TWIN TURBO, OMG OMG OMG. I skeeted all over my laptop, thanks steve. BTW, those things sound FVCKING AMAZING.

and holy shyt that things fast.

There's a concept out for the 2104 Mustang. Looks like a Camaro. I hope Ford stays true to their words and ditch the retro throwback(the current concept) and go with a more modern and sporty look.

Do You Like The New 500HP 2014 Ford Mustang? | AmericanMuscle.com Mustang Blog

hrm... I think less sportie, more beastly!

looks too much like some GM piece of shyt, do not want. Agreed with above, needs to lose the sporty look and keep with the muscular stance.

It actually isn't TT. Most likely an SC'd 5.8 liter.

:tup:

But yes, the car is hauling ***.

That gm-looking concept is ghey.

im all about it hauling bootay!

but I would like them to design a newer.. more masculine, raw power look

that burst of speed at 19 seconds :yum:

its pretty boss....


see what I did there...

Now if they can make the interior a bit nicer and not throw in all that cheap plastic I'd seriously consider buying a Mustang.

the new 5.0 had decent interior

I sat in it and was turned off. The retro look didn't help either.

i'll take 2 :D

I'll still wait for the next round of sports cars to see how Thayer are going to combine mpg with mph.

I'm with you on that. The mustang is too heavy, the 370Z is underpowered, the C6 has a junk interior, and the camaro is a whale.

All the parent companies of the above products save Nissan (I don't think anyway) have outright said the above (and we know those people don't admit to flaws or shortcomings easily, no pun or joke intended, that's just their culture). I am very excited to see what '13-'15 is going to bring to market just like you are. I think we are going to see a shake-up.

Ford might start having the #1 position in power (well, behind the 700bhp Viper that is heavily rumored to be on the way, and with good source).

GM might start trumping interiors (Audi is their bench-mark).

Ford does damn well with SRA and a bit of a piggy. If they slap in IRS and drop weight, I think it will take the mustang fully out of the muscle-car camp and put it squarely in the sports-car camp, no-matter what the 'vette fans, porscheophiles, or roadster guys what to say about it.

something I can co-sign to. :tup:

I think they are doing it with fleet averages. There is no way (right now) to give the customer what they want in a sports car economically (918 Spyder anyone? Sorry, I'm a bit poor for that...).

Cars like the Leaf and Volt are what will make it work. Then I think in the NEXT go-around we might start seeing more integration within one platform (ie hybrid powerplants, etc.)

Personally, I would not want a hybrid powerplant in my sports car. Electric motors and their components suck on the big end (highway), and they add weight. The GT-R already does 0-60 in under 3 seconds with a gas engine and nearly 4K # curb weight. I'm not worried about the "instant torque" of electric.

I'm with you on that. With the next gen Mustang dropping a minimum of 250 lbs (meaning a maximum curb weight of 3,350 lbs) and most likely gaining IRS I think it's going to be a knockout. Even more so than the current 5.0s.

The question is whether or not they get the suspension right. I'd rather have a good SRA over a mediocre IRS. Contrary to all the car rag hype IRS isn't the magic "end all, be all" that they claim. The current generation of Mustangs proves that.

I feel like GM will do the C7 right. They have to. I'm excited to see how it turns out.

The next generation Viper... I really want to see how that one works out.

The next generation Z... I fear NISSAN won't do what's necessary to make it competitive again and it will die off yet again. It's hard to justify when the 370 only sells 10k units a year (when the project was approved on the prediction of 30k a year).

I Nissan wants to sell 30k a year in Zs then they need a 4 cyl turbo like the Juke that can sell around $24k with options. Right now $30k to $40k is GT and SS prices and I don't think those are selling 30k a year without their V6s.

I disagree with the concept of a 4-cyl turbo Z. They are 6-cylinder cars, they are meant to continue that way. The problem as I see it is that they already have a 6-cyl performance car that they want people to "ooh" and "ahh" over in the GTR, so I feel they're sandbagging the Z's performance in lieu of their "budget supercar". Clearly they can make a 400-and-change-hp v6 engine, so why won't they put it in their rwd sports car?

And obviously, I'm happy with the Z experience regardless of the competition. I might be alone in that (seems that way on this site), but find me a twisty road, and I'm in heaven with this car.

I was only talking about bulk sales not performance. I agree that Nissan is keeping the Z out of "GTR" territory. So the only territory left is lower end and that lower price would also increase sales. Although a Z V6TT would increase sales it won't get them to 30k.

If they did make a 4 cly Z I wouldn't have gotten it. I still would have gotten the V6. Same if I went with the camaro or mustang; I would have gotten the GT or SS.

Well, yeah, if you want the Z to be a volume car, then you would have to make it more economical. I agree. You'd have to make it more practical for it to sell.

But that's if you want to go that direction. As far as Nissan goes, Altimas and Versas sell like hotcakes. That's their go-to for volume sales. But I think if they stuffed a warrantied TT V6 in the Z, making it come closer to GTR performance, it could compete with the Americans, and its sales in the performance category could pick up and maybe preclude them from killing it for another extended period of time. I don't know for sure, that's just my gut.

It doesn't need to be practical to be a volume car like the 350 was. You just need the right market conditions.

I want a Z that can compete with this Shelby. (nice segue, no?)

Let's get some crazy Gran Turismo tuning in a Z and have it crank 600hp with just bolt-ons :rofl2:

Edit: See, just get the power up, since the IRS in the Z will make it corner better than the SRA in the shelbystang. :rofl2:

Not sure how many 550 HP TT Zs that Nissan can sell for $48k to $60k

Again, you're bringing sales into it. I don't want the car to sell, I want it to fly. :roflpuke2:

I'm trying to veer this back onto the topic of the Shelbystang, though, honestly. That car's a monster. It's not a volume seller for Ford. It's a brute. Probably slightly below a GTR in terms of performance, although I'm open to low ring times if they should pop up.

Sales are a big part in determining if a project like the Shelbystang gets greenlighted. I would love to see an AWD Shelby to see what it can do.

Sales are a part of it, but not just the shelby's sales numbers, but more importantly the halo car effect. Much like Corvettes and GTR's, this is the car that guys salivate over that get them into the showroom, even if their wife is looking for a grocery getter. This is the car that sits there while the guy salivates over it, and his wife buys a focus or edge or what-have-you, over the similarly priced/equipped cruze/sentra or traverse/murano. The Shelby's most important feature is how it looks on paper and how it looks sitting under showroom lights. And eventually an enthusiast with more money than brains (like me, minus the money part) will come swoop it up from its place of resting.

:icon17:

^ indeed :o

They really have ruined the back end of the modern mustang. It used to have such an attractive rear end, when it was younger:


http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1105/...40093161_o.jpg

That's what happens when you get old and fat

That happened to almost all the cars. Look at a 240Z compared to a 370. As time goes by cars get bigger and bigger to comply with all the safety regs.

Those damn safety laws. Always screwing up a perfectly good sport car.

Yup. It seems like sports cars weigh at least 1,000 lbs heavier than they did when they were first introduced. The '65 Mustangs ranged from 2400-2800 lbs depending on configuration. The 240Z's were under 2400lbs.

My how the times have changed.

But they had less factory HP too.

My complaint is not directed to the size/weight as much as to the "ugly." It's just not a pretty back end. Although I realize the 60's stangs would never come close to passing modern safety tests, so it's not fair to compare them directly.

Each decade had a different design styles. Out of all the corvettes I like the '50s the most. The mustang did do the best job of getting the retro-modern look right. The camaro looks too much like they took a "future concept" drawling that had been sitting in a draw from the '60s and used it. The challenger went too retro and not enough modern.