Topic: 2010 Mustang

[dougjp]

I like.  I like.  Nice looking interior.  A BIG leap from the current generation.

http://www.fordvehicles.com/the2010mustang/

I just love their web site design.....

[Wolverine]

Mustang GT with xenon headlights (optional on V6 and GT model):

[Ice]

Do we know what the pricing comparison is?  Sounds like the Mustang should be a tiny bit cheaper given how its suspension/chassis sounds less sophisticated.

I actually like the looks of this one over the last one.  The last one I never really liked but this seems better...its probably just the interior thats getting me which I think looks fantastic.  Especially the wheel...now that is a good steering wheel!  I didn't know Ford could make such good looking wheels...or interiors.

[Wolverine]

Do we know what the pricing comparison is?  Sounds like the Mustang should be a tiny bit cheaper given how its suspension/chassis sounds less sophisticated.

I actually like the looks of this one over the last one.  The last one I never really liked but this seems better...its probably just the interior thats getting me which I think looks fantastic.  Especially the wheel...now that is a good steering wheel!  I didn't know Ford could make such good looking wheels...or interiors.

Don't remember where I read it, the V6 starts at something like US$20,900.00 and the GT Premium is US$30,095.00.

[Mitlov]

Certainly my bias precedes me, but, I'm taking my 422 HP in the Camaro.

I mean, the Mustang is putting out about the same horsepower as the V6 Camaro, and the V6 Camaro has a much more refined and advanced engine. My assumption is that the Camaro is also a better handler. Maybe the Stang is a bit lighter, but still. I would need to sit in both before juding the interiors - but I wouldn't expect much as one doesn't [shouldn't] buy these cars for the interior.

Actually, from what I've read, the difference should be 400-500 lbs.  Big big difference.  That'll leave the Camaro with the better power-to-weight ratio, but by a much narrower margin than the horsepower ratings suggest.  As for handling, I'm not someone to say that the lighter car will always handle better--the Camaro has a far more advanced chassis--but with that big of a weight difference, I'm going to reserve judgment until I read some comparison tests.

[ArticSteve]

Ford is taking the Mustang in the wrong direction.  Just another bloatmobile just in time for a long severe recession.

[Triple Bob]

Anyone know when this will be out?

[ArticSteve]

Horsepower on the 4.6-liter V-8 is boosted to 315 from 300 on the 2009 model. Torque is 325 pounds-feet, up from 320. The engine runs on unleaded regular gasoline, although premium fuel gives the engine a boost in midrange torque. The 4.9-liter V-6 engine is unchanged.

New options include a navigation system, Sync and a rear-mounted camera. Standard equipment on all versions includes stability control, antilock brakes and traction control. Mustang production begins late in the first quarter.

Best case senario I think would be mid summer 2009.

[Mitlov]

Ford is taking the Mustang in the wrong direction.  Just another bloatmobile just in time for a long severe recession.

Don't be petulant just because Toyota doesn't offer ANY non-luxury enthusiast cars anymore.

[rrocket]

^^^^I agree with Steve.  But it's not just the Mustang.  All of these "retro muscle" cars are porkers.  The Mustang was underpowered, yet enjoyed a decent weight savings which kept it in the hunt with the bigger engined cars......

[dougjp]

Weight difference, 2010 Mustang vs. current Mustang, please? Maybe it is in this thread and I missed it. Instead I'm thinking all you guys misread the post about the weight difference, which was talking about the Camaro, not the Mustang, and reacted about the Mustang being a porker!

By the way, from kbb.com, the current V6 Mustang is 3,336 lbs. V8 Mustang is 3,483 lbs. The Camaro V6 is supposed to be 3,780 lbs. and the Challenger 250 HP V6 is 3,819. 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

^^^^I agree with Steve.  But it's not just the Mustang.  All of these "retro muscle" cars are porkers.  The Mustang was underpowered, yet enjoyed a decent weight savings which kept it in the hunt with the bigger engined cars......

The Supra turbo is 1581 kg (3486 lb, 3lb heavier than the Mustang GT) is it a porker too? Just want to set the frame of reference here.

[Mitlov]

^^^^I agree with Steve.  But it's not just the Mustang.  All of these "retro muscle" cars are porkers.  The Mustang was underpowered, yet enjoyed a decent weight savings which kept it in the hunt with the bigger engined cars......

The Supra turbo is 1581 kg (3486 lb, 3lb heavier than the Mustang GT) is it a porker too? Just want to set the frame of reference here.

[ArticSteve]

Ford is taking the Mustang in the wrong direction.  Just another bloatmobile just in time for a long severe recession.

Don't be petulant just because Toyota doesn't offer ANY non-luxury enthusiast cars anymore.

As I have stated previously  , 2011 - rear wheel drive, 2 doors, built in a Fuji Heavy Industry (Subaru) plant using a boxer 4 banger.  Similar situation to the Hino built FJ.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

As I have stated previously  , 2011 - rear wheel drive, 2 doors, built in a Fuji Heavy Industry (Subaru) plant using a boxer 4 banger.  Similar situation to the Hino built FJ.

How is this in any way relevant to the Ford Mustang in 2010?

[ArticSteve]

How is this in any way relevant to the Ford Mustang in 2010?

As you have already read  , it was IMO, that the 2010 Mustang is just another bloatmobile that is headed entirely in the wrong direction for the "times" ahead.

Mitlov, as you have already read  , just had to toss in a dig at Toyota, he being the first person to introduce the word  "Toyota" into this thread.

Don't be petulant just because Toyota doesn't offer ANY non-luxury enthusiast cars anymore.   

I suppose one could point to the fact that when Ford enters bankruptcy the Mustang will be on the chopping block.  Just in time to see Toyota enter the market with an efficient 4 cylinder RWD "sports" car.  Something the little 3 should be introducing NOW.   

[Triple Bob]

^^^^I agree with Steve.  But it's not just the Mustang.  All of these "retro muscle" cars are porkers.  The Mustang was underpowered, yet enjoyed a decent weight savings which kept it in the hunt with the bigger engined cars......

The Supra turbo is 1581 kg (3486 lb, 3lb heavier than the Mustang GT) is it a porker too? Just want to set the frame of reference here.

  Quote of the day!

[barrie1]

Steve where have you been with Gm producing a 4cyl sports car for several years now Ever hear of the Solstice or the Sky I believe they call it. You can even order a optional V6 in at least one of the 2 as well. 

[rrocket]

^^^^I agree with Steve.  But it's not just the Mustang.  All of these "retro muscle" cars are porkers.  The Mustang was underpowered, yet enjoyed a decent weight savings which kept it in the hunt with the bigger engined cars......

The Supra turbo is 1581 kg (3486 lb, 3lb heavier than the Mustang GT) is it a porker too? Just want to set the frame of reference here.

Well the Supra isn't a feather...but I also have 625 HP to move it.   Lighter and more powerful than a Lambo Gallardo FWIW.  But my car is also 15 years old and manufacturing processes exist today (that weren't around back then) that allow parts to be made lighter.

FWIW, the Supra turbo with automatic is lighter than the stick (3470 lbs).  With my weight saving mods and whatnot, my car scaled in at 3250 or so last time we checked.  Still not a feather..but better than ~3500...

[Mitlov]

Well the Supra isn't a feather...but I also have 625 HP to move it.   Lighter and more powerful than a Lambo Gallardo FWIW.  But my car is also 15 years old and manufacturing processes exist today (that weren't around back then) that allow parts to be made lighter.

FWIW, the Supra turbo with automatic is lighter than the stick (3470 lbs).  With my weight saving mods and whatnot, my car scaled in at 3250 or so last time we checked.  Still not a feather..but better than ~3500...

Let's compare apples to apples and talk stock versus stock.  A Mustang owner can customize his Mustang too and turn it into whatever he wants too, y'know. 

So here's the bottom line.  A stock 2010 Mustang GT is lighter, more powerful, and torquier than stock MkIV twin-turbo Supra.  I don't think that a MkIV Supra owner has any moral high ground calling the Mustang a "porker."