2010 Mustang Revealed!!!!

[Congoman775]

Originally Posted by syr74

Just like engines, people often put too much stock in how many pistons are doing the pumping. And just like with engines, there is more to it than that.

so basically you have no idea.

[syr74]

Originally Posted by Congoman775

so basically you have no idea.

To be blunt, yes and no. Frankly, the problem is that I haven't been able to confirm if there are the genuinely upgraded brakes set for the 400hp 2011 GT available now in the Track Package or if they are simply the same stuff we got on the Bullitt which would basically mean bog standard GT brakes with better pads. The descritption fits either scenario and I haven;t had the time to look into it. I just find it hard to believe a 2k package wouldn't include the upgraded brakes because, without them, there isn't much there. If it isn't the upgrade brakes meant for the 400hp car then IMO the Track package is a major rip off.

[Congoman775]

Originally Posted by syr74

To be blunt, yes and no. Frankly, the problem is that I haven't been able to confirm if there are the genuinely upgraded brakes set for the 400hp 2011 GT available now in the Track Package or if they are simply the same stuff we got on the Bullitt which would basically mean bog standard GT brakes with better pads. The descritption fits either scenario and I haven;t had the time to look into it. I just find it hard to believe a 2k package wouldn't include the upgraded brakes because, without them, there isn't much there. If it isn't the upgrade brakes meant for the 400hp car then IMO the Track package is a major rip off.

im putting 200 monopoly dollars on them being a bullitt setup. aka. rip off.

[Georgie]

i think it will have the good brakes

[BowtieGuy]

Pistons in brakes make a big difference. It is nothing like pistons in engines. When hydraulic pressure engages the caliper piston, it presses inward on the pad, against the rotor, slowing the vehicle. In a single piston setup, there is one large piston and a relatively small brake pad doing the work. In a four piston, they are using the same amount of hydraulic pressure as the single piston (depending on the master cylinder pushrod and booster, but let's imagine it's the same) but because there are four pistons and a much larger pad that pressure is applied to a greater surface area of the rotor, increasing stopping power dramatically.

Hope that helps.

[bigralph]

http://www.4wheelsnews.com/ford-to-u...oit-auto-show/


With the majority of the attention at the LA Auto Show channeled to the Mustang, one would think Ford would enjoy that wave of publicity as long as it could. However, it seems like Ford will be generating more Mustang news even prior to the display of 2010s in the showroom areas.

At the actual unveiling of the 2010 Ford Mustang the preceding week, it seemed that Mark Fields gave a hint of the likelihood of more Mustang news being generated from the Detroit Auto Show early next year. Not surprisingly, during the unwrapping again on Speed TV any revealing of a new Mustang for Detroit was anticipated. And surely, Fields informed the show that Ford “will reveal yet another chapter in the Mustang story” at the 2009 Detroit Auto Show. More details after the jump!


Thinking through about what this latest Mustang could be, there are only two possibilities that remain. The first is the future generation Shelby GT500. Spy shoots have been getting photos of test models running around Detroit since early summer, and if Ford maintains the same powertrain configuration as the GT and V6, then it would basically be a matter of making superficial modifications.

The second is an all-new version of the Mustang, most probably a concept that would provide a clue to a production variant. Because this is just pure speculation, there is a desire for a Boss Mustang, 5.0-liters, 400 hp and a 6-speed manual transmission. A Mustang celebrating Parnelli Jones’ 1970 Trans-Am victory would be ideal apart from the fact that Saleen has already done it two years ago. Mark Field’s declarations offered a hint at something all new, but the likelihood of a new engine could make the purchase wait for one more year. It seems like it’s going to wait until January to know for certain.

[garagelogic]

Originally Posted by bigralph

Thinking through about what this latest Mustang could be, there are only two possibilities that remain. The first is the future generation Shelby GT500. Spy shoots have been getting photos of test models running around Detroit since early summer, and if Ford maintains the same powertrain configuration as the GT and V6, then it would basically be a matter of making superficial modifications.

The second is an all-new version of the Mustang, most probably a concept that would provide a clue to a production variant. Because this is just pure speculation, there is a desire for a Boss Mustang, 5.0-liters, 400 hp and a 6-speed manual transmission. A Mustang celebrating Parnelli Jones’ 1970 Trans-Am victory would be ideal apart from the fact that Saleen has already done it two years ago. Mark Field’s declarations offered a hint at something all new, but the likelihood of a new engine could make the purchase wait for one more year. It seems like it’s going to wait until January to know for certain.

Well, I would not consider the GT500 as one of the possibilities, because it is just a continuation of something that is already on showroom floors. Shelbys deal with Ford runs through 2012. If I were a betting man, I would put my money on one of the following:

1. Boss 302 (as referenced above)
2. Mach 1

[KatarHol]

I bet Boss 302,that would be our 5.0L 400HP Mustang. I think the GT will stick with the 4.6L,while the 5.0L will be reserved for a SE. I just can't see Ford screwing over all the '10 GT buyers by upping HP by 85 in just one model year. On the other hand,if the '11 GT gets the 5.0L,maybe it's only around 350HP to save room for a SE.

[radz28]

Originally Posted by Georgie

looking good with the nav

Originally Posted by Georgie

looking good:

I like those photos a lot more and the I like the interior of the car better than the last. It's kinda' retro' but contemporary to me; I think it's a nice update now that I've seen it in better shots.

Originally Posted by 06GTO

It doesnt look bad to be honest, but i'd rather have the new camaro SS

Originally Posted by garagelogic

And to add to the previous posters comments, Ford does not target "liitle old ladies" with the Mustang, they target "young, professional women". And based on the results, i'd say their marketing team has done a great job! Ford has always targeted that demographic since 1965 and, given its success through the decades, I don't think they should stop.

Stop and think about it. Maybe if GM would have tried to target the same market segment in some way with the Gen 4 Camaro, perhaps it would not have went the way of the dinosaur a few years ago.

I agree here. I think Camaro/Firebird pigeon-holed themselves starting with the 3rd. Gen. I love the 4th. Gens. I've had, but the hump in the floor gets old, the long doors make parking complicated in some more tighter stalls and the windshield view took a little getting used to. I think it was aimed more toward the enthusiast because it just seems some of these were pretty inconvenient things to have to deal with. I could see the passenger get pretty uncomfortable after a while, but these cars were performers, particularly when we got into the LT1s and LS1s. If GM didn't have these little nags, there would've been a larger market for these cars. There was little marketing I can remember too at the time. The biggest thing that stands out in my mind were the Trans Am commercials after the LS1s came out; those were cool. I think they're exposing the car a lot more and better this time around so I think we could see very competitive sales with Mustang and the rest of the cars in this segment, and possibly even higher segments.

Originally Posted by garagelogic

No, no jabs at the car, just just occassional nods toward some of the people who are so far up GM's ass that all I can see are their shoestrings. Those are the same people who get all butt-hurt when anyone says something they feel is even remotely negative about a GM offering. See, I've owned, or still own, cars from each of the big 3, so I tend to speak from a very non-partisan standpoint.

I have no love affair with the modular Ford engines, either, but the comment was about technology not power output. Even then, most of the difference has more to do with c.i.d. than it does with anything else. I guess GM had to supercharge the ZR1 just to keep up with the new Viper, right?

My point was for pushrods and the Viper engine is pushrod, is it not?... Where's this technology you speak of out-performing pushrod engines I've listed? Mustang SOHC and DOHC engines weren't getting the same effciency ratings as the same vintage LS1s/LS6s, nor did they make more power to my knowledge (I've been wrong before). The closest Mod' Motor to make similar power in this vintage was the 5.4L DOHC in the limited Cobra R (underrated at 385). LS6s were underrated at 405 even and I don't think those 5.4s were getting the same efficiency as the LS6s, were they? Where's this technology?... As far as comparing to the Viper V10, GM had a LS1-style V10 in the works that was an easy match for the Viper, but that's not my point in this thread. What good is technology without a benefit? Just because there are more parts makes it better? Just because it's more complex in it's mechanics makes it superior? Right... It's how you use that technology because all the tricks in the book don't add up to anything unless they actually produce an advantage or benefit; I just don't see it, because the idea seems good, but, like in many things, the execution is somewhat lacking. If you want to argue techology, I'd point you in the direction of your primative rear axle in comparison to the IRS in Camaro. Unlike the Mod' motors underachieving past (given a few rare examples), I think this tech' will actually work and be quantifiable. If I'm wrong, learn me. I'm always willing to listen.

Originally Posted by garagelogic

Well, I would not consider the GT500 as one of the possibilities, because it is just a continuation of something that is already on showroom floors. Shelbys deal with Ford runs through 2012. If I were a betting man, I would put my money on one of the following:

1. Boss 302 (as referenced above)
2. Mach 1

I like these ideas. Are you saying that you think the GT500 will carry over into the new car then? That would be pretty scary, considering there's going to be (eventually?) a 400+ horse' BOSS engine and possible another GT500 with probably close to what it makes now. EEK!!! I know I remembered reading the SS numbers were going to be pretty close to GT500 acceleration numbers but I don't believe for a moment that that '500 won't pull away pretty quick given a good driver and good track from an SS, I'm sorry. This will be a good gauge of how effective that IRS is. They're close to the same weight, the '500 has what, at least another 70 RWHP, and the same tranny for the most part and rear end gearing that isn't too different. This will get very interesting

Did someone mention this current platform not meeting crash tests in the somewhat near future? If so, this could be the point where Mustang catches up with Camaro and the Challenger in terms of mass. Ugh; heavier cars...

[garagelogic]

Regarding the modular Ford motors, the decision to replace the pushrod 302 with the 4.6 was not one made based on engine power output via technology but rather a corporate decision based on several things, the two major being:

1) Emissions. Stricter federal rules on emissions were coming around the bend and Ford felt that they would have an easier time meeting those standards with the mod motor than re-engineering the venerable pushrod motors.

2) Cost Savings. Ford understood that continuing to produce the pushrod motor in the Mustang and F150 while featuring the newer modular motors on the rest of their lineup meant more expense in manufacturing. By moving to a design that allowed Ford to use the same parts across all motors, regardless of displacement, meant they could significantly reduce the cost of building their cars.

I'm not sure there was ever an attempt by Ford to argue that the modular motors would allow them to produce more horsepower than they could have with the pushrod motors, or that they would be more efficient/powerful that the pushrod motors manufactured by their competitors. However, with the intrdouction of VVT on the new 3-valve heads, modular motors are making more power and have better effciency ratings; things that would likely have not been possible with the older engine series.

[gladiatoro]

Originally Posted by radz282003

I like those photos a lot more and the I like the interior of the car better than the last. It's kinda' retro' but contemporary to me; I think it's a nice update now that I've seen it in better shots.







I agree here. I think Camaro/Firebird pigeon-holed themselves starting with the 3rd. Gen. I love the 4th. Gens. I've had, but the hump in the floor gets old, the long doors make parking complicated in some more tighter stalls and the windshield view took a little getting used to. I think it was aimed more toward the enthusiast because it just seems some of these were pretty inconvenient things to have to deal with. I could see the passenger get pretty uncomfortable after a while, but these cars were performers, particularly when we got into the LT1s and LS1s. If GM didn't have these little nags, there would've been a larger market for these cars. There was little marketing I can remember too at the time. The biggest thing that stands out in my mind were the Trans Am commercials after the LS1s came out; those were cool. I think they're exposing the car a lot more and better this time around so I think we could see very competitive sales with Mustang and the rest of the cars in this segment, and possibly even higher segments.



My point was for pushrods and the Viper engine is pushrod, is it not?... Where's this technology you speak of out-performing pushrod engines I've listed? Mustang SOHC and DOHC engines weren't getting the same effciency ratings as the same vintage LS1s/LS6s, nor did they make more power to my knowledge (I've been wrong before). The closest Mod' Motor to make similar power in this vintage was the 5.4L DOHC in the limited Cobra R (underrated at 385). LS6s were underrated at 405 even and I don't think those 5.4s were getting the same efficiency as the LS6s, were they? Where's this technology?... As far as comparing to the Viper V10, GM had a LS1-style V10 in the works that was an easy match for the Viper, but that's not my point in this thread. What good is technology without a benefit? Just because there are more parts makes it better? Just because it's more complex in it's mechanics makes it superior? Right... It's how you use that technology because all the tricks in the book don't add up to anything unless they actually produce an advantage or benefit; I just don't see it, because the idea seems good, but, like in many things, the execution is somewhat lacking. If you want to argue techology, I'd point you in the direction of your primative rear axle in comparison to the IRS in Camaro. Unlike the Mod' motors underachieving past (given a few rare examples), I think this tech' will actually work and be quantifiable. If I'm wrong, learn me. I'm always willing to listen.



I like these ideas. Are you saying that you think the GT500 will carry over into the new car then? That would be pretty scary, considering there's going to be (eventually?) a 400+ horse' BOSS engine and possible another GT500 with probably close to what it makes now. EEK!!! I know I remembered reading the SS numbers were going to be pretty close to GT500 acceleration numbers but I don't believe for a moment that that '500 won't pull away pretty quick given a good driver and good track from an SS, I'm sorry. This will be a good gauge of how effective that IRS is. They're close to the same weight, the '500 has what, at least another 70 RWHP, and the same tranny for the most part and rear end gearing that isn't too different. This will get very interesting

Did someone mention this current platform not meeting crash tests in the somewhat near future? If so, this could be the point where Mustang catches up with Camaro and the Challenger in terms of mass. Ugh; heavier cars...

You are correct solid axle is a primitive technology from the 60's and Ford should be embarrassed to still use it in there sports cars in 2008 , my god the Europeans have been using IRS for decades , it's time to get with the times FORD or be LEFT BEHIND

[garagelogic]

Originally Posted by gladiatoro

You are correct solid axle is a primitive technology from the 60's and Ford should be embarrassed to still use it in there sports cars in 2008 , my god the Europeans have been using IRS for decades , it's time to get with the times FORD or be LEFT BEHIND

'60's? Really? The SRA has been around a whole lot longer than that. I wonder why? BTW, it seems me if GM doesn't get it's act together pretty quick, they will be the one "left behind". Oh, and by the way, Ford did use IRS in its sportscar. The Mustang, like the Camaro, is not a sportscar.

[BowtieGuy]

Originally Posted by garagelogic

'60's? Really? The SRA has been around a whole lot longer than that. I wonder why? BTW, it seems me if GM doesn't get it's act together pretty quick, they will be the one "left behind".

The rest of the automakers are in the same boat, it isn't just GM. SRA has been around so long because it is cheap and generally reliable, not because it is the best rearend.

[kevin2323]

Originally Posted by garagelogic

'60's? Really? The SRA has been around a whole lot longer than that. I wonder why? BTW, it seems me if GM doesn't get it's act together pretty quick, they will be the one "left behind". Oh, and by the way, Ford did use IRS in its sportscar. The Mustang, like the Camaro, is not a sportscar.

someone is mad they cant track their shelby ....boohoo