Id check them out if they did build an awd version, but im not the target audience because i dont buy new cars. plus im stubborn and prefer 2wd. even in trucks
Id check them out if they did build an awd version, but im not the target audience because i dont buy new cars. plus im stubborn and prefer 2wd. even in trucks
Daylan C said:ddavidv said:My beloved S197 is based on a Lincoln LS platform.
Not sure on that one. They went out of their way to put a 3 link 8.8 under a Lincoln LS/Jag S-Type chassis? Also if I remember right, the Mustang II was based on the Pinto.
Well, it's sort of true as I understand it. They started with the LS chassis and then modified it enough that it wasn't at all the same chassis anymore. At least, that's what I remember one of the Ford engineers saying back during the new-release furor.
Just to clear this up a bit or muddy it up, the Chrysler triplets have had awd since 05 as an option. It’s just now they are putting it on the challenger.
Also the Durango is based off a lengthened mb ml350. Grand Cherokee is on the smaller mb cuv chassis.
Ranger50 said:Just to clear this up a bit or muddy it up, the Chrysler triplets have had awd since 05 as an option. It’s just now they are putting it on the challenger.
Also the Durango is based off a lengthened mb ml350. Grand Cherokee is on the smaller mb cuv chassis.
The current Durango and Grand Cherokee both share the WK2 chassis code. As far as I know, they're both built on the ML chassis, just the Durango is built a little longer (about 5" more wheelbase). The Grand Cherokee wheelbase matches that of an ML from the early 2010s (when this generation GC came out).
It was considered during the current generation... hopefully they find a way to place both the Mustang and it's Lincoln variant.
I found the Lincoln render much more attractive. However, I'm kinda of doubtful both will exist since it seems like they want the Mustang to be more European and "Grand Tourer" already. If they decide to keep the Mustang "American" and "ponycar-ish", I can see room for a Lincoln version in the line-up.
I'm having trouble seeing how this isn't a Camaro. I guess it's the split grille that makes it not a Camaro. Man, if only there was a split grille clone of the Camaro...
There! I fixed it. If it was red with snorkel hood scoops they'd call it a Trans Am and be done with it.
The 6th gen Camaro leapfrogged the Mustang by being lighter and having much better suspension. Using a bigger, heavier platform will not help...
1. So they are going to build the mustang in Chicago and Flatrock becomes a 100% EV or BEV production plant?
2. This is the same Ford that made the mustang II remember... god that was hideous
3. Isn't S in the platform name (S197/S550) supposed to be special? as is unique? Or are trying to cut costs and go back to its roots with a falcon based platform but in this example its new explorer...
4. "New" dodges are just facelifted old benz's
5. Since when did 3800lbs become a "light sports car?"
In reply to fidelity101 :
#5
About the same time I realised a GMT400 short bed was lighter than an S197.
Daylan C said:ddavidv said:My beloved S197 is based on a Lincoln LS platform.
Not sure on that one. They went out of their way to put a 3 link 8.8 under a Lincoln LS/Jag S-Type chassis? Also if I remember right, the Mustang II was based on the Pinto.
And the original Mustang was based on the Falcon... the next one was based on the Fairlane... the one after the II was a Fairmont, and so was the one after THAT.
The Mustang was always a rebodied something else. Remember when it was going to be a rebodied Mazda 626? Enough people complained that they called that nonsense the Probe instead, and kept making the Fairstang for another product cycle or three.
fidelity101 said:2. This is the same Ford that made the mustang II remember... god that was hideous
Shut yo' mouth right now. The II was awesome. Especially the King Cobra.
Okay, they were really heavy for what you got, but still. Love to have a Ghia notchback.
fidelity101 said:
5. Since when did 3800lbs become a "light sports car?"
Its ridiculous isnt it? I think 3200lbs is about the upper limits for a proper sports car. Fatter then that should be Grand Tourer/Turismo status like an Aston Martin
Since when has the Mustang ever been a "light sports car", though?
We have this whole Sports Car / GT / Muscle car argument over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
They're just labels. It's pointless. Means exactly zero to the cars. Sure, lighter is *usually* better, but the labels mean exactly zilch.
And the lincoln concept above is a Camaro with a bad mustache for a grill.
Knurled. said:fidelity101 said:2. This is the same Ford that made the mustang II remember... god that was hideous
Shut yo' mouth right now. The II was awesome. Especially the King Cobra.
Okay, they were really heavy for what you got, but still. Love to have a Ghia notchback.
fugly
ultraclyde said:Daylan C said:ddavidv said:My beloved S197 is based on a Lincoln LS platform.
Not sure on that one. They went out of their way to put a 3 link 8.8 under a Lincoln LS/Jag S-Type chassis? Also if I remember right, the Mustang II was based on the Pinto.
Well, it's sort of true as I understand it. They started with the LS chassis and then modified it enough that it wasn't at all the same chassis anymore. At least, that's what I remember one of the Ford engineers saying back during the new-release furor.
I remember that the magazines of the time (Popular Science, Super Ford/5.0 Mustang, etc) were very excited when they initially reported that the S197 would be a modified Lincoln LS/S-type/T-bird chassis, but that went away somewhat when it was learned that the IRS was going away. It reminded me of how there was much excitement over the 4.6 liter DOHC power plant Ford was working on in the mid-late 80s, which was being tested at 380 horsepower NA, but was down to 280 by the time it made it into a MkVIII.
Tom_Spangler said:Since when has the Mustang ever been a "light sports car", though?
1964 1/2? Isn't that the definition of a pony car?
Granted, that's not the case anymore
Merkur XRTi to return?
P3PPY said:Tom_Spangler said:Since when has the Mustang ever been a "light sports car", though?
1964 1/2? Isn't that the definition of a pony car?
Granted, that's not the case anymore
To me, a pony car has always been a sporty-looking but affordable coupe that offers a V8. Because of the "affordable" part, most of them have more humble origins. But nothing about them has ever been "light" especially compared to true sports cars like MGs, Alfas, Miatas, etc.
P3PPY said:
It was considered during the current generation... hopefully they find a way to place both the Mustang and it's Lincoln variant.
I found the Lincoln render much more attractive. However, I'm kinda of doubtful both will exist since it seems like they want the Mustang to be more European and "Grand Tourer" already. If they decide to keep the Mustang "American" and "ponycar-ish", I can see room for a Lincoln version in the line-up.I'm having trouble seeing how this isn't a Camaro. I guess it's the split grille that makes it not a Camaro. Man, if only there was a split grille clone of the Camaro...
There! I fixed it. If it was red with snorkel hood scoops they'd call it a Trans Am and be done with it.
There are a few "conversion" kits for the modern Camaro. Eye bleach is optional.
Tom_Spangler said:Since when has the Mustang ever been a "light sports car", though?
Well, never, they were ponycars (the reason the niche is called ponycars in the first place).
64-66 Mustangs are built out of almost enough sheetmetal to have structural integrity. Good luck finding one nowadays where the strut towers/chassisrails aren't bowed all to heck causing lots of negative camber in the front.
Supoosedly the first Fox bodies weighed jn the 2800-2900 range. Heavy for 1978 but considered svelte today.
ultraclyde said:Yeah, I think Ford probably knows what theyre doing and are too smart to mess up a Mustang THAT badly.
But it makes for a hell of a shock headline, don't it? ;-)
Mustang II.
bobzilla said:ultraclyde said:Yeah, I think Ford probably knows what theyre doing and are too smart to mess up a Mustang THAT badly.
But it makes for a hell of a shock headline, don't it? ;-)
Mustang II.
Fortunately, Lido Anthony Iacocca is long-since retired and the company is in safer hands now:
What's ironic about this whole discussion is that the Mustang II was substantially smaller and lighter than the 71-73 models, yet it's the one being called out.......
In reply to Tom_Spangler :
mustang II.5
fidelity101 said:In reply to Tom_Spangler :
mustang II.5
Because most of them only go to 10, so ours goes up to 11. But 11.5 is even better?
Oh...nevermind.
The 1st gen Camaro has almost the same dimensions and standard power as the 3rd gen Cavaliers (94 - 05). It stuns me to think that one could order a Cavalier with a 396.
THIS body kit for the new Camaro is spot on. Spot on.
As long as we're talking aftermarket body mods, I would love to see someone come out with a Chevelle front end for the retro Camaros. They're about the right size.
You'll need to log in to post.
