And I apologize for what was effectively a double post above, but when the 7:51 PM comment hadn’t appeared by 8:36 PM, I thought something had gone wrong and it didn’t get submitted. So wasn’t trying to spam, and no of course I’m not leaving.

SO I think IMHO if Ford takes Mustang “Globally” as a World Mustang; then they should seriously consider doing two things extraordinarily well.. Still have a boat load of variations off the Mustang But go after market share and defintely GO UPSCALE for SURE. make the Mustang a GT-R Killer for sure but Ford may want to consider doing so from an Environmental standpoint as a Hybrid Mustang. Also Consider gaining market share on a Mustangs affordability with 4,V-6, and V-8 both with and without Turbo/Supercharged. But if Ford considers going high tech consider another product on both the Lincoln side as a High Powered Coupe, and the Mercury Side a Cougar XR7 67′ Retro styled Contemporary.

Now we have established a working man or woman’s version on the Mustang now lets concentrated on all three divisions more niche and upscale in two differently direction that can entail Upscale Ford Mustang, Lincoln Coupe as not just an M3 competitor but maybe a Lexus LF-A competitor, and bring back the Mercury Cougar. If not just the Lincoln and Ford would be fine for now.

I think the Giugiaro Mustang concept with its low slung Sleekness and @ 3,300Lbs is the way to go. Route number 2 with perhaps a combo of 1 and 2. Consider AWD and maybe even as a Hybrid. Consider using an Ecoboost Motor, Coupled to an electric drive train similar to Kepler’s Motion that uses and Ecoboost and Electric motor for a combined 800 Horsepower.

.) Lose Weight to around 3,000 to 3,300 would be ideal
2.)IRS
3.)AWD Hybrid for all weather traction not just performance and economy
4.) Gas(Ecoboost)/Electric Drivetrain
5. **** Hybrid -I see this as a great high tech option to run in 4 different modes, ALL Electric, AWD ,just RWD with combined power from Ecoboost gas engine and Electric motor.
6.)8-Spd Dual Dry Clutch/DSG Transmission
7.) Twin Turbo V-6/ V-8 rated @575 HP
High performance electric motor Rated @ 250 to 300HP
Now that would be one Hell of a car but once again limited to the Upend GT500, Lincoln, or Cougar.
Ford could split off versions of this in different ways to appeal to different segements.

For now…Big Al doesn’t like that though.

Soon, Big Al will have the Focus, Mustang, F-150, and Super doodie all riding on the same platform…you know…..because of “One Ford”.

Agreed.

I honestly think that if FORD reduces the size of the MUSTANG visibly, if at all, over the current car (the C6 hides it very going over from the C5), it will badly hurt the MUSTANG's sales performance. The MUSTANG must remain a decidedly and/or visibly large.car. Not get bigger, heck the thing weighs less than most of it's analogous competitors, FR Performance coupes and sedans.

It FORD really wants to make a smaller FR car, make it for MERCURY as they need product and finally make a real sports car.

California is NOT America. It is part of America and even there they don’t complain about parking spaces in a Mustang. That is unless they are parked next to full-sized truck or SUV that takes up the ENTIRE space. Yes I live in Texas and that is a very regular occurrence. But you know what, I don’t have a problem with that and the MUSTANG. For what it is, and grand tourer, it is exactly the right size. The Fox Platform was a horrible and cramped car and it amazes me that FORD kept it largely as it was from 1979-2004.

There are not “plenty” of FR sports sedans as it might apply against the MUSTANG, particularly pricewise. There were only two, now one, The DODGE CHARGER and the PONTIAC G8. The G8 is history now and the CHARGER is not the greatest car. You could look up-market for more choices, but to get anything that is even close to the MUSTANG, the CAMARO, or the CHARGER’s ability you have to foot $50K to start.

One of the things I laugh at sometimes is the fact that the MUSTANG only looks big or huge and everyone drops jaw thinking it’s some behemoth. You put it next to most midsized sedans and coupes and it is actually about the same size. THE CAR ONLY LOOKS HUGE. Then again if you are driving a MINI COOPER…

The size differences for the C5 and C6 is not really and issue. To explain, no one can really tell, the C5 is about 4 inches longer but the C6 is about 2 inches wider, until you put the two next to each other. The 370Z and the 350Z is a very different story. It is clearly smaller without a direct comparison. But these are sports cars. This is about very decidedly adult-sized performance coupes, not these little “rice burners” that seem to enamor the youth until they meet the “Muscle Car” owner who looks like an adult. There is really no other way to put it. You need to take another look at the CIVIC versus the ACCORD. They are so close to the same size it’s a joke to call the CIVIC “compact” anymore. Why do you think they brought out the FIT. The ACCORD it still actually smaller than a CAMRY.

The Fox platform Mustang, was a cramped car. I’ll go so far as to say it was a clown car. The back seat was nothing more than a minor extension of the trunk. And to be very frank, the Fox mustang only looked good in the late 1980s, after that it became bland and even awful. The Back seat in the current Mustang is someplace two good sized adults can sit. The Styling is extremely good.

I don’t think you know enough about the “Retro-bird” or its short history. It was canned because no one wanted to pay $40K for a roadster that was NOT a sports car. The Designers of the car even came out saying “they did not want to build a sports car” as if building an actual CORVETTE-fighting Sports car would somehow get in the way of the MUSTANG or some BS. At the time, you could buy a C5 CORVETTE for $40K and it was a real sports car. The “Retro-bird” was gorgeous and is a powerful distraction on the road even now, but it was NOT what people wanted. They/we wanted FORD to make a sports car and that was NOT it.

The 2005 MUSTANG is the result of several concepts trying to figure where to take the Mustang next. FORD still has it in their heads that they don’t need an actual permanent sports car. Several tries were made at evolving the then styling (Remember the Mach III Concept?). Those fell flat. They were also incredibly awful looking. But consumer response to the Retro-bird’s styling was extremely high and so FORD built the 05 Mustang Concept. Response was equally high. A big masculine looking, powerful looking, different looking, very nearly producible-as-is car. It was something sorely missing from American roads for far too long. Something given over to Trucks and SUVs but not cars.

As for two pets or two small kids and buying an SUV or Minivan. The MUSTANG is not the only car FORD makes. I would recommend the FOCUS, the FUSION, or the TAURUS.

Sounds like we’re agreeing quite a bit. Especially on the notion that one car can’t fit every desire-hence the possibility of Ford developing one or two more sports cars and working in some of the desires expressed around here that are great-just not possible to cram into the Mustang. There’s a reason super-cars exist. Some company with the cache decided to build a car that meets a LOT of different criteria. That said, even super-cars aren’t perfect. Not many folks drive over speed bumps in Ferraris, or pick up groceries in their Veyron. Come to think of it, you get an amazing amount of performance out of Mustang considering how well suited it is for daily life (I actually have seen folks pick their kids up in a Mustang . . . not so much in a Lotus).

You do know the Mustang is riding on a derivative of the DEW-98 platform that underpinned the LINCOLN LS, not a very smaller car. The M3 also starts around $55K. The M3 Coupe is also NOT that small. It actually weighs more than a V8 Mustang GT by 200lbs, has the same wheelbase, is the same height.. BUT does have shorter over hangs, front and rear, making it seven inches shorter. But then in the Mustang you get a bigger trunk/boot, and much better overall proportions.

To be blunt, the MUSTANG is exactly the right size. It doesn’t need to be smaller.

As for having the luxury of being the only car using the platform meaning it should be [less big], as I said “DEW-98… LINCOLN LS, not a very smaller car”. In fact, the LS is classed a Large car.

Nah. The Mustang is just going to get smarter and more sophisticated. Shrinking is retreating especially when 2011 with the Track pack will ace the M3 at the track not just the strip… FOR A LITTLE MORE THAN HALF THE STARTING PRICE.

But don’t get me wrong. I want FORD to make something a bit “Less big”.. as a MERCURY.

I’d like the expand on that idea in one way.

- LINCOLN gets a mid-sized and/or large FR sports sedan. Finally build the MKR!
- MERCURY gets a small and/or mid-sized FR sports sedan, Think modern FORD RS500 and SIERRA but not sold as MERKURs (stupidest thing FORD ever did).
- FORD gets to keep the ” EXACTLY right sized” MUSTANG and the FR platform would underpin a new FR TAURUS. Lose the SLA and about 100-200lbs on the MUSTANG and the 200-400lbs on the FR TAURUS

As for the size of the MUSTANG, FORD it isn’t going to make it smaller. But if they do, it’ll be by so little no one will notice. Trying to smooze up to import fans by making the car smaller is a mistake. The Mustang is so popular not solely because it is a sports coupe (Yes! It is a sports car so get over yourselves), or that it has very classy very mature reminiscent styling (C’mon the Hyundai GC looks like a girl’s car. I have never seen a guy driving a H-GC and not look like a total douche or gay). The MUSTANG has all that plus it is EXACTLY the right size to be anything you want it to be.

And I know you America-bashers will come back with the fat jokes but face it; we Americans, big, small, and points in-between, like our space. That’s why the CIVIC, for example, is no longer the size the MINI COOPER is now and is nearly as big as an ACCORD.

The Mustang, which was an impossibly cramped little car on the Fox Platform, will either get a bit bigger or stay the same size. IRS will make packaging easier and there would be more passenger room. Making the car smaller would kill such a gain. Like I said the Fox platform was cramped. If you put more than two people in that car it was NOT fun. From 2005 on, the Mustang has been a much more fun car to have and be in.

“Muscle Cars” (I prefer “American Grand Tourers” or American GTs, or just AGTs.) will get smarter and more sophisticated. They will not be fancy like the luxury coupes that are all about the same size like the BMW 6, MB E-Coupe, CTS Coupe, and so on. But they will be just as capable, in terms of performance potential (obviously they will not be nigh super cars but tuners will be able to push them that far) and most importantly, be in reach of a lot more people. If small FR coupes really worked in NA, FORD, GM, or CHRYSLER would have made a small FR coupe and kept it ages ago. FORD selling upwards of 200+K MUSTANGs a year kinda’ says that the general formula stays.

- Same overall size. IF Full-sized trucks are still out there, and you know they will be, the MUSTANG will not downsize.
- Same Style. Although evolved a bit more over the 2010. Hopefully losing those or smoothing out those “hips”. I really dislike those “hip”!
- Better mechanicals. Is it too much to hope for a DSG in place of the Auto? C’mon! 2014! Who knows what all FORD is working on and hasn’t told anyone about yet.
- Better engines. The new CAFE standards are still coming up. I would not be surprised or put off a TT V6, or even an 2×2, 3×2, or 4×2 OPOC, in the GT at that point.

FORD may also option to build a purpose made, and finally perennial, sports car, call it THUNDERBIRD, instead of trying to push the MUSTANG through barriers it isn’t well suited for, performance and/or price, at least in it current form.

Well…the Mustang has the luxury of being on its own platform so there should be no excuse to make it big.

p.s. Sorry if the “garbage” I “spew” mystifies so.

What would you say about keeping the Mustang as an affordable every-man’s car, giving Mercury a “modern and unique” SPORTS car (i.e. not a Muscle car) and then having a “classy and unique” SPORTS car for Lincoln? What I’m gleaning from everyone’s comments is a desire for Ford to have an up-market sports car and universal underpinnings that will keep the Mustang cheap. The smartest thing any car company can do is to build intra-brand loyalty. Update the vehicle and NOT the names.

Give Lincoln and Mercury something halo-esque. Would the Mercury sports car compete with the MX5 at first? No! Then again, it took 20 years for the MX5 to become the icon it is today. And can anyone imagine Ford discontinuing the Mustang at this point? Heck no. Update the car and not the names folks. Car companies are wasting capital when they discontinue a car after 10 years, especially when you consider how many, on this site, comment that “‘X’ was a GREAT car when it came out 10 years ago, but ‘Y company’ never updated it!!!”

There’s no way for one car to meet every expectation. The wonderful thing about Ford owning more brands than just Ford is that they can put some of the other expectations for the Mustang into some cars for those other brands. And looking at Cadillac’s renaissance, we can thank the CTS, right? It was a sports car that was affordable within that marque and, now, Caddy is capitalizing off it by spinning its design and ideas into other vehicles for Cadillac! Lincoln will never be near-luxury until they have a sports car, which speaks “near-luxury” more than anything else, except, perhaps, a sports sedan!

How about that tyler?

Because nobody ever went bankrupt underestimating the American buying public.

/sarcasm

In all honesty, though, the new Mustang and Camaro both look pretty fine to me. Their looks are not exactly earth-shatteringly beautiful, but it can still attract people. However, I do agree with Realist on the fact that going retro at times is being somewhat stupid and lazy because it does denote a lack of creativity and originality. Sure they sell, but so what? Anything can be sold if it’s marketed properly. The only thing that really matters is when Ford ever decides to do an actual redesign of the Mustang. I’ll be waiting to see if they can pull it off without resorting to use any retro-styling cues.

Of course, the same could be said for all of Porsche’s 911 cars throughout history. Very little to no restyling designs. I guess if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. They probably only have one person in their entire styling department.

Back to the tang. The IRS should be a good selling feature for this car. The camero has it beat then it some to quality of ride. I would think mainly do to the solid rear axle.

If FORD wants to make a smaller RWD car, let them make it a MERCURY or a let them call it MAVERICK.

Because “RETRO” is stupid and being lazy.

In 2005, Ford must have knew that they couldn’t design a good looking Mustang replacement…or any vehicle really. So what did they do? They took a ugly design that went out of style 30-40 years ago, rounded the corners a bit and called it “RETRO”. How lazy is that?

Of course, I guess we can be thankful, because had they not done that, they probably would have screwed the Mustang over even more and made it look like the Flex/Focus/2010 Fusion. Ugly beyond belief.

Mustang has always sold so well based on the fact that it was not only in the everyman’s price bracket but because of its size. Always bigger and easier to sit in, cruise than the sport compacts and that was a good thing.
Ya, the easy accessibility put alot of secretaries in them, but who cares where the money is coming from as long as it comes.

Bring the IRS(if it doesn’t add much to the price), pring the updated look, but KEEP IT THE SAME SIZE. weight loss through other meas would be fine

Where on earth did you get all that garbage you spewed???

@torquemonster said: “The American car companies put rules in place after the muscle car wars of the 60’s that limits how big/powerful an engine can appear in how big/heavy a car. ”
What the hell is he talking about? the EPA?