What do you guys think of the new mustang??

[cubanseeder]

I saw one the other day, it was coming behind me, and the front of it looked rather nice. I slowed down to let it pass, and when I saw it's rear face, it almost made me puke Oh my god, what an ugly thing!!
It's a good thing I won't be seeing their tail lights very frequently

-d

 

[andyhui01]

nice car you got there cubanseeder... I actually like the New Mustang... kinda has a classic look but they modernised it really well

 

[ESPNSTI]

Its pretty ugly.
Oddly enough the concept for it looked pretty good.

 

[Phix]

I'm a yes-no with the new Mustang. I sometimes like it and sometimes just hate it. Dunno.

 

[andyhui01]

well I haven't seen the mustang in real life though... hopefully will get to see a couple of those when I visit the states

 

[justin syder]

Its pretty ugly.
Oddly enough the concept for it looked pretty good.

I agree.

the concept was better looking because

* it didnt have the larger rear bumber that the production has
* it was a bit lower to the ground
* the back was much cleaner and less "ass" than the production
* and finally, it doenst have that stupid pointless rear side window

 

[zenon]

Its pretty ugly.
Oddly enough the concept for it looked pretty good.

I've got to agree with that as well.

I still think the new Mustang looks better than the previous 2 generations, but it doesn't look nearly as good as the concept. :? Oh well, atleast Ford got a little closer to making a car that actually looks good this time (excluding the GT of course).

 

[ryans_supra]

I think finally ford did something right for a change. I like the look of the new mustang because it captures some of the looks from earlier generations and actually looks like a sports car. (last generation looked like a bubble on wheels)

 

[SiR_dude]

I don't mind it. I actually really love the front end, but like was mentioned above, the ass looks kinda out of place. Almost like they backed the first and only proto up into a wall or something, and flattened it out. :?

 

[snars]

It has a solid rear axle. Lorries and old Landrovers have solid axles

 

[andyhui01]

doesn't Solid Rear Axle improve handling?

 

[snars]

doesn't Solid Rear Axle improve handling?

Nope. A solid rear axle adds loads of unsprung weight as opposed to fully independent suspension. For instance, a manufacterer like Porsche will go out of its way to save even small amounts of weight on the suspension with stuff like ceramic brakes or lighter rims. In fact almost every modern European/Asian passenger car available now has fully independent suspension. The car in my icon (a late 1970's design): fully independent suspension 8)

Then Ford comes along and throws in this big chunk of metal to attach the rear wheels to the body. I personally can't see the advantage of putting a solid rear axle in a 21st century sports car, other than cutting costs and for the sake of nostalgia. I guess it has to do with this American 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' design philosophy. Maybe Ford is aiming for two groups of potential buyers:
- the hardcore Mustang fans. They would want a solid axle....simply because the old models had it too. Their main interest might be to put as much horsepower as possible on the rear wheels and rocket off in a straight line leaving lots of rubber 'n smoke. I guess a solid rear axle makes sense then.
- the kind of people who really can't be bothered with the kind of suspension their car has, as long as it goes and looks cool. America doesn't have that much corners anyway.

I'm just guessing here...no flame intended whatsoever :lol:

A quote from the Ford website

All the horsepower in the world doesn?t mean a thing if you can?t get the power to the ground. With that in mind, Mustang engineers developed a solid, new rear axle design with three-link architecture and a Panhard rod, for better off the line performance, and other advantages. Solid axles are robust, maintain constant track, and keep body roll under control. The solid axle pumping out torque to the rear wheel is an especially inviting feature for performance enthusiasts.

So it's indead meant as a muscle car. Nothing wrong with that really.

Then again the Corvette C6 does have independent double A-arm suspension on the rear axle...

 

[Likwid]

doesn't Solid Rear Axle improve handling?

Not even slightly

My 94 Z28 was an awsome car but it was a straight line car only. On perfect pavement it would shred a corner but if that pavement was crowned, uneven or in need of repair (like most PA roads) it became very tail happy if the problem pavement was on the outside of the car while in a corner.

Ford went back in time for the new mustang but unfortunately they went back in time for that damn soild rear as well.... and thats the main reason I dont like it... that and it wont take long for the ricers in my area to make them ugiler.

 

[downshiftlude]

front looks menacing, the rear looks like it got...well...rear-ended! i like it so far...but everyone and the mother will have the fuckin car and therefore it will automatically ruin it for me...

 

[andyhui01]

Then again the Corvette C6 does have independent double A-arm suspension on the rear axle...

doesn't the corvette run on leaf springs?

btw... I thought solid rear axle would improve handling because the rear suspension would be stiff and I think you get better performance from zero and when u drop gears because since there are no springs in the rear... the car doesn't sit when you floor it... it just stays pretty much flat

 

[idletask]

The solid rear axle has the advantage of taking very little space compared to, say, a multilink design or double wishbones. And yes, it is cheap too...

 

[Hazardous]

Some have propably noticed my comments on NFSU2 thread regarding to this car. I don't think I've seen the production model yet but I really like the looks of the car. And it will have a V8 engine which should provide a good sound effects. For a car such as this those two are the biggest things I appreciate, not the ride or actual speed. If I want a fast car, I'll get a Porsche or Skyline.

 

[zenon]

As Snars said earlier, the main advantage of having a solid rear axel is being able to easily put a lot of horsepower down at the rear wheels. It's also cheap to manufacture, but the main advantage is that you can build an engine that puts out a lot of horsepower without having to worry about the rear-end. That's why Mustangs make such good drag cars (although they don't do much else all that well ).

However, whenever Ford makes something more track-oriented (like the SVT Mustang Cobra R) they atleast have the brains to give it independant rear-suspension.

 

[Likwid]

Or even just the basic Cobra. They have been putting independant suspensions on Cobras for some time now, the last one was powering 390hp. I was shocked at their choice this time simply because this is 2004... its alot cheaper with todays technology to go independant. I feel the same way about GM using drum brakes still. With cars costing as much as they do.... and with the Mustand costing about the same as a WRX, you would think one of the biggest car makers could afford to put the correct suspension on its performance car.

The C6 is using leaf springs but its not the ox cart Jeremy describes it as. The rear is independant and instead of the springs running parallel to the frame as would see with something like a pickup using long leaf springs, the Vette uses very short composite springs running parallel with the suspension arms. The goal was to tighten up the rear without making the ride rough as the last gen. Responce time over coil springs is improved. Evidently it worked as the base C6 ran the same time around the track as the 575 with the GTC pack on last weeks show. For $40 grand Ill still take an STi + some mods with insurance money left over but GM was actually thinking IMO when they put that suspension design together.

 

[snars]

Then again the Corvette C6 does have independent double A-arm suspension on the rear axle...

doesn't the corvette run on leaf springs?

The Top Gear review is actually very misleading on the Corvette suspension thing. With all their rants about 'ox-kart suspension' I really thought Chevy put someting like this on the 'Vette, a solid rear axle suspended by conventional leaf springs, as you would find on small lorries, older 4x4's, cheap pick-up trucks like the Toyota Hilux etc.

This might be cheap, low-tech and durable....but has nothing to do with 'sports-car handling'.

BUT as Likwid has pointed out already, the Corvette has modern fully independent suspension and a modern, albeit unconventional transverse composite leaf spring.
Top Gear is a very entertaining show, but they're really not that smart when it comes to the techy stuff. I remember Richard driving the Maybach:
"I'm not gonna bore you by telling you what torque is if you don't know....cause I can't explain...but I tell ya: 900 [newtonmeters] is a LOT"

btw... I thought solid rear axle would improve handling because the rear suspension would be stiff and I think you get better performance from zero and when u drop gears because since there are no springs in the rear... the car doesn't sit when you floor it... it just stays pretty much flat

Hold on, a car HAS to have suspension or it would be launched into the air when hitting even the smallest bump at speed. The solid rear axle on the Mustang has coil springs, shocks and some control arms to keep the axle in place.