves as an indicator of the continued use of a REAR-MOUNTED FUEL TANK. (More evidence of a carried-over Fox platform - unless the Australian Falcon also has a rear mounted tank. Does anyone know for sure?)
12-08-2002, 07:35 PM
#57
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,954
[QUOTE]Originally posted by IZ28
Pardon me, but I remember the old IROC-Z as being way more expensive than a V8 Mustang. Back in 1991 it took over $21,000 MSRP to buy a Camaro Z28 that could run with $14,000 Mustang LX 5.0 or a $16,000 GT. Considering inflation, my $25K+ Z28 was far less expensive than the comparable car of 10 years earlier. People said that LS-1 F-bodies were getting expensive, but performance oriented F3s were the real ripoffs "back in the day."
Throw in the bone shaking ride and creaky interior, and its a wonder that the F-body survived its third generation.
More to the point, GMs 1980s TPI systems weren't exactly perfect. I remember lots of clogged fuel injectors, which required expensive replacement. (Part of the problem with "varnish" in the injectors was cured by the higher levels of detergent in modern gasoline.) Alot of people felt that the early port fuel injection wasn't worth the hassle, preferring the 4 barrel carb. of a Monte Carlo SS. Maybe Fords had the same problems, but they weren't as roundly criticised.
My point is that the Mustang 5.0 was a great car in the late 80s/early 90s. The F4 changed the equation dramatically, and the 6-speed LT-1 combination literally put GM miles ahead of the Ford.
Originally posted by redzed
The fact remains that L98 F3s were a bit heavy, but the motors were slightly torquier than the LT1.
They had more TQ than the LT1 and the 5.0 and I think the early LS1's at 330-345 ft. lbs. depending on year. The best performing years for the 5.0 were 87 and 88 but the L98 got better year by year. When Speed Density was introduced to the M*****g, people that bought them actually went back to MAF because it made better power. Third Gens heavy?? Not really IMO, not as heavy as a 4th Gen or 2nd Gen. They are pretty close to 1sts. An unoptioned 87 IROC-Z 350 TPI is 3,341 lbs. That was lighter than the 350 GTA and even the Formula believe it or not. And a 5.0 5-Speed IROC has a 3,250 base weight.
In any case, I just miss the old 5.0 Mustangs. There was alot to be said for those cars.
Sure, like how they didn't handle as good as a Third Gen, brake like a Third, look as good as a Third ext. and int., sell like the Thirds, and so on. The only thing they had going for them was ease of modding with good results and good power stock. But any SBC including the L98 has that even more over and TPI is the setup for low-mid RPM TQ and good HP, but its the TPI itself that is expensive. I'm seeing them more and more in cars from back in the day at car shows, 1 of the best, if not the best looking setup ever, especially when polished or chromed.
The fact remains that L98 F3s were a bit heavy, but the motors were slightly torquier than the LT1.
They had more TQ than the LT1 and the 5.0 and I think the early LS1's at 330-345 ft. lbs. depending on year. The best performing years for the 5.0 were 87 and 88 but the L98 got better year by year. When Speed Density was introduced to the M*****g, people that bought them actually went back to MAF because it made better power. Third Gens heavy?? Not really IMO, not as heavy as a 4th Gen or 2nd Gen. They are pretty close to 1sts. An unoptioned 87 IROC-Z 350 TPI is 3,341 lbs. That was lighter than the 350 GTA and even the Formula believe it or not. And a 5.0 5-Speed IROC has a 3,250 base weight.
In any case, I just miss the old 5.0 Mustangs. There was alot to be said for those cars.
Sure, like how they didn't handle as good as a Third Gen, brake like a Third, look as good as a Third ext. and int., sell like the Thirds, and so on.
The only thing they had going for them was ease of modding with good results and good power stock. But any SBC including the L98 has that even more over and TPI is the setup for low-mid RPM TQ and good HP, but its the TPI itself that is expensive. I'm seeing them more and more in cars from back in the day at car shows, 1 of the best, if not the best looking setup ever, especially when polished or chromed.
Throw in the bone shaking ride and creaky interior, and its a wonder that the F-body survived its third generation.
More to the point, GMs 1980s TPI systems weren't exactly perfect. I remember lots of clogged fuel injectors, which required expensive replacement. (Part of the problem with "varnish" in the injectors was cured by the higher levels of detergent in modern gasoline.) Alot of people felt that the early port fuel injection wasn't worth the hassle, preferring the 4 barrel carb. of a Monte Carlo SS. Maybe Fords had the same problems, but they weren't as roundly criticised.
My point is that the Mustang 5.0 was a great car in the late 80s/early 90s. The F4 changed the equation dramatically, and the 6-speed LT-1 combination literally put GM miles ahead of the Ford.
12-08-2002, 09:50 PM
#58
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: At car shows and cruise nights!
Posts: 3,647
Originally posted by redzed
Pardon me, but I remember the old IROC-Z as being way more expensive than a V8 Mustang. Back in 1991 it took over $21,000 MSRP to buy a Camaro Z28 that could run with $14,000 Mustang LX 5.0 or a $16,000 GT. Considering inflation, my $25K+ Z28 was far less expensive than the comparable car of 10 years earlier. People said that LS-1 F-bodies were getting expensive, but performance oriented F3s were the real ripoffs "back in the day."
Throw in the bone shaking ride and creaky interior, and its a wonder that the F-body survived its third generation.
More to the point, GMs 1980s TPI systems weren't exactly perfect. I remember lots of clogged fuel injectors, which required expensive replacement. (Part of the problem with "varnish" in the injectors was cured by the higher levels of detergent in modern gasoline.) Alot of people felt that the early port fuel injection wasn't worth the hassle, preferring the 4 barrel carb. of a Monte Carlo SS. Maybe Fords had the same problems, but they weren't as roundly criticised.
Pardon me, but I remember the old IROC-Z as being way more expensive than a V8 Mustang. Back in 1991 it took over $21,000 MSRP to buy a Camaro Z28 that could run with $14,000 Mustang LX 5.0 or a $16,000 GT. Considering inflation, my $25K+ Z28 was far less expensive than the comparable car of 10 years earlier. People said that LS-1 F-bodies were getting expensive, but performance oriented F3s were the real ripoffs "back in the day."
Throw in the bone shaking ride and creaky interior, and its a wonder that the F-body survived its third generation.
More to the point, GMs 1980s TPI systems weren't exactly perfect. I remember lots of clogged fuel injectors, which required expensive replacement. (Part of the problem with "varnish" in the injectors was cured by the higher levels of detergent in modern gasoline.) Alot of people felt that the early port fuel injection wasn't worth the hassle, preferring the 4 barrel carb. of a Monte Carlo SS. Maybe Fords had the same problems, but they weren't as roundly criticised.
I am always around TGO and don't hear of many injector issues. Most are still running the originals with no probems. Considering how the SS devalued your Z28 and made it look like an RS, (or LX 5.0 of the F-Body) you got the ripoff of the 4th Gen, moreso than any1 could in the Third. The IROC-Z28 was the top model. And a near $35,000 SS?? Thats a ripoff, IMO.
Last edited by IZ28; 12-08-2002 at 10:07 PM.
12-08-2002, 10:05 PM
#59
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: At car shows and cruise nights!
Posts: 3,647
Originally posted by guionM
but it took 48 more cubic inches to do it, and at the time, 5.0s got better fuel economy.
but it took 48 more cubic inches to do it, and at the time, 5.0s got better fuel economy.
Musclecars should have the biggest engines possible. What did 5.0's get for MPG?? I know L98's got 16/26. A dude on TGO with a stock L98 gets a little more than 30MPG with some PROM tuning. He's like the only 1 concerned about MPG.
12-08-2002, 10:51 PM
#60
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: TN
Posts: 220
wow,i'm surprised this thread lasted 4 pages before the usual mustang vs camaro BS started,and it's bench racing from the '80s no less!!let's just get all this crap out of the way
-5.0 ruled the streets in the '80s!
-oh yeah,well the IROC could out-handle and out-brake it!!
-oh yeah,well i know a guy who knows this guy who got better gas milege!!
-hatchbacks suck,those mustangs look like escorts!!
-how do you know what those mustangs look like,you guys only saw the taillights!
-whatever!!my Z28 could sometimes be one half of hundreth of a tick quicker to 60 and everyone knows you can feel that on the street!!
-f-bodies are for rednecks
-mustangs are for girls
-mustang has 4 wheels
-oh yeah,well GM was planning on putting 5 wheels on the camaro,so suck it!!
-with a supercharger,you can't touch me!
-oh yeah,put a turbo on that supercharger and do this other thing and tweak this whatever and see what happens!!HA!!
there,that should cover all the excuses.now,back to topic,i like the mustang concept,i can't wait to see the whole thing in january.
-5.0 ruled the streets in the '80s!
-oh yeah,well the IROC could out-handle and out-brake it!!
-oh yeah,well i know a guy who knows this guy who got better gas milege!!
-hatchbacks suck,those mustangs look like escorts!!
-how do you know what those mustangs look like,you guys only saw the taillights!
-whatever!!my Z28 could sometimes be one half of hundreth of a tick quicker to 60 and everyone knows you can feel that on the street!!
-f-bodies are for rednecks
-mustangs are for girls
-mustang has 4 wheels
-oh yeah,well GM was planning on putting 5 wheels on the camaro,so suck it!!
-with a supercharger,you can't touch me!
-oh yeah,put a turbo on that supercharger and do this other thing and tweak this whatever and see what happens!!HA!!
there,that should cover all the excuses.now,back to topic,i like the mustang concept,i can't wait to see the whole thing in january.