2009 Ford Mustang Changes: What Would You Like To See?

JROC · 09-06-2006, 04:02 PM


Quote: Originally Posted by Thomas91169 and lighten the goddamn car up! its a mustang, not a mercedes, it does not need 20 layers of soundproofing.

I must agree.

bjslinger · 09-06-2006, 08:11 PM

Hmmm... let's see if this works. I put my ideas for the 09 in my signature.

**Brent** · 09-07-2006, 12:54 AM

Can you give a higher resolution of it?

bjslinger · 09-07-2006, 03:20 AM

Hmm... I can email it.

**Brent** · 09-07-2006, 10:53 AM

brent [at] mustangevolution.com

BONESAW · 09-19-2006, 01:28 PM

Since the curb weight will probably go in the wrong direction when they freshen the mustang for 09', they should shoehorn in the upcoming hurricane motor into the Mustang GT...if not standard, AT LEAST as an option!(With Dispacement on Demand, this thing could conceivably get better gas mileage than the old 302)
A 6-Speed manual
Wider tires
The body style should be modeled after the 69-70 mustangs with extreme detail. I love the 05's and up, the only problem I have with them is the back end. It doesn't look too bad...but it certainly doesn't resemble the concave back end of a 67 or 68.
The Hurricane could be punched out to 7.0L. They could build a modern 428 Cobra Jet..or they could build a Boss 429 as the top model with aluminum Hemi heads and put Forced induction on top of it.
I think(just my opinion) that if they decide to continue on the Forced induction route with the top Stang, they should do a sequential twin turbo setup...more ultimate power potential , and God knows when the hood is opened, it would look a hell of a lot cooler than that ugly little black whining intake manifold on the terminators and lightnings.

**bbunt302** · 09-19-2006, 05:29 PM

From what I hear, the Hurricane project was scrapped. It's unfortunate too...

BONESAW · 09-23-2006, 02:19 PM

The hurricane was scrapped...a long time ago. Ford announced a few months ago that theyve started it up again, and it should be out in a year or two.

bucky · 10-02-2006, 07:56 PM

I personally would like side scoops and a more aggressive front end. I dont mind the back end of the current models. wider hips would be nice.

Base gt's I think should be around 350-400, and come standard with 3.55's.

From fitting seats as the mach 1 had, or the bullitt would be next. 99-04 gt seats just dont hold you in very well.

The retro look is ok, however it looks kind of wimpy. the 99-04's just looked like they were mean.

JROC · 10-02-2006, 08:03 PM


Quote: Originally Posted by BONESAW The hurricane was scrapped...a long time ago. Ford announced a few months ago that theyve started it up again, and it should be out in a year or two.

They brought them back, but change the name from Hurricane, to Boss after Katrina happened.

Ford Boss engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sexylil66 · **Re: What kinda changes would you like to see ?**


Quote: Originally Posted by DarkShadow Well yes, they are hurting, but at least GM is redoing stuff trying to keep sales up rather than Ford just going "Oh crap, our 25 year old designs aren't cutting it anymore....Oh well"

Who's side are you on here? GM or Ford?:wtf2:

rocker · 02-06-2007, 06:14 AM

A notchback version like they had in the 60s.Three body styles with engine options would be cool.Have it so you wouldnt have to order the most expensive model to get a v8.

Rick0636 · 02-07-2007, 12:08 PM

V8s are nice, but a 4.0L V6 with a few bolt on extras is about equivalent to the mid priced 289 in HP, or even the fox 5.0s. I dont' see anything that special anymore with a V8.

JROC · 02-07-2007, 01:23 PM


Quote: Originally Posted by Rick0636 V8s are nice, but a 4.0L V6 with a few bolt on extras is about equivalent to the mid priced 289 in HP, or even the fox 5.0s. I dont' see anything that special anymore with a V8.

You oviously haven't riden in a Terminator.

Rick0636 · 02-07-2007, 11:07 PM

Sorry, I dont' even know what a terminator is.

**Brent** · 02-07-2007, 11:20 PM


Quote: Originally Posted by Rick0636 Sorry, I dont' even know what a terminator is.

2003/2004 Cobra

rocker · 02-08-2007, 04:50 AM


Quote: Originally Posted by Rick0636 V8s are nice, but a 4.0L V6 with a few bolt on extras is about equivalent to the mid priced 289 in HP, or even the fox 5.0s. I dont' see anything that special anymore with a V8.

You cant get the sound of a v8 out of a six cyl.
V8s are capable of more power.
"It aint muscle if it aint a v8"!

SilentNoise · 02-15-2007, 10:04 AM

I think you pretty much nailed most of it with your latest article Brent.

I think the only thing you're really missing is the displacement on demand - even if gas were half the price of what it is today, I know myself, and likely many others, would be more than willing to give up a set of stock Ford lowering springs or a "better" shifter (that I'd just replace with an MGW shifter anyway - they're starting production on a 2005+ shifter very soon), in exchange for some kick ass fuel economy in V8 form without having to sacrifice power.

Other than that, you're right on track.

**Brent** · 02-15-2007, 12:00 PM

Thanks. The displacement on demand would be cool although for me it's not up there. To each their own though. I sure wouldn't complain if it happened.

Rocket 442 · 02-15-2007, 01:35 PM

I'd have to say go for 2 different suspension setups, one for the V6 models which would be concerned with ride comfort, durability and those things. Then have a stiffer, more sporty setup for the GT's and whatever other V8's they produce. That way, you won't lose many of the sales of people who don't want the Mustang that needs to go fast and handle like a sports car, but you wont anger the Enthusiasts as much since their more into the GT models.

I'm not sure if Ford does this right now, but my friend just got a used 2005 Mustang GT and it feels good overall but the body roll really threw me off and made it feel sluggish through corners.

SilentNoise · 02-19-2007, 12:05 AM


Quote: Originally Posted by Rocket 442 I'd have to say go for 2 different suspension setups, one for the V6 models which would be concerned with ride comfort, durability and those things. Then have a stiffer, more sporty setup for the GT's and whatever other V8's they produce.

That'd make too much sense

dark · 03-08-2007, 02:46 PM

the thing they need to do most is ditch that sorry ass v6 truck engine and put in the new duratec 3.5 dohc

that way i can cannabalise one to put in my car someday

mrmustang · 08:51 PM

In many ways the 05-07 Mustang was a great leap forward. As owner of a 1966 289 coupe, however, I can tell you that Ford is not building my kind of Mustang today. Sure I mostly love the retro approach but the original concept of the Mustang as being a car for all people has been forgotten. Today’s car is for the performance car guys (V-8 GT) and performance car wannabees (V-6 fastback). The convertible is too narrow a Market to mention except do not spoil it with a complicated and expensive retractable. Mustang needs to build in addition to what they have now a ultra stylish coupe/notchback like the original coupe/notchtop that can fit 2-3 tall people in the back seat with reasonable comfort for short hauls. Three seatbelts in back please! The regular consumer who wants something sporty and affordable and carries the Mustang nameplate and styling cues from the original (classic continental/T-bird) has been neglected. Look to your wonderful design heritage!!!

The marketing of the current Mustang is all about high performance. There is no new Mustang that could be "reasonably" considered a car for a young family offered today. Older people except for hi-po buffs shun it. There was such a car in 1965-1966 and just about everyone loved it both young and the young at heart and over a million bought it before the 1966 model year was over. Also how about producing a Mustang with better fuel economy while you’re at it – read hybrid - ever hear about global warming?. Lighter materials more space, a true coupe/notchback offering and 5 seat capability. The Ford Fusion sits three across in the back seat and is close in size to Mustang, why not create this capacity in Mustang? Raise the seat in the rear to be level with the tranny hump like the cars of old. Please, no arguments from you Ford Motor Company - I know you can do it.

Ford you need to make a Mustang that is in the spirit of the original not simply a muscle car, but a car designed to be designed by you me and everyone who wants one in their own flavor. It can be a compact economy car (hybrid), a compact personal luxury car, and a compact performance sports car (muscle car with a hi-po V-8) - in three body styles, coupe- for headroom for those in the rear, fastback- for the racer minded and convertible for those who like the wind in their hair!!!!

Also, how about some larger color choices. In the 60's Ford offered three times as many color choices with interiors to match. Limited colors and even fewer color choices for the interior makes the car very bland visually. MUSTANG MUSTANG MUSTANG

If Ford does not do the things mentioned above and tries to get more buyers with Hi-Po gimmicks and narrow market gear head specials they will not have a high volume seller on there hands. I am not saying take away those cars – I think there great and truely have their place in the Mustang lineup but make the Mustang a "Personal Car" and true economy car as well. Steal sales from Honda and Toyota with this car. Also while there at it can they back off a bit on MACHO styling and those HUGE fender lips are over the top.

My wife and I love the original 65-68 cars but she hates the present car does'nt want me to buy one with our $25 -30 grand because she says the car is all about being a boy racer. I agree!! The car has limited appeal with the ladies Ford. Sure some gals buy the convertibles but that does not make a mass market product. Also make a fixed roof notch and forget about over complicating the convertible with a retractable. Leave that to GM and Chrysler.

Finally, take some clues from Iacocca – he sold a lot of cars for Ford by making the Mustang the car to be designed by you. Take a good long hard look at the original 65-66 car if you want high volume numbers Ford. I will be watching and BUYING in 09 if you make my kinda car.

fastchanger · 03-12-2007, 03:18 PM

.......certainly the one and only opinion here geared in this direction, hope Ford listens. I don't usually participate in forums, but this topic hit a strong cord with me. FYI - I bought an '05 GT and I love it. Yet, it's to bad we cant enjoy it as a family car. With 3 kids and a sweet wife, we get stuck with the mini van for weekend outings. Something along the line of a latterday '69 Grande would fit the bill. Manual shift of course!

white 98 gt · **Re: What kinda changes would you like to see ?**


Quote: Originally Posted by MarkuzLS1 It didn't hurt sales before. The stock F-Bodies were faster from sometime in the mid-80's all the way 'til '02. The Mustangs still sold them out of existance.

stock f bodies were't faster than the mustangs here until 94(?) the body of the 97's is what i'm getting at. camaro & transam were badly overpriced, that's what killed them, plus hard to work on v8 cars , high aftermarket prices, etc. that's also the same reason why they quit makin the gto after 2 or 3 years-- price. they keep cuttin their own throat. ford, on the other hand, needs to STILL bring more h.p. to the stang.

powersof12 · 09-17-2007, 06:48 PM

I want a 2008 Mustang LX (No leather, No Air, No XM Satelite, No Heated Seats, No Navigation), with 6 speed manual tranny, 4 valve DOHC 4.6L, and 200 less pounds. I will take it from there and add the Supercharger.

Man I miss my 93 LX 5.0L!

powersof12 · 09-17-2007, 06:52 PM

One more note. Since the Vete is now coming out with the LS3 for $47K, how long will it be before the new camaro gets the LS3 in the SS version with a standard 6 speed? How can I buy a 300 HP Mustang (even though I bleed blue) when I can get 430 HP for similar pricing? Maybe the General will only put the LS2 with 400 HP in the base Camaro.

cobraj · 09-25-2007, 08:13 AM

supercharged 50 stroker crate engine eith slp loudmouths

cobraj · 09-25-2007, 08:14 AM

supercharged 50 stroker crate engine with slp loudmouths

Paul2001GTConv · 11-21-2007, 05:29 PM

They just need to build the 2005 concept. That car was beautiful. And, unlike most concepts, there was very little about it that couldn't be produced. After seeing the concept in person I was hugely disappointed when the 2005 came out. It just looks like a dumbed-down version of the concept.

BLUE OVAL TURBO · 11-22-2007, 01:01 PM

Looking back at the mustangs history from first generation to the current car offered , it's seems relative to the economy, gas prices, etc. What people want from Ford, is different buyer to buyer. My first experience driving a mustang was a 65' with a 289cid/ auto , it was a nice car but needed more power. The 71'-73' seemed too large in size ( IMO) but had huge displacement available. The mustang II 74'-78' reduced size (weight),offered less power with better fuel economy but no convertible.The 79'-93' Fox bodies seem to offer the what most buyers needed thats why it lasted so long. THE SN-95's , 94'-98' brought back original styling cue's, but many complainted it looked like a Toyota "Celica/Supra ".The 99'-04' was the cure for many who thought the previous body style was too sculpted . Anyway just my two cent worth, everyone have a "HAPPY THANKSGIVING "!!!

bullittlover · 02-09-2008, 02:14 PM

Iam not sure if this is the concept car for the old 2005 or if it is for the new 2009, but if it is for the new 2009, it is perfect in my opinion.

http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/musta...-concept-6.jpg

bullittlover · 02-09-2008, 02:15 PM

I am not sure if this is the concept car for the old 2005 or if it is for the new 2009, but if it is for the new 2009, it is perfect in my opinion.

http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/musta...-concept-6.jpg

The Luigiian · 04-29-2008, 01:35 AM

This is the only reason I joined this forum. Mr. Mustang,

"In many ways the 05-07 Mustang was a great leap forward. As owner of a 1966 289 coupe, however, I can tell you that Ford is not building my kind of Mustang today. Sure I mostly love the retro approach but the original concept of the Mustang as being a car for all people has been forgotten. Today’s car is for the performance car guys (V-8 GT) and performance car wannabees (V-6 fastback). The convertible is too narrow a Market to mention except do not spoil it with a complicated and expensive retractable. Mustang needs to build in addition to what they have now a ultra stylish coupe/notchback like the original coupe/notchtop that can fit 2-3 tall people in the back seat with reasonable comfort for short hauls. Three seatbelts in back please! The regular consumer who wants something sporty and affordable and carries the Mustang nameplate and styling cues from the original (classic continental/T-bird) has been neglected. Look to your wonderful design heritage!!!

The marketing of the current Mustang is all about high performance. There is no new Mustang that could be "reasonably" considered a car for a young family offered today. Older people except for hi-po buffs shun it. There was such a car in 1965-1966 and just about everyone loved it both young and the young at heart and over a million bought it before the 1966 model year was over. Also how about producing a Mustang with better fuel economy while you’re at it – read hybrid - ever hear about global warming?. Lighter materials more space, a true coupe/notchback offering and 5 seat capability. The Ford Fusion sits three across in the back seat and is close in size to Mustang, why not create this capacity in Mustang? Raise the seat in the rear to be level with the tranny hump like the cars of old. Please, no arguments from you Ford Motor Company - I know you can do it.

Ford you need to make a Mustang that is in the spirit of the original not simply a muscle car, but a car designed to be designed by you me and everyone who wants one in their own flavor. It can be a compact economy car (hybrid), a compact personal luxury car, and a compact performance sports car (muscle car with a hi-po V-8) - in three body styles, coupe- for headroom for those in the rear, fastback- for the racer minded and convertible for those who like the wind in their hair!!!!

Also, how about some larger color choices. In the 60's Ford offered three times as many color choices with interiors to match. Limited colors and even fewer color choices for the interior makes the car very bland visually. MUSTANG MUSTANG MUSTANG

If Ford does not do the things mentioned above and tries to get more buyers with Hi-Po gimmicks and narrow market gear head specials they will not have a high volume seller on there hands. I am not saying take away those cars – I think there great and truely have their place in the Mustang lineup but make the Mustang a "Personal Car" and true economy car as well. Steal sales from Honda and Toyota with this car. Also while there at it can they back off a bit on MACHO styling and those HUGE fender lips are over the top.

My wife and I love the original 65-68 cars but she hates the present car does'nt want me to buy one with our $25 -30 grand because she says the car is all about being a boy racer. I agree!! The car has limited appeal with the ladies Ford. Sure some gals buy the convertibles but that does not make a mass market product. Also make a fixed roof notch and forget about over complicating the convertible with a retractable. Leave that to GM and Chrysler.

Finally, take some clues from Iacocca – he sold a lot of cars for Ford by making the Mustang the car to be designed by you. Take a good long hard look at the original 65-66 car if you want high volume numbers Ford. I will be watching and BUYING in 09 if you make my kinda car."

Everything he just said. I want a Ford Mustang that fulfills Iacocca's vision for the car. I was originally entranced by the idea of a Mustang for exactly the ideas that Mr. Mustang suggested--an economical, sporty car that can be used by a great deal of different types of people. It resonated with me, and I think it's the same reason people today buy SUVs and 4wd pickups--people want a useful vehicle that can be fun too. Useful on the weekday, fun on the weekends. To put it another way, commuter on the weekday, 4-wheeler on the weekends or freeway cruiser for a trip down to Carlsbad Caverns or the Grand Canyon.

Ford can sell 400,000 Mustangs again, but they need to evoke the original: economical, sporty, stylish, useful. They need those rear seats, they need that ability, they need that fun feel they once had.

It's not impossible. 3.5 liter V6 from the Taurus in a 300 lbs-lighter car can easily manage better fuel economy. All the rear needs is more headroom and maybe an inch more legroom. The Camaro looks to me like it will have all that. But I want a Ford Mustang.

Please, Ford. Build one like that for me.

cbnfs · 05-21-2008, 08:55 AM

- Longer nose, shorter deck, still short front and rear overhang (and then bring the engine a few inches back for better weight dist.), shorter overall length and width, 500 pounds less.
- Same design but with a lot more aero capabilities.
- More power from a 4.6l V8, 6 spd manual gearbox stock (a trans-axle setup would be a dream come true).
- A top notch IRS (Ford said they made a state-of-the-art LRA so why don't they just build a state-of-the-art heavy duty IRS???). Build the mustang for SERIOUS HANDLING too, not for drag racing only (and, most important thing, kick imports' asses in its class).