Did They Just Kill the Mustang?

"That means the Mustang is on a 10-year life cycle. A 10-YEAR LIFE CYCLE!!!!"

So what's new?

Fox platform: 1978-1993
SN95: 1994-2004
S197: 2005-present

"(OK, the Edge is pretty good)"

You know, I haven't heard a lot of bad things said about the Flex, either.

"The lack of zip in the 2010 Ford Mustang is simply a result of Mulally and Company having other fish to fry. Things like... trying to get Ecoboost to market without looking foolish"

Ya know, Ecoboost just might add some more zip back into Mustang.

That was the first Mechanic editorial that made sense and didn't sound like a drunken talk-radio rant. I think I agreed with a couple of the others, but they had a silly tone to them.

The domestics do this all the time. They release a great car, decide it's so good it doesn't need to be updated, and then 8 years later it's suffering against new and improved competition. So they call the model a failure and kill it off. What if Chrysler had begun designing the second-generation 300 four years ago, the way Honda does with its sedans? It didn't have to be a fad. The Mustang doesn't have to be a fad either, if it keeps up with the times.

And why do anything for Mercury when the Mustang needed the attention?

I think the Ranger chassis has the Mustang beat by a long shot.

While this Mustang was certainly overhyped, I think the change was good. If something ain't broke, why fix it?

7driver, exactly what I was thinking about the long lifetimes of past Mustang platforms. Even the SN95 was a heavily modified Fox platform, so that was roughly a 25 year period without a completely new chassis.

I think retro is in the past once again, so instead of an updated retro Mustang, I would like to have seen a modern Mustang. But I knew that wasn't likely, as Ford is still trying to milk the retro trend for all the mileage they can get out of it.

GM's retro Camaro and Chrysler's retro Challenger are likely to have a short honeymoon period too.

I wholeheartedly agree with the Mechanic on this one.

I've had two Camaros in my life (1982 and 1999), one Mustang 5.0 (1985), and an SRT-4 (2003). So I'm pretty evenly split on my brand loyalty of the big three. Unimpressed by the overweight Challenger and left a bit cold on the Camaro, I had really high hopes for the updated Mustang, including the return of the 302.

My quote when the new Mustang was revealed last night my exact words of, "Seriously? That's it?" and haven't changed since. Thanks to the lack of even the ecoboost or at least 330hp *cough*370Z*cough*, I'll be putting my order in for a new Camaro SS 6 speed manual in the near future.

So I'm guessing that the 2010 Mustang isn't on your everyone-run-out-and-buy-American-to-save-the-American-auto-industry shopping list? Hmm.

At least you're getting back to your old critical self.

So, which American car did you end up buying?

"the mechanic" doesn't get it.

I went to the LA auto show (wearing my Camaro fanboy t-shirt, no less) and had a little fun jabbing the Ford fans, asking them if it was true their V8 made only 11-15 more horsepower than the Camaro's V6, and if the solid rear axle was really the high quality feature Ford made it out to be. Finally one had the wits about him to ask if GM would have enough cash to build the Camaro. Touche.

Have you guys..*cough* The Mechanic *cough*..looked to see how much R&D was spent by the not so big 3 in the last decade compared the it's foreign competitors. I believe if you look at the numbers they have always been the top spenders. More than Japanese & European car manufacturers. I'm sure 2008 R&D spending will take a dive. But if R&D takes 4 or 5 years to bear fruit or even 2 to 3 years fast tracked. Where does all this money go to? I can't see the blame being on R&D spending over years.

I'd have to agree... the average consumer probably won't notice the differences in the exterior styling, the comparatively low power, or the (and it makes me cringe every time I say this) live rear axle. Mustang nuts and those of us who frequent IL will notice that there is, however small, a difference in the styling. The big story has to be in the interior of the "new" Mustang.

But can't they just please, please, please sneak an IRS into the next Cobra? I'm sure nobody would mind paying a little more for a rear suspension that hasn't seen duty on the Oregon trail.

Finally, the mechanic is starting to make a bit of sense. After that lets-do-our-patriotic-duty-and-buy-junk rant, I was worried.

It's sad that even compared to other domestic crap, the Mustang comes out pretty turd-like. An underwhelming big V6 that puts out less power than lots of engines half it's size (displacement-wise).

The styling revisions remind me of the continually new Porsche's that have all new sheet metal but look virtually indistinguishable from previous 'older' models. A lot of effort for very little ostensible change.

I would put forward the idea that American auto manufacturers have things backwards. Develop an engine platform that will last a decade (with minor changes) and car design that changes more frequently, to people's tastes.

Bottom line is that it seems as if the people reading this blog realize that if this is the best that Ford can do, it needs to go out of business, because it certainly can't hack-it in the modern environment.

You just completely missed the idea here. First of all the Mustang is designed to be cheap performance. I was looking at cars this summer and the dealer offered me a Mustang V6 for 16K OTD. I’m pretty sure you can’t get a Civic at that price (though admittingly gas was pretty expensive this summer). You can’t get that by redesigning a new chassis ever 5 years. Also Ford’s redesign strategy has been to release a vehicle and then upgrade power trains. That’s really Ford’s fault in not being able to get updates quick enough, but it'll just be 1 year after the Camaro comes out (maybe less). I have no idea what’s on tap but ecoboost v6 seems to be the front runner.

7Driver: you hit on the overall problem. They let their platforms linger far too long... it's complacency. Complacency brought on by statisfactory sales numbers, unfortunately.

I was still holding out hope for a more modern suspension and HP near the 375 mark, but I was let down. How can you justify buying a Mustang over a Camaro, now? The Camaro, while being more expensive, has a more dramatic exterior presence, a fully independent suspension, and 422hp with a six speed manual (in contrast to the Stang's 5 speed).

Makes me sad as a Mustang fan.

The Hyundai Genesis coupe will outperform and outsell the new Mustang in every way. Sad.

Mustang sells well and costs Ford little. This is not the car they need to fix.

The Mechanic's comments are spot on. Ford Europe happens to make great cars that sell well there. Ford USA seems to either ignore them or muck them up so badly they are mediocre versions of their former self. Witness what they did with the Focus. Part of the problem is the Ford Family owns a small minority of the company shares, but has control. Not very democratic and devastating given the lack of leadership or vision from the last 3 generations of Fords that have run the company into the ground. I say put the management team of Ford Europe in charge of the whole enchilada. Send all the Fords back to their baronial mansions to play with their toys and ban them from the boardroom. THEN, and only then, give them the money from the public coffers

I'm not sure about all this. Minor changes mean that the Mustang will continue to be a leader in price. Having a low OTD price will most likely be the single most important factor in a car's survival during the next few years, particularly if it can be combined with styling that most folks still enjoy.

The biggest issue the Mustang has is its engines are too weak. The new Camaro has the Mustang beat by a long shot in every engine option. If they can fix that, they would have a competitive product. The new Mustang certainly looks nice.

Mechanic - don't be so fast to blame current management for all of Ford's problems - you sound like many of the ignorant congressmen. It's easy to point fingers at the top when you don't know what's going on.

Much of the issues at Ford and GM were caused by PRIOR management, and problems that had nothing or little to do with management (UAW, health care costs, stupid consumers, economy taking a major dump, etc.). Mulally hasn't been at the helm of Ford for very long, and if you look at what he's done so far, most of it has been very good/smart.

stingray454

you sound like a true manager!

First you mention the ignorance of the people that criticize and then you talk about the problems inherited by the previous managers :)

Anybody remember this article?

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=44116

hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!

The mechanic is back to sounding like an idiot. Naturally he has much more support with this entry since he is back to criticizing an American car and the management of one of the Big 3.

This car will outsell the 370z and genesis without a problem. People who buy the Mustang are a diverse bunch and style is as important as powertrain. Ford will put in updated engines in the near future just as they are doing with the F150. When the GM SUvs came out all the "experts" predicted the lack of a 6 speed auto would hurt them but they are too out of touch with reality to know that most buyers could care less about how many gears are in their auto. Same for the Mustang. The price, features and styling will take prescedent for most buyers. The V8 car will be plenty fast due to its low curb weight.

Its also pretty stupid so suggest that every Ford product except the Egde is a piece of crap. The Fusion, F150, Flex and MKS are nice vehicles. The Escape Hybrid is a great vehicle for those who care about efficiency.

I'm not trying to take a jab at "the mechanic", but some of your post have become a bit predictable. I do hate that there is a double standard in the auto industry. People, without even thinking about it, automatically pick apart any of the honest efforts of the Detroit based automakers. Now I will admit, even for a seasoned automotive enthusiast, the 2010 Mustang is not all that different from its earlier incarnation. But, and this is a big BUT, why is it that automakers such as Porshe, or BMW, both of which are imports, are allowed to use the same tired designs over and over again without anyone among the majority being able to admit that their designs have not really changed in the last 20 to 25 years. Its very frustrating. I like Chevys, and Fords and Dodges. I also like some imports. But I'm not a part of the blinded herd mentality that has become so common in our society as whole. I'm not trying to pick a fight. But can't someone please agree that there is a double standard. Thank you.

banhugh,

Everything he said is true. How can you call Mullaly incompetent when the product being sold now was designed years before he arrived? It makes no sense but in America ignorance and finger go together like soup and sandwich. Its like those idiot congressman blaming the Big 3 execs for "25 years of failure" even though two of three have been on the job less than 2 years.

"The Mechanic's comments are spot on. Ford Europe happens to make great cars that sell well there. Ford USA seems to either ignore them or muck them up so badly they are mediocre versions of their former self. Witness what they did with the Focus. Part of the problem is the Ford Family owns a small minority of the company shares, but has control. Not "

Comments like this show what the Big 3 are up agaisnt. Ford's cars in Europe are designed to appeal to that market. That means many of those "great" cars are diesels that cant be sold here and the prices of those cars are WAY higher than comparable Fords in the US. All of these internet car fans who lust after European product fail to mention the high prices people pay over there for nice cars. If Ford could charge $30k for the average Fusion you can bet it would be as nice as a Mondeo. For all the praise the Mondeo gets from Euro car worshippers the reality is the car isnt that big and is underpowered by US standards. I believe the top engine is an I-5 with 230hp or something similar. Meanwhile the Fusion is criticized for being underpowered in this market with 221hp. I think the new Fusion is a great step in the right direction for Ford and will be more affordable than the Mondeo.

crackerz,

Nothing imports do is ever wrong. They always radically redesign their vehicles, they only make efficient vehicles and every vehicle they launch is a runaway sales success. Liking imports and domestics is also not permitted here. Two categories exist: smart, logical car fans who blindly love imports and realize that domestic cars are designed and built to a lower standard and closed minded, poorly informed people (primarily from the unenlightened Midwest) who havent realized that there aren't any worthwhile domestic products on the market. No gray area here.

How funny is it that the Mustang is being called inferior to the Genesis when the base genesis engine makes only 220hp and the V6 is less powerful than the Mustang V8. When you consider the Mustang has more heritage, a better interior and a larger dealer network I would think it would have no trouble competing with the Genesis.

I find it both amazing and amusing that so many of you, including the writer of this so-called 'article' are quick to jump on the Mustang. Of course some of us are a little upset that Ford did not roll out new engines, but I'd rather them tweak them for reliability vs. rolling them out just because.

And good for Chevy and Dodge for producing such superior automobiles that weigh more than the Mustang by a decent amount. Even with carry over engines it's not like you are going to get a Mustang that is that much slower than a 40K SRT8 Challenger (or even the top of the line Camaro for that matter).

And the Genesis Coupe? No one has driven one stateside, so I don't know how we've all drawn the conclusion that it will 'eat the Mustang's lunch'. If sales are anything like the Genesis sedan, I highly doubt that is going to happen.

The Mustang, as mentioned above, is cheap reliable transportation for those that want something a bit less pedestrian. The interior was tweaked, suspension modified and some gains were made under the hood of the V-8. If you think you are going to find a stripper 370Z on the lot somewhere for under 30K you have another thing coming.

Overpriced? See the 1 series. I sat in one at the LA Autshow and was not impressed with the overall interior quality of a car that starts north of $30K. That car has to be one of the biggest disappoints from Munich.

People here need to come off their Big 3 sucks mentality. Open your eyes, because everything out of Germany and Japan/Korea are not gods gifts

Crackerz, this isn't about the exterior design - those can work for years without updating. But the companies you mentioned change everything under the skin more often than once a decade. I'm getting bored of the 911's styling too, but the current one is a better car than the previous one.

The 2005 Mustang was so good (in terms of value) that it's still competitive today. But without substantial changes, it's not going to be competitive five years from now. Much of its competition, the cars coming out right now, will have gone through a mid-cycle refresh by then. They'll have slightly better engines, styling, and interiors than they do right now and they'll be five years old to the Mustang's ten. That formula has never worked well!

The most important implication is that Ford simply hasn't been working on the Mustang since it came out. That's the worst part; they release a good car and decide they can sit on it. They should've been working on the next generation from the day this one was released.

I know the suspension is antiquated, but aren't they dropping in the 3.5L EcoBoost Bi-Turbo V6 into the Mustang next year? And didn't BMW and Infiniti basically do the same thing by debuting revised sheet metal first followed by powertrain revisions the next year? (325 -> 328, 330 ->335; G35 ->G37) I think the 'new' Mustang looks great, and with a 350-360hp V6 it'll FEEL great as well.

I think this is what the mustang should have looked like when the new body came out in 2005. Mustangs will always sell to people that like mustangs, but what happens when people don't like that good 'ol lead sled feeling? IMO the problem is that mustang does not conquest new customers. True, it's not an ugly car, but why would I want a mild remix of a product that has been available for 5 years now? And the GT engine? Has anyone compared it to the 315 hp v8 found in the current Bullitt mustang? You know, the one with the new exhaust and ECU program allowing it to rev 300 rpm higher than the 2009 GT? And the 3.73 LS axle (vs 3.55LS previously available) The powertrain of the outgoing v6 and v8 were dated when the car came out 5 years ago, barely competitive, so I can understand mechanic's dissapointment. In fact the v6 model is downright unreliable (I worked at a dealership for 4 years).
The mechanics point is that it's not that new, and adding multicolored LED's in the cupholders (a $195 option) doesn't really impress. And buying a car that windows for 22k$ for 16k$ doesn't mean you got a good deal. It means they didn't want the car and no one was lining up to buy it. At least the seats are nicer. I just don't like Ford using heritage as a crutch, because every automaker has heritage no matter what country the car is made in.

PS, I really hope Ford isn't yanking anyones chain about eco-boost next year. Because I heard it's going to be closer to 2012.

As a fan of the '05-'09 model, I also found myself hugely disappointed in the '10.

Even the most avid Mustang fan has to admit that the 4.0 V6 doesn't cut it anymore. It sounds like a combine harvester and revs like molasses, and then only to 5,000-odd rpm--because it's a truck motor (Ranger, Explorer). There's no defensible reason to have kept it in a 2010 MY coupe except cost, since even the Taurus now gets the excellent 3.7-liter V6.

I'm also going to go ahead and open this can of worms: the live rear axle should be gone by now. The only thing holding the S197 chassis back, from a driving pleasure standpoint, is the mild weaving and wobbling you get from a less-precisely-located rear end on twisty, uneven roads. Don't buy Ford's "drag racing" excuse, either.

One of the Mustang's biggest impediments to progress, IMO, is its popularity. Take that live axle: Ford knows it can build the last coupe in its class that has one, and Mustang loyalists will still loudly defend their penny-pinching for them. Same goes with the aging engines, and the 10-year life cycle.

Ford has already announced the first "special edition" of the '10 'Stang will be shown in Detroit in January. I can't help but wonder how much better the '10 model would have been if Ford's strategy entailed spending that money up front on engineering, rather than doling it out slowly on dozens of trim-and-tape-stripe specials over the next five years.

I think Ford did it right. The mustang is still going strong and is mainly like an aftermarket do it yourself car. You want more horsepower? There are many aftermarket parts available for the car. Ford knew that horse power doesn't sell a lot. The old 2002 Camaro & firechicken were more powerfull but we all know the end story of those two.

My first car purchase post college was a 1 year old '87 Mustang LX 5.0 5-speed hatchback.

It was a brilliant car that I drove for 4 years.

I was dazzled by the '05 when it came out and like what I have seen so far of the 2010, even if it is evolutionary.

Despite my love for Ford V8's (I once owned a Taurus SHO V8, and a 1971 Bronco w/a 302 also) I am gald that Ford chose not to spend too much of its limited dollars on the Mustang.

I would much rather see them accellerate the intro of the Fiesta (had an original one of those too), Ka, and the Kuga mini SUV. Gas prices are down now, but that is only temporary and if Ford is to survive it will be based on good, practical small and medium sized cars, not on V8 powered coupes with a limited market. Today's kids don't dream of hot rodded American V8's, they dream of boosted 4's from Honda and Nissan. Ford needs to look forward, not back.

carlisimo

Now you are picking and choosing your arguments. And that is not a fair way to debate. We ARE talking about exterior design. Most people look at the outside of the car first, and then look at the engine last. This is what we call order of events. The common car buyer doesn't even look at the engine. So talking to me about how the Porshe flat six (which has remained primarily unchanged for the last two decades)is the Eiffel tower of engine design and the ford modular V-8 (which has changed and been redesigned about as many times as the Porshe)is the boat anchor of the automotive world is an exercise for the truly biased. I never said anything about engine dynamics or personal taste. I can totally understand if someone truly enjoys the car that is Porshe. But. I think it is the Herd Mentality that dictates the bulk of the American car buyer. No research, just dollar signs. No one wants to be realistic, or unbiased. The "Its American and has no Place in Automotive History" is a thinking process that is embedded before most children can even talk. For the money that is spent on a Porshe, i would think that you get a COMPLETELY new design every year. But such is not the case. And don't think i am just picking on porsche to pick on porshe. It is truly amazing how people will dismiss a domestic car at the first sight of it. The Corvette ZR1, probably one of the most significant automotive designs of the century (not because it can make the Nurburgring lap in an insanely fast 7:22, but because it can it do for the remarkably low price of$105,000.00) will be shrug of as mere child's play. But I have to accept the fact that anything the imports make is immediately the best. Thank you. No

Well this is just a microcosm of Detroit's lack of anything akin to strategic planning. They consistently find the cash cow whether it be the massive SUV, the Mustang, whatever, and milk it without any thought of the future until they are forced to change by a marketplace that has gone in a completely different direction. History is littered with these types of companies. They failed to plan, resisted change at every opportunity, and without exception they are no longer around anymore. How many chances and free passes do we give out and if we give them out will anything be learned or will we have a failed corporate welfare system to match our other failed welfare system. Then again, Britain pretty much stopped being a superpower when its auto industry collapsed.....tough choices

What's new?!? It's the typical Ford way: Give it a few new body panels, new head & tail lamps, a new dashboard and call it "All New" ... Just like the "New" Fusion, Focus, Taurus, Explorer, F-150 ... the list goes ON and ON and ON. Ford should be cash rich considering very little money really goes into a complete wheels up redesign for ANY of its lineup. At least when GM does the old Ford trick they don't try to pass it off as "All New" ... they say something more subtle like "redesigned" or "restyled". The "New" F-150 is typically only on its mid cycle, too ... new in '04 and "new" again for '09 ... that means we're looking at the same truck that's going to be around in 2014. Why the big surprise?

Again, it's journalists from (and readers of) enthusiast publications who care if a car has a live axle, or has a free-revving, DOHC engine, or has an extra cog in its auto gearbox. The Mustang has consistently been characterized as uncompetitive, yet here it is, 40 years later and still selling strong. Why? Because actual buyers, especially in this price bracket, care about the following components:

Does it look sporty, while still offering some practicality?
How much money does it take out of my pocket?

Because the Mustang has always been very competitive on these points (which are given little or no weight by the press), it has never met the fate of its many opponents. A major redesign today, right now, would forfeit the affordability component. I'd wager Ford knows that, and will bring changes out gradually, as it always has, so long as the car can remain at a bargain price point.

yeah i agree. this is not a bad-looking or bad car, but it is the worst makeover ever. perhaps this is what they should've built from the beginning, but i was pretty annoyed to see this after that long drawn-out painful teasing reveal. it's almost like the dollar bill-wrinkling magic trick (here's a dollar bill, and here's a wrinkled dollar bill). LOW TECH, LOW-END ENGINEERING, LOW-END MUSCLE CAR of yore. i cannot drive this car in good conscious of a true car enthusiast. and who in their right mind should buy this over an import or even the camaro?

but worry not, mustang is almost like the camry; it's the default appliance for many, in this case, a sporty car appliance. americans have proven over and over again to be lemmings when it comes to mustangs. they'll just buy it, no matter how inferior it is

I agree with the mechanic again (aside from the buy american rant).

The new mustang is disappointing. The camaro, challenger, and 370Z seem much better.

You'll still see a lot of these on the road due to price, brand loyalty, and rental car fleets.

I think ord did well with the Mustang. Could they have done more to the exterior? Probably, but it is a nice update to the current one, and the addressed one of it's biggest shortcoming and what the auto rags like you guys always complain about: the interior. The new engines are coming next year I hear, so keep your pants on.

Again until this car receives a full test drive, I think a lot of you are jumping the gun. I love the so called enthusiasts around here.

The new Mustang is like the Razor cell phone from Motorola. Ford is struggling to continue the success of the initial design. And the product is going to start to stagnate very rapidly once its under full fire from the Dodge Challenger and the Chevrolet Camaro. Hopefully Ford will do the right thing and give it a redesign that will do the Mustang name justice next time around.

Let's be reasonable...

The Mustang is an inexpensive car for high school juniors and seniors. If Ford can get a rear wheel drive, good looking car out the door for 16K, who cares?

The other issue Ford might have is with their "Special Edition" Mustangs they seem to have every three months. Why would someone want a 40-50k Mustang that essentially looks like the 16k version?

It is what it is, without being too "Rumsfeldian."

I've always liked the way the 2005-2008 models looked. Kind of bummed Ford didn't use the 3.5 in the base on this new car. But I guess it would be too close in horsepower to the GT. I'll reserve judgement on the body changes until I see one in the flesh, but they did real good on the interior, especially the dash. But what about that armrest? From the pics, it doesn't look too comfy on the elbow. I love the sequential turn signals, though. I had a Mercury XR-7 with the "dynamite" turn signals back in the 80s. That car was a riot with the 351C. Overall, good job, Ford, but you gotta keep up with the comp.

I have owned about 30 cars, and the only domestic brand I have owned were Ford's, and the spare Mazda (LOL). The part that makes me sad about this whole 'new' Mustang is the fact it IS going to be out paced by the competition, and fast. 68-69 are my favorite years, so I loved when this car showed up. Now, while Ford has the tech to do better, they failed IMO. Why? There is no 'Stang to this pony. When it comes to interiors, GM is kicking a** and taking names. Sitting in the Mustang has as much charisma as a big wall in fron of you. The new Camaro has more exciting lines, a better down-road graphic, and a more futuristic feel. If you think I am just carping, I submit the following: Ford offers a cool option that changes the color of the guages... and just the guages. So the rest of the lighting remains the same ordinary color. Enter Camaro, the ambient lighting changes... throughout the entire interior! This is where we sit, talk, relax, and experience a car. And when push comes to shove, these details will make the difference between a buy, and a by! That said, I am pulling for Ford, and financially they are slightly better positioned than GM in the $$$ arena. My last thought is this. We have mentioned the lack of chassis development, to this I have one word. FOCUS... you know the car that was awesome, and then was NEVER updated. While Europe enjoys the newer and cooler Focus, we don't even get a Cosworth edition. Why? Ford thinks people wont pay more. Answer: Slot in the Fiesta to take the low rung, kick the GTI's butt with the kick a** Focus and we are back in business. Then the Mustang could relax into a retro awesomeness, the t-Bird could have continued getting better, and the Taurus would not have been flung around into random demographics based on a lame 'F' naming plan. Man! Give me a week at the helm of Ford, or any of us car guys and girls! I know we would be able to turn the page! Drive on my friends, drive on!

For all those on the Camaro bandwagon and feel the need to dis the new Mustang: Ford addressed many of the significant concerns of the previous gen Mustang and did so with much expense.

GM had a clean slate (as they were late to the party) had time to create their perfect rendition of the Camaro. Does it work? Time will tell - and so does GM's exsistance.

I think the Mustang's face lift looks pretty good. If they get rid of that base truck engine and put in the 3.5 V6 out of the Flex they would be in an excellent position. For that matter I think all of the domestic automakers make too many engines. GM seems to be figuring this out by dropping the 3.6 V6 in everything from Caddies to Chevys. Ford should do the same with the 3.5, it's a good engine.

Also a lot is being said about Ecoboost and in theory it is a great idea but there are probably considerable obstacles Ford is dealing with. Number one would be cooling problems, turbos generate a lot of heat. This is why GM chose supercharging over turbos for the Vette and CTS-V, engines literally catching on fire during testing; or as GM calls it "a thermal event". This is also the one chink in BMW's twin turbo armor, extremely high oil temperatures during hard driving causing the computer to shut the engine down until it cools down. The other problem would be increased maintenance cost and possible long term durability problems.

DOA because of shifting consumer tastes.

Dinosaurs like these just aren't gonna cut it for Ford anymore.

They shoulda learned their lesson with the gas guzzling SUV crisis under Bill Ford Jr.'s tenure.

It would have been helpful if the Mechanic opinions included what would have made the redesigned Mustang "Great". A 500 HP V8? IRS? Chopped Roofline?
I had many a ride in the Original Mustang Boss with a tri-carb setup, and regularly drove its oversized cousin, the original type A Pontiac Grand Prix with its monstrous hood and V8 engine that positively devoured gas. I'd have no interest in them today but then, they definitely had (and have) emotional appeal.

Ford has been below standard with the mustang for years, not only is it the only car with a live rear axle, (heck the Honda Ridgeline truck has IRS). This car needs to meet the standards of sports cars, all they can do is style the outside, that doesn't make it faster, and the engine, its a 4.6 liter v8, Nissan can get more HP out of a 3.7L V6 for gods sake. They are so far behind, this car is not 2010 worthy.

@ venom: The Honda Ridgeline shares a platform with a minivan. Why on gods green earth would you even use that as an example?

Also who sets the standards of sports cars? You?

We have a Nissan/Infiniti product with a VQHR, and you know what they haven't been able to get over the 300 water mark? Torque!

Figure out what you are talking about before you ramble on, you come across as ignorant.

@ venom: The Honda Ridgeline shares a platform with a minivan. Why on gods green earth would you even use that as an example?

Also who sets the standards of sports cars? You?

We have a Nissan/Infiniti product with a VQHR, and you know what they haven't been able to get over the 300 water mark? Torque!

Figure out what you are talking about before you ramble on, you come across as ignorant.

"When you consider the Mustang has more heritage, a better interior and a larger dealer network I would think it would have no trouble competing with the Genesis."

I agree that the Mustang will out-sell the Genesis, but I'm not sure about this interior comment. First off, no one has been in a Genesis coupe but I'm guessing its safe to say the interior will be similar to the sedan in quality terms.

That being said, the existing Mustang and Genesis (Sedan) and they are WORLDS apart in terms of quality. The existing Mustang interior is an embarrassment.

"I agree that the Mustang will out-sell the Genesis, but I'm not sure about this interior comment. First off, no one has been in a Genesis coupe but I'm guessing its safe to say the interior will be similar to the sedan in quality terms. "

Look at the pics of the Genesis interior. It doesnt even look upscale and it has NOTHING in common with the sedan inside. Perhaps you haven't seen the pics but its a much cheaper looking design. If I'm not mistaken it doesnt offer nav either. The Mustang inteiror is rivaled ONLY by the 370Z's right now. Not only that, I find the Genesis coupe somewhat odd looking and think the Mustang looks better.

Someone mentioned the Ridgeline has an IRS but didnt mention that vehicle is a flop. Most people could care less abotu suspension design. The Mustang isnt solely purchased by enthusiasts. I also think its funny that people are chastising Ford for not radically changing the design when most iconic cars get evolutionary styling changes. See the 370Z, 3 series, corvette, 911, etc.

"By banhugh on December 2, 2008 8:04 AM
stingray454

you sound like a true manager!

First you mention the ignorance of the people that criticize and then you talk about the problems inherited by the previous managers :)"

Try to prove me wrong, then, with FACTS. Let's hear it. Put up, or shut up. Save your blame game rhetoric for the politicians - it doesn't fly with me.

"Look at the pics of the Genesis interior. It doesnt even look upscale and it has NOTHING in common with the sedan inside. Perhaps you haven't seen the pics but its a much cheaper looking design. If I'm not mistaken it doesnt offer nav either. The Mustang inteiror is rivaled ONLY by the 370Z's right now."

I have seen the pictures, but I won't draw conclusions from them. Its not reasonable to make materials/build quality statements based on a perceived "cheap looking [interior] design". It DOES make sense to compare to other recent Hyundai offerings.

So the 2010 6-cylinder Mustang will only put 210 hp and 240 lb/ft of torque? That's pathetic and on top of that it's a live rear axle.

I guess my 2002 Grand Prix GTP (240 hp and 280 lb/ft of torque) will still outrun a 6-cylinder Mustang AND return better gas mileage (GTP recently averaged 31.1 mpg roundtrip Chicago-Tennessee). Sweet! =)

P.S.--I'd rather have the Camaro.

I agree, the new look of the Mustang was very dissapointing to me. All of the tease photos and hype made me think it was going to be something amazing, insted it was just boring.

Ford would have really had to pull out all the stops (and their rapidly shrinking wallet) to produce a next gen Mustang to rival the new competition and their own success when the current model was introduced. My advise; buy a new '09 now before they're gone. The '05-'09 will go down as one the (late?) great American classics.

How many people can tell the difference between 300hp and 375hp or actually explore the upper reaches of that much power? Alhtough the new Mustang has to manage with "only" 300 or so horsepower, its fast enough for the general public. With its relatively light weight and nicely improved interior, it should present an actual pony-car alternative to the heavy beasts put out by GM and Chrysler. If car writers keep expecting huge hp increases with every model improvement, we'll have cars with 2,000hp soon enough!