: Ford - Mustang

What were they thinking: the depression edition

Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:32:44 GMT

As our fifth and last entry tonight (having already antagonized some of our GM and Ford readers), we'll present two cars of our own: our highly modified '91 GT (brakes and wheels courtesy of Baer and Saleen) and our equally modifed '03 Cobra (suspension and brakes courtesy of the 2000 Cobra R). Both modifed for handling, before speed. Each had it's had it's merits in it's specific day and age, each had it's demerits (particularly the POS engine in our 2003: later found to still contain casting sand - no thanks to the over-rated Ford SVT engine assembly process).

But look closely at the picture. The 2003 looks like it's been inflated by an extra 25%. It's huge: a much larger and heavier car - and it's built on an all-but identical chassis (yes, we'll consider the chassis to be the same since we could take all the Cobra parts and bolt them up to the GT with very little trouble). But why did it have to get so much larger and heavier? It certainly wasn't for the sake of safety - both cars only barely met the safety standards of their time (and the gas tank on both was a Pinto-esque disaster waiting to happen). The SN95 received minor improvements in the way of structural integrity, but not much. Just try finding an SN95 convertible without subframes that has been "lively" driven and isn't sagging in the middle.

And the 2005-2010 (thru 2014?) is even larger. Although thankfully not Camaro or Challenger "super-sized".

What we'd like to see from Ford in the future is something the same size as the '91 (longer wheelbase for better weight distribution). Lithe, maneuverable, without excess. And with a hatch - that was the best thing for carrying tires and tools to the track. 4 tires, a couple of tool boxes, and some spare parts should all fit under the hatch - as they did in the Fox cars.

In other words, Ford should eliminate the wretched excess in the next iteration of the Mustang. Every time we look at a 370Z, we think of what the Mustang could have been or could still be: small, lithe, fabulous handling dynamics, no wasted excess. Now imagine Ford's all-new lightweight DOHC 5 liter V-8 in something just a little big bigger than a Z (of course it would have to have a back seat).

There are only two problems with this idea:

1) Ford doesn't have the chassis to build such a Mustang on. Mazda and Volvo have been supplying many of the chassis for the current generation Fords; Ford of Europe will supply the next generation. Neither Mazda, Volvo, nor Ford of Europe has the a chassis that could be used for a next-gen Mustang. And forget about Ford of Australia - the Falcon chassis is severely out-dated and their financial model cannot sustain itself.

2) Demograghics. Ford has found a formula that makes the Mustang sell well enough to be profitable - and that formula is based a little too heavily on old guys who have had Mustangs most of their lives, probably drag raced them, and wouldn't ever think of using them on a roadcourse (not that they'll work there anyway, with lousy cooling and braking). These are the people who aspire to a Shelby (with over 58% of it's weight over it's nose) and wouldn't cross-shop one against a Corvette Gran Sport (cheaper and offering far better performance), much less a Nissan GT-R (from an alien planet in their minds, despite doing every single thing better). And the price range of said Shelby? How about the Shelby 500KR we spotted at the dealer tonight? With a 40,000 dollar markup over sticker! Just imagine what you could do with that 85,000 dollars: it would buy a GT-R and 4 days at a driving school, for example.

Sadly, those same demographics result in many Mustang owners looking like the picture above of our 1991 versus 2003 - with about a 25% weight gain from their early years to their middle years. They won't fit any longer in the types of seats we'd want in a car that really handles - such as a set of Recaros (looking way back in time, these were a factory option in 79-1982 and again in 2000 - back in the days when Mustang performance aspired to handling dynamics rather than settled for straight-line).

Many of Ford's other vehicles are suffering the same fate: The F-150 has grown steadily larger and heavier in every iteraiton, and the Taurus is wildly obese.

Our fear: that the Mustang will suffer the same fate as the Crown Vic - staying all but the same for 40 years straight (always with limitations - like lack of an IRS), addressing a demographic that just gets older and heavier - until their latest Crown Vic is literally the last car they buy in their life. This is why people grow out of being a true-blue Ford fan and go elsewhere. They are looking to step up, not settle down. To evolve and grow their driving ability. To demand more, not to settle for less.

Looking at a lot full of Mustangs with fake scoops and paint stripes tonight, that's exactly what we saw. No point in the current Mustang.

Separated at birth?

Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:28:10 GMT

In our third "What were they thinking" tonight, we present the 2010 Mustang.

As nice as the front end of the 2010 Mustang looks... the backend is ass-ugly. Did it need redesigning? No. Does the redesign enhance aero or take off weight? No. What message does it send? What hate to think.

Is there some common DNA here, despite being separated by millilons of years of evolution? Apparently yes.

And don't even get us started with the new appearance package for the 2010 Mustang: gigantic fake hood scoop, fake side scoops, fake window vents, and a stick-on plastic applique between the rear lamps that does nothing. All bandaids with zero purpose whatsoever. So shockingly ugly and pointless that we were glad we didn't have our camera with us tonight. Which we know now to leave home next time we visit the zoo...

Speaking of the 2011 Mustang GT...

Thu, 13 Aug 2009 03:19:00 GMT

Car and Driver came across some interesting Ford test cars recently: http://blog.caranddriver.com/2011-ford-mustang-gt-an-even-more-potent-track-pack-to-complement-the-400-hp-5-0-liter/

What to make of this?

It takes Ford 5 liters to make 400 horsepower, and the beemer makes 17 more with only 4 liters. The beemer costs a heckuva lot more... but has considerably more capability.
The "Track Pack" is attaining mythical qualities that it doesn't deserve at all... it's nothing more than a couple of things anybody making a Mustang into a track car would do (tires & suspension) on their own. In fact, it's less - because it's riding too high, and it has inadaquate brakes. The cure for the front brakes is easy - but there is no cure for the tiny rear brakes. Well, there was, but Ford cancelled it. At least the Mustang GT isn't as poorly endowed as the Taurus SHO, which very literally is "smoking" in road tests - smoking it's brakes as they fail.
Forget about comparing suspensions. Ford might have had a real rear suspension, but Ford cancelled it. Find a bump in a race track turn and (when you come to rest after the BIG spin) you'll have time to contemplate the importance of a real suspension as the corner workers get the traffic slowed down enough to get you back on track (assuming you aren't stuck or haven't hit something).
Race tires provide a huge advantage over street tires. Put those race tires on the M3 and you'll have what M3 drivers do to their cars when they take them to the track. Oh, and BTW, Ford won't be able to offer those tires on their car.

Predictions:

2011 Mustang GT buyers will brag that they can out-accelerate an M3 for half the price. If you've ~~wasted your a big chunk of your life on~~ followed the Mustang forums for the past xx years like we have, you're used to seeing braggarts and poseurs talk about "the time they beat a Corvette across an intersection". Ford panders to Mustang buyers who want something (a lot) more for (a lot) less. Unfortunately, those buyers don't have the experience to understand the difference.
The cover story of the August 2010 issue of Car and Driver will feature the 2011 Mustang GT and it's new "Coyote" engine. It'll do well in the press, at least in the pre-release stories.
The cover story of the April 2011 issue of Car and Driver will compare several cars on a race track, probably Gingerman, and instrumented testing will yield track times showing the Mustang in 3rd place behind the: 1) M3, and 2) Camaro SS. And ahead of the 4th-place Challenger SRT-8. And a Ford Focus RS which just happens to be there will beat them all (as it beat the Ford GT in testing in Europe). Oh, sorry, we can't have that!

If the 2011 model year for the Mustang starts next spring, as we suspect it might, move up the magazine dates up a few months.

The Problem With Ford

Fri, 19 Jun 2009 03:51:58 GMT

So here I am ranting on the problems of the Mustang again. From my last post, written with a furious pounding of the keyboard, it seems that I am having a case of deja vu about Ford yet again. It's a love/hate relationship in the end - one of those relationships you just have to walk away from because it's all a big drama and you realize the years are slipping by.

Here's the problem with Ford: we like most of them, but when it comes to the ones that we really want to get passionate about, they just fail to measure up. It’s been 5 model years since the 2005 Mustang came out – and we still have the same old engines. Yea, sure, the 2011 will get the engines the 2005 should have had (Ford engineering has attempted to create a DOHC 5 liter twice in the last ten years!). 6 years will have passed to get just one step forward!

The 2010 has gotten a few bandaids - - they’ve juggled the bushings in ye olde solid axle a bit, offered a "track pack" (a lousy alternative that doesn't measure up to what could have been), fixed the interior (a very smart move, but then the old one sucked and they still have the giant "bumper car" steering wheel and the lousy gauges with the indecipherable script and less than 180-degree sweep) – but it’s all bandaids on top of the basic problems of the car. Since Ford never spent the right money building any Mustang other than the very first (and I still don't forgive them for the rust my original '67 Mustang suffered), it's always about bandaids and hoping that the next iteration will somehow "get it right". Well, folks, it never has.

The current Mustang is too heavy, it’s too large, and it has no possible future given the direction of the car industry. I expect Ford to make a major patch job in 3 or 4 years and perhaps the IRS will even show up (and if it does I will go to the Ford dealer in a hypnotic trance and buy one without even thinking it thru). And if I do take that fateful step I will inevitably end up unhappy yet again when some cheap component inevitably fails and the car doesn't measure up.

I miss my last much smaller and lighter Fox Mustang, with it’s very practical and usable hatch (I could carry 4 race tires and my tools in the back!). Of course, the chassis was as flexible as pasta, but the size and reasonableness of the total package made it into one heckuva great car. I could take it on highway trips, on TSD rallies thru back roads, to autocrosses, and to the racetrack (of course I'd have to take an extra set of rotors, calipers, and brake pads that would just barely get me thru a track weekend). It was a car you could do everything with in it's day... and nothing like it exists anymore.

If Ford ever brings something of that nature to market again, it’ll probably be around 2020 – over 40 years from the original FOX. Perhaps you have to be immortal to finally get what you want out of a Mustang!

More on the S197 Mustang IRS

Fri, 19 Jun 2009 03:24:47 GMT

Motor Trend's blog talks today about the IRS suspension that was developed for the S195 (2005) Mustang: http://blogs.motortrend.com/6523204/auto-review/2010-ford-mustang-near-enough-is-not-good-enough/index.html

They've got a couple of points wrong in their article, but by and large it's right. My own involvement with the IRS Mustang begins in 1999, when I took delivery of the 1st or 2nd IRS-equipped Cobra in Texas. And I took delivery of another in 2003, with the improved IRS (thicker half-shafts, and very much improved bushings). Both cars were so good on the track - especially my 2003 (with 2000 Cobra R springs and shocks) that I swore I'd never do another solid-axle Mustang. I spent some considerable time talking to the lead engineer of the IRS at SVT and learning from him what it would take to make it work best on the track (start with doubling the spring rates, for one).

Like Joe over at My Ford Dreams http://myforddreams2.blogspot.com/2009/06/real-reason-05-and-forward-mustang.html, I hold the current Mustang in complete contempt. But it's even worse than Joe knows - an IRS for the Mustang wasn't just stuck in development, it was out being tested on streets and test tracks. So much so that it was encountered on the street and photographed (the exact same car later had a solid axle transplanted into it and became the engineering mule for the Shelby). I have the photo preserved, and put it on my blog years ago. I've copied that entire post below (or follow the link below to view *all* my posts about the IRS).

Motor Trend claims the IRS that was finalized for the Mustang came right out of the Australian Falcon. That could be true, although the photo of the IRS doesn't support it. Trying to build an IRS out of some backwards stamped-steel components on the cheap does not make for a good IRS. Ford knows how to build one, but the eternal cost cutters inside Ford ruined it. If the Australian rumor is true, it's another example of those types at their worst.

But I don't think it was from Australia. I spent over a year corresponding with the senior executive inside Ford who was running a project to study the feasibility of the IRS in the Mustang, a few years before the S197 design was finalized. It was his job to figure out how to cost justify it, and it turned into a major political battle against the cost cutters. I won't mention his name because I was asked to keep it confidential, but from our talks I learned a lot and I hope he did too. I've also talked to some of the Ford engineers who worked on the S197 IRS project and every single one of them were mad as hell that they weren't allowed to put into production what they worked so hard on, and what they believed should be standard in the S197 across the board. Yes, across the board - every single model. Those folks wanted to build the best car they could - not a low common denominator for customers who didn't know any better. Of those folks, only two are still in the company. One was bounced out of the former SVT group and wound up designing a suspension for a worldwide Ranger replacement that little Billy Ford cut out of the budget years ago.

Lets make sure we all know who the real idiots were in Ford: both Phil Martens who canceled it and especially Hau Thai-Tang (Director, Advanced Product Creation and Special Vehicle Team:) for running around saying it it wasn't needed anyway. It was Hau Thai-Tang who told the press a couple of statements that made me see red. First, the IRS was "go" as an option. Later it was off and those of us who wanted one were "snobs". In progression, HTT goes from addressing the requirements of his customers and promising they would be met, to outright insulting them:

"Drag racers and Ford's accountants will be pleased at the choice of a live axle out back. Among our customer groups that know and care what sort of rear suspension their car has, a large number of them want a solid rear axle; they're primarily the core enthusiast drag racers, and they like the durability, reliability, and ease of modification with it, changing axle ratios, etc.," says Thai-Tang. "There's another group that wants the sophistication and cornering advantage of an IRS, and we're going to offer it on the upcoming SVT Cobra. Unlike the last time, when we kind of shoehorned the IRS in [an older platform]; this time, we've designed the rear architecture to accommodate both right from the beginning."
"Ninety-two percent of (Mustang) Cobra customers wouldn't have considered a Ford product"
"We'll never appease those IRS snobs."

Note that the IRS was canceled and the Cobra was canceled, Yes, there was a real Cobra - it was a model above the Shelby (which Shelby has nothing to do with developing). And, finally, Hau Thai-Tang was canceled - sent to South America in exile to build a cheap SUV with no future. Straight to hell, where he belongs. And then SVT itself was canceled, at least in it's original form. The reason for that was simple - every product they brought out on their own got progressively worse and worse from a quality standpoint. The further away the product got from the "base" production vehicle, the worse the quality ended up. Their final product, the 2003 Cobra, has terrible engineering problems in several areas. Many owners suffered thru engine replacements that Ford didn't want to perform (including myself, who was amazed to find three identical red Cobras like mine all lined up at the dealer for the same purpose - total engine replacement). Finally, the crowing achievement of SVT - the Ford GT - turned into another debacle. What was billed as "the pace car for the entire company" turned into a quality and warranty disaster: http://www.drivingenthusiast.net/sec-blog/2005/03/31.html#a458. I suspect - without evidence - that it was also the final straw for Coletti that forced him into retirement. Great guy as he was, as popular as he was, his products were seriously flawed. And I know, I had 4 of them. The IRS was finally perfected, but the engines got worse and worse. Cooling problems in the earlier ones, and a total lack of engineering and testing process for the final one. And despite it's great suspension, the car was a worthless POS because of that damned engine.

Somewhere inside Ford, the S197 IRS suspension sits on a shelf ready for production. It's not too late - it can still be done. Indeed, not one year after the introduction of the 2005, a Ford executive said that they "needed" to offer the IRS as an option. That may have been back-tracking, but it was said. Fast-forward to today, where there is no platform for a Mustang replacement in the pipeline. The Mustang is too big and too heavy (although not anywhere near as bad as it's competition) for the long term. Ford needs a platform like the Nissan FM platform to build a family of small rear wheel drive cars on. It doesn't have it (the Australian Falcon is a very poor chassis, and very much out-dated).

The current Mustang will probably be patched up in a few years, like the SN95 Mustang was half-way thru it's lifespan (as the FOX Mustang was 3 or 4 times). If Ford's plans to take a few hundred pounds out of each model in it's lineup works out, it may even last another ten years. But who wants one, when every year that goes by shows how backward it is? Oh yes, we have a "track pack" option - but that is nothing more than something we could have easily done ourselves (and better) and it does little to actually prepare the car for open track weekends. The brakes are still too small, and the cooling is still too poorly done. I remember shaking my head in disgust when in 2006 the demo Mustang brought by Ford to the SVT events kept garking it's coolant all over the place - and they had retired their Ford GT a year earlier for the same exact reason. The SVT engineers that came with the Mustang told me that they had already totally rebuilt the Ford GT's engine once and never could make it work on the track. Yes, it's a pace car for the entire company - the company that went down the drain at the same time.

Here's the reprint of the article from my site on the S197 IRS.

S197 Mustang IRS Suspension

2005.03.21 (updated)

Many pictures have surfaced of a red engineering prototype of a future high-performance flagship Mustang. What hasn't been known to date is what rear suspension would be used in the eventual production car - although it's been repeatedly told to us during the original development of the all-new 2005 Mustang that it would be an IRS. Now we have confirmation of those statements.

A lucky member of the online Mustang fan community, fortuitously equipped with a camera, came across an engineering prototype on the streets of Dearborn recently. His pictures have ended up all over the web, across several sites. The red mule he encountered has an independent rear suspension (IRS). How do we know? Look closely at the photo below and you'll see a large nut in the center of the hub (in addition to 4-piston Brembo brakes).

Now look at the following picture of the standard solid axle suspension on an '05 Mustang: note that like all solid axle setups from Ford the center of the hub is just indented - no nut. There is very clearly a significant engineering difference from the car above.

For comparison, let's look at a stock '99 Cobra IRS (same as '99 thru '04). Notice the nut in the middle the hub.

And here's how this goes together on the '99-04 (image from the Ford shop manual) - notice the threaded area on the half-shaft to the upper left, and nut at the lower right. This is typical of all IRS suspensions. The half-shaft has to be bolted to the hub thru the upright.

The large nut is the giveaway: the red engineering car has an IRS. A couple of other observations, based on this low-res spy photo:

The red mule has 4-piston calipers front and rear. And not just the "baby" Brembos found on the 2002 Cobra R, but much larger "real" Brembos.
The rear hub on the '99-04 IRS has the tie rod attachment point located very close to the rotor - resulting on a lot of heat transfer into the tie rod and also the inability to fit larger rotors. It's located further in on the red mule.
Its not clear how provision is made for rear parking brakes... they aren't integral in Brembo calipers. There isn't a second set of small calipers. Therefore, the system must use small drum brakes within the to the rotor (aka like the Supra, C5/6, Jaguar S-Type R, etc).
Tire size continues to be much taller than SN95s - the tires are 285/40ZR-18s Goodyear F1s.

Unfortunately, the spy photos are such low-res that we can't see any further detail... there appears to be an aluminum lower control arm, but the resolution is really too poor to verify the meaning of it's position or the type of rear suspension.

Reference: this is a Lincoln LS rear suspension, 2002 vintage. It might be logical that this is what will be used to source some of the parts (some, given that the LS uses an 8" differential)... however there are some fundamental differences in component location. Note that the LS suspension is state of the art... including coilover shocks. The same rear suspension is also used by Jaguar, and of course on the Thunderbird (and on the Mustang GT concepts, which were literally rebodied Thunderbirds using the complete platform including the full SLA/IRS suspension front and rear). Note that on Jaguar R models, Brembos are used along with hub-integral drum parking brakes (Lincoln uses the cheaper version, with conventional iron calipers and caliper-integral parking brakes).

Conclusion: We know the IRS has been under development from the start, and Ford has been talking about it right from the start as being standard on the future "Cobra". This time out, given the new platform, it's in integral part of this new platform rather than an afterthought. One of the early spy pictures appeared to have an IRS underneath. In any case, the rear suspension is being brought into the 21st century (at last), and Mustang buyers can now follow along.

History of the Red Mule: A later version of the red mule has a solid axle, as shown in these pics:

Notice the standard brakes, and the standard swaybar hanging down behind the axle. And the lack of the "nut" as shown above. This is a solid axle car - once the decision was made to leave the IRS behind, a standard GT axle was swapped into the car. This is the car ole 'Shel is shown driving, just before it's debut at the New York Auto Show (2005). Some early Shelby press material even referred to the larger rear brakes and 4-piston Brembos - this oversight was eventually corrected and removed from that material.

So, the Mustang performance flagship has a solid axle. And as we've found out since, the "real" Cobra was cancelled by Ford. In various interviews, we have been told that the "real" Cobra (aka with the IRS, big brakes, and something on described as "more" under the hood) had been cancelled (this decision was made in November 2004). The Cobra moniker was then added to the Shelby, which otherwise was simply a special edition model (like the Mach, et al, used to be). The Shelby was never an "SVT", although it was engineered by SVE. All that changed when the big shakeup inside SVE/SVT at the end of 2004. The Cobra moniker was then removed and SVT was killed off as a product organization. The remaining SVT engineers are a virtual team split across several development groups.

Will we ever again see a real sporting "SVT Cobra"? Just exactly why did SVE/SVT drop out of product creation? Those are questions for which there are no public answers. Ford's premier Mustang is dead, replaced by a straight line muscle car.

Will we ever see the IRS? We at least now know that Ford has the suspension... and it's ready to go.

2011 Mustang engine news is actually old news

Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:57:32 GMT

The web is all a-twitter this week about the upcoming Duratec V-6 Mustang. That, folks, is not news - it's been the plan all along and only lack of funds has held it back. One fanciful site went to far as to suggest that some sort of complex "engineering" was taking place to convert the transverse Duratec to rear wheel drive.

Couldn't be more wrong - a rear wheel drive version of the new V-6 has existed all along. In fact, it was the very first version of the new Duratec engine that was shown to the public! Here's the picture: and it's clearly a rear wheel drive configuration. The engineering was done a long time ago when the engine was originally created.

Shortly after the Duratec 3.5 liter engine went into production for North American models, Mazda started using it in their CX-9 crossover. In the second model year of that vehicle, the engine was bumped to 3.7 liters - well before Lincoln started using a 3.7 liter variant. A 3-mm increase in bore is all it took. The architecture allows for even more bore as well as a longer stroke.

There was an intent to offer the "other" Duratec in the 2005 Mustang - the 3 liter version (an entirely different and unrelated engine - except for the brand name). It was discussed during the creation of that car, and a mule of a Lincoln LS with a Mustang front end was built with the 3 liter engine - we have seen a picture clearly showing that engine in the mule. Convenience for testing or production intent? More like another thing that was lost in the big fall of that car as budget cuts killed the 3 liter, the original Cobra engine (all aluminum instead of the heavy engine block that was originally used), the Cobra model itself (intended to be the ultimate Mustang - well above the Shelby), and the IRS suspension (engineered and caught in photographs back then - the picture is on this site).

So instead the Mustang got the antiquated 4 liter V-6 instead of a modern engine. The reports this week traced the lineage of that engine back to the 2.8 liter engine used in the 1979 Mustang (and dropped a year later for an equally old inline 6). Look a little more closely - this engine's lineage actually goes back much further - all the way into the sixties. Yes, folks, the 4 liter is the most "heritage" feature of the Mustang. And it's pathetically out-dated: 210 HP, 240 torque, and the type of EPA (16/24 auto and 18/26 manual) that geriatric strangulation - not efficiency - provides. Compare this to the 304 HP Camaro V-6, with direct injection (and 6-speed transmissions). There is no comparison and it's clear that Ford has been caught flat-footed yet again.

In 3.5 or 3.7 liter form (which only differ by a few HP and lb-ft of torque), the Ford Duratec has fallen behind it's rivals. GM has two direct-injection DOHC V-6 engines, with variable valve timing on both the intake and exhaust (the Ford is intake only). Chrysler has a brand new V-6 engine coming in a year, and it's also state of the art. Nevermind the Nissan/Infiniti V-6 range, which completely out-does all these engines in power and output (making due without direct injection, which it starts to adopt across the board in 2010).

Where is Ford with a competitive naturally aspirated V-6? Nowhere. The engine needs direct injection and an entirely new cylinder head with independently variable intake and exhaust valve timing. That'll be expensive to engineer - and while it probably already exists on paper getting it thru testing and into production is an tough stretch for a company that is so short on development funds. It will have to go into both transverse and longitudinal versions of the V-6 engine to pay it's way. If the current engine will receive direct injection, some of the engineering work is already done thanks to the EcoBoost version of the V-6. Lincoln needs direct injection to get competitive, and the F-150 trucks needs it for EPA. Because the Mustang engines are paid for by the truck budget (and you can thank the Explorer for the last V-6 and V-8), it's likely that the 2011 V-6 Mustang will have direct injection.

There is a plan within Ford to move to direct injection cross the board, and central direct injection will be introduced on the smallest 4-cylinders first (already shown on the 1.6 liter engine in the Lincoln C showcar).

It is new news that little Billy Ford let slip plans for a more powerful mid-range V-8 Mustang. But, again, this has been known for some time and a picture of the engine in the car has already been shown in public (granted, a spy pic - Ford is not ready to show us anything that isn't in production yet). Ford of Australia let the existence of this engine slip, and our hero Brenda Priddy has the engine in the Mustang, very nearly production ready, right down to the studs for a cover over the intake manifold.

The technical specs are not at all clear at this early point. A DOHC design is obvious, and this prototype appears to use port fuel injection instead of the more desirable and more powerful (and cleaner) direct injection. Very clearly the engine does not use central direct injection. Twin sensors on each bank would suggest independently variable intake and exhaust cam timing. If it does make 400 HP, then 80 HP/liter is hardly state of the art - this engine is clearly focused on cleanliness rather than pure power.

So this, folks, is the engine lineup for the 2011 Mustang.

Conflicted GM drives the electric evolution forward

Sun, 07 Jun 2009 16:55:02 GMT

There is a good article on MSNBC http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31146562/ about the Chevrolet Volt and how conflicted GM is about building it. While they are 100% committed to doing so, they continue to worry about its acceptance in the marketplace and about the financial viability of building an all-new product which will not and cannot be profitable - yet. Only a very small portion of the car buying public will consider a Volt and this will not cover costs, much less any profit. And the Federal Government “green” subsidiary of $7500 per car (tax refund after the initial purchase price of approx. $40,000) does not tilt the equation. Lutz points out that the car needs to be $15-20,000 less to work - but those prices will come down as the technology gets better and production rises.

As an aside, Lutz also points out that they have been concerned that the Camaro is the wrong car at the wrong time - certainly the liberals at the Obama administration think so. It's a highly visible car right now, it's on the covers of all the magazines (indeed, a "pony car" war is taking place in their pages), and as MSNBC points out GM has provided a display model front and center at the Detroit airport for everyone to see. GM might have been smarter to keep a low profile.

In our humble opinion, the Camaro is the wrong car at the wrong time. We like some aspects of the car, but it's too big and too heavy for a car a driving enthusiast can enjoy and actually use. Let’s face it - it's gigantic, a full-size car. It's also the only platform that GM had to build a Camaro on, just like the Challenger was built on the only available platform (and is even larger). But at least GM spent the money to develop an up-to-date suspension, 6-speed transmissions across the board, and gearing that provides good acceleration combined with low highway revs. But the worse part about the Camaro, Challenger, and even the so-slightly-smaller Mustang is that by building them on such large platforms, the automakers might have sealed their fate. There is no money anywhere for a smaller rear wheel drive platform, and none of these three cars can be shrunk any further on the current platform because of architectural constraints inherent in those platforms. In other words, there is no long-term future for these platforms and there is nothing in the pipeline to build a replacement on. GM canceled a small rear wheel drive platform a few years ago that would be been ideal, and Ford did the same earlier in the decade when a whole raft of future products were canceled just because Little Billy Ford attempted to sweep under the carpet the long range planning Jacques Nasser had in place. Plans that included a little brother to the DEW platform, the size of a BMW 3-series rather than the 5-series-sized Lincoln LS. Nasser was right, and Little Billy's knee-jerk reaction to being bettered left the company devoid of product plans for many years (plans which, BTW, also included the European Fords coming to North America much earlier then when they'll finally arrive).

When it comes to the long term future of the Mustang, what we want to see is a car the same size as the Fox-body Mustangs. With a hatchback body and engines ranging from a 4-cylinder thru a twin-turbo V-6 at the top. No V-8 - and yes you saw that right. The upcoming Coyote V-8 is not going to match the emissions, fuel economy, or the acceleration of a proper EcoBoost V-6 engine. Instead, it will have extra weight (all over the nose, in a car with a weight balance problem to begin with), it will have slower acceleration, and (for those of you who like to thumb your nose at society) it will have far less modification potential. In a car about 170 inches long, with the practicality of a hatch and a weight of about 3200 pounds, we'd have something sustainable. Unfortunately, though, there isn't a dime in the budget to create such a platform.

Getting back to the point, the technology will improve over time and the entire electric experience will become more mainstream. The types of developments we'll see in the next year or two will only serve to accelerate the rise of fully-electric cars. A current example is the phenomenal sales of the Hybrid Fusion - a powertrain in just its second generation (and, we should point out that GM has nothing in their product line that nears the sophistication of a Ford-style hybrid: GM's hybrid technology is laughable).

The entire hybrid marketplace is still in its infancy but is growing quickly. Nissan has just entered the market with a hybrid Altima, and is reportedly developing a dedicated Prius-type car (believing like Toyota that you have to look the part to be a follower of the religion). Chrysler has made progress in electric development - but on a shoestring budget (at least until the rest of the lawsuits are thrown out by Monday and the Fiat partnership is finalized). GM has other uses for the Volt powertrain as well, most notable a stunning Cadillac that attempts to the Lutzian angst about product “sexiness and desirability”.

The next step is so-called “plug-in” hybrids. Ford has been running fleets of Escapes in this configuration for the last couple of years. It’s apparently in their production plans (although the upcoming replacement for the Escape is probably dictating the timeframe), and there is also a hybrid or fully electric Focus coming at some point after it enters North American production.

But what about cars for the driving enthusiast? Boxy 4-doors, even with appealing technologies, aren't for us. But don't rule out this type of powerplant - it has fabulous potential for enthusiasts and could be very appealing with a little more development. Look at how the Tesla performs: its first generation technology (built on a shoestring budget) has created supercar-like acceleration and has preserved most of the dynamic handling attributes of the Lotus platform it's based on. Its engine produces maximum torque at 1 RPM thru 14,000 RPM: 276 lb/ft of torque and it's available to use as the driver sees fit. As is the 248 HP. And this from a 1st generation powerplant with "version 1.5" software. Incredible results from battery technology that is already out-dated.

A hybrid for driving enthusiasts would marry a larger-sized 4 or a small 6 cylinder engine with hybrid electronics to produce a car that could run solely on battery power for slow-to-medium speeds, or a coupling of gas engine with an electric motor to produce the full torque and horsepower combined output from of both engines. That is what Honda does with its hybrids already: Honda-type hybrids use small electric motors as a supplement to the gas engine. Thus making the total combined output of both available for acceleration. GM and BMW do this in large trucks and large cars respectively, in a simpler way with an electric motor in parallel to the transmission. Infiniti is about to offer such a system, debuting in the 2011 M-series cars, already demonstrated to the press in the G-series cars, and talked about for a future Nissan Z as well (all three cars sharing the same chassis makes this easy). Toyota has shown a Z-sized concept offering the combination of a gasoline V-6 with an electric motor acting as a supplement, producing over 400 horsepower combined (an earlier generation of this engine is already offered in a Lexus hybrid).

As far as a hybrid or all-electric sports car, there is a lot of development work to be done. Honda will introduce a 2-seat front wheel drive car next year that has some of the makings of a sports car – at least in Honda’s mind. Front-wheel drive does not yield a “sports car” in our humble opinion. We see it as more of a commuting car.

The Tesla is indeed a pure sports car and a side benefit of the all-electric powertrain is supercar-like acceleration: 0-60 in under 4 seconds (and more coming soon with an update to the software). However, as demonstrated in the current issue of Evo (the European enthusiast magazine), multiple laps will overheat the battery packs. Tesla has addressed this issue (which would presumably never come up in street driving) and has said that some sort of cooling improvement would be needed to make the Tesla into a track car. Driving Enthusiasts won’t accept issues that would prohibit us from using the car on the track (never mind how we’re supposed to get the car to the track in the first place). The Tesla (and everything else at the moment) has primitive batteries with limited range and power and this same issue is holding back both hybrids and pure-electrics.

The technologies involved and envisioned by the manufacturers is a very large and complex topic and to explain the many and varied technologies on the market today is outside the scope of this post. However, to help relate it and as background for the MSNBC article, we’ve prepared a chart showing today’s landscape as well as a couple of products coming in the next few years. Which of these technologies are temporary stepping stones, which become predominate, or (more likely) which are used for different types of vehicles in various stages of the evolution – all will be determined by market and political forces. While enthusiasts will probably have the option of a hybrid sports coupe in the form of a 370Z in 3-4 years, don’t look for an all-electric Z until the end of the decade, at least.

Barrett-Jackson to sell the Mustang GT Concepts

Sat, 21 Mar 2009 16:39:05 GMT

The Ford Mustang GT Concepts were built by Ford in 2003 to preview the all-new 2005 Mustang. Both cars were based on the off-the-shelf Thunderbird chassis of that time.

The silver coupe was powered by a 4.6 4V DOHC 4.6 liter V-8 with a supercharger, taken from the 2003/4 Cobra (tidbit: that engine was going to be offered in the 20057 Mustang GT but was canceled during product review - perhaps because of excessive warranty claims as a result of severe quality issues), and used the stock 6-speed Tremac manual transmisison. The red convertible was powered by a standard Thunderbird 3.9 liter V-8 and 5-speed automatic transmission.

Both cars are shown below at their unveiling at the 2003 Detroit show. As this posting is written, 6 years later, it's even more clear then ever that these are the cars Ford should have built. The 2005 Mustang, and it's 2010 freshening, look ancient compared to these. And the T-Bird chassis (with it's all aluminum independent SLA suspension front and rear) is literally light years ahead of the stone-age Mustang chassis we got. It's also well ahead of the 2008 Challenger and 2010 Camaro chassis.

Ford, given it's economic crisis, is selling off concepts and other assets to raise case. Both concepts will be auctioned separately at the upcoming Barrett-Jackson 7th annual Palm Beach auction on April 9-11 2009. Live high-def coverage will be provided by the Speed channel and at the end of the day one or two very lucky Mustang enthusiasts will walk away with two of the greatest Mustang concepts ever built. They cannot be licensed for the street so if they are ever seen again they'll need to be trailered to car shows. Both cars were built as fully drivable, and were featured in Ford videos driving around the streets of Dearborn and Detroit.

We'll be very lucky if we ever see such a perfect vision for future Mustangs again.

This site has a Ford concept section with >100 images of significant Ford concepts, prototypes, and showcars. Our Ford Mustang GT Concepts section has had a full set of high-res images available since 2004.

Motor Trend tests the Genesis, Mustang GT, and 370Z

Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:25:35 GMT

Here's an interesting video from Motor Trend with the latest comparison of the Genesis coupe, 2010 Mustang GT, and the new 370Z. The Z comes out on top in every classification, except for it's lack of a back seat. Keep in mind that the base prices of these cars make for a nearly linear progression across a range of several thousand dollars, so potential buyers may have price as their first order of business.

This is a drag race test, and a drag race is only 1 indication of overall performance and dynamics - and is certainly not the most important test for true driving enthusiasts. However, the results here do line up with the results we've seen to date on the other performance aspects of these cars.

No surprise on the Genesis: it's dynamics are lousy. It's hard to see good in this car, other than as a first attempt. When will it be updated? Is continuous improvement too much to hope for?
The Mustang is little different from the 2005/up model: the interior is improved a bit (the dash still has the ridiculously unusable 180-degree sweep guages with the old school - and unreadable - font) but in the end nothing else about the car has really changed. The 2011 Mustang GT with it's new 5 liter V-8 will improve performance a lot, but owners will still be stuck with the massively dated suspension. The Camaro is looking better and better against the Mustang.
And the 370Z turns out the fastest 0-60 and quarter mile times it's ever shown. Now let's see Nissan keep the car updated. Will the direct injected 3.7 liter V-6 make an appearance here once it's available later in 2010? DI is just about the only thing that engine is missing. Maybe it will even get the M's upcoming twin-turbo V-6 engine as an option?

Mustang wheels for sale on Craigslist... with bonus trailer trash

Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:15:49 GMT

AutoWeek, January 26 2009 issue, reports the following Craigslist ad:

MUSTANG WHEELS

I have a set of FR500 for a fox body mustang and I’m not sure what they go for? So I guess I’ll take $200.00

I also have what I was told are ponys $100.00

I need this stuff out of my bedroom, I kicked out my boyfriend after he got me and my mom drunk and had sex with us both.

And now both of us are pregnant!

We know who the daddy is.

Make this stuff go… or if you are looking for a girlfriend I may give them to you if we hook up.

Heavy metal swap - Sherman Tank engine in Mustang

Sat, 27 Dec 2008 03:28:28 GMT

We'll end the night on a ridiculous note... we've been reading about swapping various Focus, Contour and Taurus engines for the last couple of hours. Here's the ultimate swap: a Sherman Tank engine into a Mustang. Courtesy of YouTube, we get to see and hear it running. Yes, it might be possible to have too much engine... but it sounds SO good...!

See the related videos on the YouTube site http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilyGlrM1Q6A for more details on the engine.

Now that we've brought up the topic of tank engine swaps, we expect that somebody will swap one into a Focus sooner or later ;-) That'll make that Boss 429 Ford EXP we saw way back in '92 or '83 look like a little kiddie toy.

Car & Driver: Five Future Mustangs We’d Like to See

Sun, 06 Jul 2008 16:06:05 GMT

Car & Driver is starting to sound like themselves again after many years of churn...

In a June article, they propose 5 special edition/future Mustangs they'd like to see. One includes a special edition Smokey & The Bandit model shown below.

Follow this link (suggest <right click> and <open in new tab>) to the article: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/features_classic_cars/five_future_mustangs_we_d_like_to_see_feature__1/(page)/1

Ford severely scales back the BOSS engine program

Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:46:29 GMT

Automotive News reports today that Ford has severely scaled back the BOSS engine program. Only one vehicle will receive it - the F-250 (and up) series as a replacement for the 6.8 liter V-10 (which is therefore implied to be cancelled as well).

This means no BOSS engine in the mainstream F-150 or special editions Mustang.

The new F-150 (actually heavily reskinned - not all-new despite what the marketers want you to believe) will launch with variants of the existing 4.6 and 5.4 liter engines. Well after launch, the F-150 will also receive a 4.4 liter diesel, a 3.5 liter EcoBoost V-6, and eventually a larger variant of the naturally aspirated 3.5 liter V-6 engine. In terms of cubic inches, this will leave it at a disadvantage to the competitors from GM and Chrysler - however better mileage will be available as well as a wider range of engine options. That's clearly what is needed in today's market and for the market going forward... versus the market 4-5 years ago when the F-150 revisions were first determined.

This also leaves the Mustang without a "big-block" engine. While it hasn't been seen in public yet, it's believed that an evolution of the 4.6 liter engine will be offered in 5 liter displacement. Just exactly how much money went into that evolution is under intense debate on the web... with self-proclamined experts arguing over whether it will have 3 or 4-valve heads, and how much power they can dream up. This engine will also apparently find it's way into the F-150 as well. And further developments of it are believed to be planned to replace the long-stroke (and highly inefficient) 5.4 liter engine. In any case it's already known that the 3.5 liter EcoBoost V-6 will be offered in the Mustang and performance enhancements to that may be possible.

And, just as Chevy is considering their boosted 2 liter 4-cylinder engine for the Camaro (260 HP, 260 torque), Ford has an EcoBoost 2 liter 4-cylinder (275 HP, unknown torque) in the pipeline that would work just as well. These 2 engines are producing torque that the previous 4 cylinder Mustang never produced and would provide an satisfying driving experience with the right transmission and gearing.

2009 Mustang production ends early; 2010 engine questions persist

Fri, 06 Jun 2008 22:29:19 GMT

Ford announced this week that production of the 2009 Mustang will end early - less than a half model year. That means the restyled 2010 Mustang will arrive well before the year 2010 - probably around March of 2009 so that it will compete on day 1 of the Camaro's availability. But will it be competitive?

The 2009 Mustang glass roof option is shown below. The glass roof can be offered on the 2009 model because the roofline of the 2010 is identical - so no changes are necessary. The rest of the 2010 is simply a "top hat" restyle, as it's known in the industry. The measurements of the car are identical, all hard points are identical. External sheetmetal is updated and there are slight updates to the dashboard and interior: ( http://www.drivingenthusiast.net/sec-blog/2008/06/04.html#a2414 ). These kind of skimpy updates are all that can be done when when your company is unprofitable, your corporate HQ is in hock to your banks, sales are way down (especially of the "sugar daddy" F series), and development money is extremely tight.

2010 V-8 Mustang

It remains to be seen what happens to the powertrains: alledged or self-proclaimed "insiders" repeatedly contradict themselves as to the 5, 5.8, and 6.2 liter engines and their availability.

Here's hoping that the 5.8 and 6.2 liter engines are abandoned... and that the 5 liter 4-cam receives variable valve timing and direct injection. Yes, I know, where the heck is development money suppossed to come from for that kind of update? Where else would that engine have to appear?

2010 V-6 Mustang

The largest proportion of Mustang sales are V-6 models, and it remains to be seen what will happen for the 2010 model. Rumors suggest that plans to switch to the modern 3.5 liter engine have been moved out, and that the 4 liter will receive slight updates and soldier on for a few more years. Par for the course, since that engine first came out in the early sixties and only received significant upgrades in 1999 when it moved to new SOHC heads and structural updates. Look to the 2009 or 2010 Explorer for an indication since the Mustang is forced to share the same engine for cost reasons and the Explorer itself soldiers on for a few more years in it's present form).

So, it will probably be ye olde 4 liter V-6 - which is not at all competitive with the direct injected 3.6 DOHC V-6 Camaro engine http://www.drivingenthusiast.net/sec-blog/2008/05/22.html#a2403 and never can be. Note that the 2009 Challenger is in little better shape... it's extremely out-dated SOHC 3.5 liter V-6 only makes 250 horses. It's due to be replaced within 2 years by an all-new state-of-the-art DOHC V-6 engine. Dodge is also counting on at least 2/3rds of all Chalelnger sales to be V-6 powered.

Will Ford spend the money to build a competitive V-6 Mustang???

If it is the 3.5 DOHC V-6, then the Mustang is in the ballpark of competitive. The 3.5 liter V-6 was also developed in rear-wheel drive format right from the start. In fact, my website showed the first picture of that engine - almost 3 years ago!

See my website's section on the new 3.5 Duratec here: http://www.drivingenthusiast.net/sec-ford/FMC-engines/6m35d/ (suggest <right click> and <open in new tab>).

And then there is the upcoming "EcoBoost" twin-turbo version of this engine: http://www.drivingenthusiast.net/sec-ford/FMC-engines/6m35d-ecoboost/ - which is why I believe that while there might be a 5-liter or an updated 4.6, there won't be anything larger. The ~350 HP EcoBoost arrives in calendar year 2010 and has already shown itself to be capable of over 400 HP.

2010 Mustang interior barely changed

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 23:11:20 GMT

Additional detailed spy pics of the 2010 Mustang interior are beginning to appear... and it's apparent very little has changed. Like the 2010 car itself (same exact size, updated sheetmetal) the interior dissappoints. Very clear that the budget for this simple re-skin was lacking.

As you can see from the copyrighted image below, and others on the Autoblog site:

The deeply hooded gauges are all but identical to the current car... still too small, too far away from the driver, and only using 180 degrees of their possible sweep.
Unfortunately more than a little extra chrome and ye olde font on the gauges (making them even more difficult to read).
The huge steering wheel is just as large as before and is all but identical - just adding the Sync controls.
Oddly, the outboard air vents are the same round ones we've known... but the center vents are rectangular (and located where the nav should have been moved to).
There are some unidentifiable new buttons on the console.
The center stack has apparently changed as well (radio and environmental controls), since Ford needs to keep it hidden.
I do see some nice contrasting stitching on the seat and steering wheel.
Note that the overly-large handbrake has been moved back a few inches.

But that's it. Will this be enough to compete with the all-new Camaro and Challenger? Doubtful that the Mustang will be able to keep it's current sales numbers (already down 22% form last year).

Will the hood still be as pointlessly high? Just how many fake scoops will we have to endure this time? And will the doors still ring hollow when you close them?

One thing I've always disliked about the 2005-up Mustang is the enormous steering wheel and it's large center pad... it frankly reminds me of an amusement park bumper car. And it's got to be large to provide a clear line of sight to the oddly placed guages... but why were they sized and placed like that in the first place? IMHO, the guage sightlines were better in the SN95.

Visit Autoblog.com for the full set of KGP photos... where you'll also find that the radio antennae has been relocated to the back deck (finally!), and that the running lights next to the headlight are even more bizarre than you thought.

Oh well... as we spent a good part of the 90s thinking, maybe the NEXT Mustang will be world class. The right size, the right rear suspension, much better build quality, and light weight. If there ever is one, it's thought to be planned for around 2012 or so... but given yet another year of no profits, another year of layoffs, the sugar daddy of truck sales tanking, and the general economic doom and gloom that will follow the new administration coming in next year - any kind of new Mustang will probably be delayed another year or two later at the least.

Team Mustang also very active

Thu, 22 May 2008 12:52:29 GMT

While Team Camaro puts the finishing touches on the upcoming all-new Camaro, Ford's own Team Mustang is doing basic competitive research into "muscle car" ownership. While the upcoming restyled 2010 Mustang is a simple restyle, and while this information will help in the marketing of that vehicle, the attributes of that car are already set in stone and can't be changed. So much of this research will be used to define the character of the all-new 2012-timeframe Mustang.

Ford Press Release follows:

MUSTANG TEAM GOES EXTRA MILE TO DISCERN NEEDS AND WANTS OF PERFORMANCE CAR OWNERS

Ford goes to great lengths to gather firsthand quality and satisfaction data from customers
Mustang owners are passionate about their pony cars and generally more satisfied that owners of competitive makes

DEARBORN, Mich., May 21, 2008 - There are more Mustangs on the road in Tampa, Fla., than anywhere else in the country, so Paul Randle and his team headed south.

The Mustang chief engineer gathered about 40 of the vehicle line's key team members - those responsible for everything from product development to personalization to marketing - and flew from Dearborn to Florida to interview nearly 70 performance car owners last month. In addition to those pulling up in Mustangs, participants included owners of competitive-make vehicles such as the Dodge Charger, Pontiac GTO and Mitsubishi Eclipse.

External customer clinics on the Mustang are coordinated annually by Ford's 6-Sigma Center, but this is the first time since the launch of the 2005 Mustang that the team included competitive-make owners as well. To ensure that owners would be candid with their opinions, the team presented itself as a market research group and didn't indentify themselves as Ford employees.

"We wanted to find out why people purchased the Mustang and what else they'd shopped for," says Ronnie Ahmad, project specialist, 6-Sigma Center. "We added competitive-make owners to the mix not only to find out why they hadn't chosen a Mustang, but also to see if Mustang owners would stand tall when talking about their vehicles versus the others during the panel discussions."

Stand tall they did. Overall, Mustang owners were found to be very satisfied with their ownership experience. Far more complaints came from competitive-make owners. Based on this and a wealth of other findings, Ahmad says the new approach paid off: "It was way beyond our expectations."

Participants were paid $120 for the hour-and-a-half experience. Upon arrival, each group of a dozen or so owners filled out a brief survey before sitting down for a videotaped panel discussion. The talks were led by a moderator who used the survey responses as a jumping-off point, and viewed live behind closed doors by the Ford team.

"It was very interesting to hear the pride in Mustang owners' voices," says Ahmad. "One woman said that having a Mustang is like having a Transformer - her car makes her feel like a superhero."

Mustang Vehicle Integration Supervisor Dean Nowicki says the experience opened his eyes to how much of an "impulse purchase" the Mustang seems to be. "We heard a lot of, ‘I saw it, I wanted it, I bought it,'" Nowicki says. "One person brought her old V6 Mustang to the dealership for an oil change and left in a new GT."

Underscoring why Mustang owners are extremely passionate, the car has recently garnered accolades for quality and safety. Last year, the iconic pony car came out on top in three major consumer surveys sponsored by J.D. Power & Associates. All three - the Initial Quality Study (IQS), the Automotive Performance, Execution and Layout (APEAL) Study, and the Vehicle Dependability Study (VDS) - named Mustang as the leader in its mid-size Sporty Car segment. In addition, the 2008 Mustang convertible became the first sports car and the first convertible to earn the highest possible safety ratings in new-car tests performed by the U.S. government. The Mustang coupe also earned five stars in frontal crash tests for both driver and passenger, in side impact for driver and in rollover tests.

In Tampa, after each of the five panel discussions, participants retired to their cars for a walk-around focused on TGW (things gone wrong) and customer satisfaction issues. The information gathered will help the Mustang team make decisions about future features, as well as help immediately address any areas of concern.

"It was great to have a multifunctional group there, because we each picked up on something different when hearing the various responses," says Jackie DiMarco, Mustang business manager. "Later, as we're talking about which actions to take, our minds go to the images of the customers who made particular comments. This personalizes our decisions and helps us remember that everything we do is for the customer."

That idea delights Linda Davis, who participated in the clinic as the first owner of a 2008 Mustang convertible outfitted in the Warriors in Pink package designed in support of Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure. "I've been completely satisfied with my Mustang since buying it last July," Davis said. "I was happy to sit alongside other Mustang owners and hear similar comments. If clinics like this help Ford, I'm pleased to participate."

Customer clinics have led to key product edits in the past. For example, comments from Ford Edge owners resulted in the resolution of glare from the instrument panel, and Ford Escape owners helped identify the need for better communication about the vehicle's reversible cargo mat.

"A vehicle team needs to have a visceral understanding of their customer, and we'll never get that just by looking at GQRS numbers," Nowicki said. "It's great to review numbers - we do that all the time - but when I can look in a customer's eye and see the emotion as they talk about their car, that's exceptional."

HST International: Electric Mustang and Cobra

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:44:38 GMT

It has begun - the era of performance electric cars. No gas engines here, ultra-high torque guarantees fast acceleration. How about a Mustang with 1000 ft/lbs of torque and a 0-60 time of 3.9 seconds? And then there is the even lighter Cobra replica...

Read the press release below and follow the link in the title above to the site of HST International for more information. Note the downloadable brochures. Press release follows.

HST International - Tjaarda Design Alliance Changes Face of Electric Cars

'Electric Muscle(TM)' on display at Long Beach 'Green Power Prix-View' SAN DIEGO, APRIL 16 /PRNewswire/ --

HST International has announced a partnership with Tjaarda Design that will change the face of electric cars. The designs that will define the next generation of "Electric Muscle(TM)", the Tjaarda EVX Mustang and HST Shelby Cobra EVX, will premiere at the 34th Annual Toyota Grand Prix of Long Beach's "Green Power Prix-View" on April 18-20. The Mustang EVX and HST Shelby Cobra EVX prove that electric cars can be environmentally friendly as well as winners on the track and in the looks department. While designed for different purposes, both cars are true zero emission vehicles and feature 300-horsepower electric motors using lithium iron phosphate battery packs developed by K2 Energy Solutions. With 1000 ft/lbs of torque @ 0 rpm, they have the capability to do 0-60 in less than four seconds and a range of over 100 miles. "We're excited to be bringing these vehicles to market because they're head turners and so much fun to drive," says Tod Boretto, president of HST International.

"But more than that, this is a long-term initiative and a unique opportunity on several levels. We do not believe any other manufacturer is bringing together this level of design, performance and green technology today." The Tjaarda EVX Mustang is designed to be driven daily -- which, with its ability to do 0-60 in 3.9 seconds is no hardship. With a top speed of 120 mph and a range of 110 miles between charges, its estimated operating cost is 3 cents/mile. The exterior is a modern version of a muscle car era classic Mustang, but under the hood it's a green dream.

The HST Shelby Cobra EVX has the capability to run 0-60 in 3.2 seconds, a top speed of 150 mph and a range of 120 miles, depending on driving habits. With on-board recharging, it requires 3 1/2 hours/220V and 8 hours/110V. Estimated operational cost is 3 cents/mile.

"Tom Tjaarda's place in automotive design history -- from the Ferrari 365 GT California Spider to the Fiat 124 Spyder -- will ensure that these cars continue to drop jaws for their looks as well as their performance," adds Boretto.

The Tjaarda EVX Mustang starts at $80,000 and the Cobra at $125,000, with a range of options available for both vehicles.

They will be on display in booth #2104 at the Green Power Prix-View from April 18-20, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Friday and Saturday, and 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on Sunday. The Tjaarda EVX Mustang and HST Shelby Cobra EVX will next be featured at NBC's World Series of Golf in May.

San Diego-based HST International uses high-technology engineering and manufacturing to address specialized needs in the automotive industry. Through its alliance partnerships with K2 Energy, Torino International and Tjaarda Design, HST International develops products that achieve the highest levels of quality, innovation and performance.

For additional information, go to http://www.hstauto.com

MSNBC - stolen Mustang found after 38 years

Sat, 22 Mar 2008 22:35:46 GMT

MSNBC has a story today about how a Mustang stolen 38 years ago was finally recovered by police and brought to the attention of the original owner. It was put on a used car lot 38 years ago, and was sold to a teen in Long Beach who has been maintaining the car for all these years. And who is very sad when faced with the requirement to return it.

Continue to MSNBC at link above...

JBA Dominator GTA Mustang up for sale

Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:26:32 GMT

The Dominator Mustang, built by JBA for a Road & Track shootout almost 20 years ago, is for sale (I'm not affiliated with it in any way). This is an interesting Fox-body Mustang and is worth a look, at least for historical puposes. Asking price: $41,000. Currently running with a 5.8 V-8 and T-56 (replacing the original 302, which used variously a Toploader 4-speed and a Doug Nash 5-speed). The car also uses SVO disc brakes (aka a mashup of Crown Vic cop car and Lincoln parts that had also been used on the Mustang SVO, Lincoln LSC, and Saleen Mustangs). The original Capri hatch (alledgedly more aerodynamic) has been replaced with a Mustang hatch and large wing.

I remember this car very well from my Mustang days in the eighties and early nineties. It was an inspiration for my own '91 GT build-up ( link to my 91 GT buildup page ), although I didn't take it anywhere near this far due to Ford's plans at the time to replace the Fox mustang with one built on the MN-12 platform itself. Ford then cancelled those plans and the SN-95 Mustang was the result. Arguably the Dominator's abilities were exceeded by the SVT variations of those.

After the initial top-speed runs, the car was re-equipped with a transplanted Thunderbird IRS. Unfortunately, no pictures of this are available, nor is a description of how the transplant was accomplished. This would have been interesting to know at the time, since it's something I very much wanted for my own '89 and '91 Mustangs.

Follow the link in the title of this post to the Team Dominator site for complete information, including photos and PDFs of the original press articles. This is interesting reading!

The sale is currently running on eBay and ends on February 26th: eBay (right-click to open in new window).

One more historical note. I find it amusing that JBA took care to highlight the benefits of it's special front lower crossmember brace. I visited JBA in 1991 and bought one of these, flying it back home in my suitcase and eagerly installing it on my '91 (I didn't even have to raise the car). The brace itself was originally invented by Ford, and was first seen on Ron Smaldone's Muystang SVO at Nelson Ledges when it ended up upside down and was photographed with the non-stock peice showing. That peice soon made it's way to the Saleen Mustangs, and then to JBA. The peice itself was a short peice of box steel tubing and a pair of bolts. You could literally and exactly duplicate it yourself with a visit to the local hardware store and 10 minutes of work - there wasn't anything more to it. But it did work, and it was a hot peice of "technology" in it's day.

Mustang Bullitt returns - but who cares?

Sat, 27 Oct 2007 19:44:22 GMT

As much as I like the original movie Bullitt, and as much as I liked my own dark green '67 Mustang (before it rusted in half), I am more than a little disappointed in the latest news from Ford. I see little of interest in the news that Ford will deliver it's second Bullitt model in the fall of 2008.

Why?

it's a paint job
it uses off-the-shelf performance parts to add all of (approx.) 19 HP. You can buy these same parts at the dealer... and much more from the aftermarket.
there isn't any engineering involved
the originally planned 350 HP 4.6 or the 400 HP 5.4 all fell by the budget wayside. The upcoming all-new BOSS V-8 has been delayed and delayed - the dated modular engines have fallen seriously behind.
The original 2001 Bullitt special edition Mustang had more work invested in it.

So what do you have left?

A car to be seen in.... by those who care about such things. It doesn't do anything for driving enthusiasts.