[TRZ06]

Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium

Eh, the current Mustang is only 1 year older than the Camaro. Between the two, I'd argue the Camaro is more long in the tooth because it looks so much like the 5th gen. Most people can't even tell the 5th and 6th gens apart.

The S550 chassis has varying levels for varying price points. GT350 level chassis is very good by all accounts AFAIK.

I prefer the Mustang interior styling, but the Camaro interior looks cool as well, if not eccentric with some things. Obviously, styling is subjective.

That said, I like them both and neither IMO are long in the tooth yet.

I'd say the Challenger and Charger are "long in the tooth" considering how old they are...but they still look good in SRT forms (392 and Hellcats).

Yes, but the Alpha chassis was ahead of its time and is STILL a class leader for driving dynamics. That can't be said for the Mustang.

Even in GT350 & GT350R form, it goes about its business in a more rude way and isn't as sophisticated as the Alpha chassis. The Alpha chassis is so well behaved and smooth around the edges and just instills driver confidence when pushing it hard.

[Mountain]

The Alpha vs. S550 debate comes down to this:

>The S550 platform is a bespoke RWD platform for the Mustang, compromised by cost due to that and in respect to it's market segment/price point. Because of this, it has to use cheaper materials/cheaper to process materials, meaning more steel. The rear suspension takes a page out of Ford's pre-existing SUV IRS book - which is not designed for high performance dynamics in mind (more ride and comfort, cost and simplicity thing). The front suspension is nothing that particular to the S550 and benchmarked to many other cars (BMW, Mercedes, Camaro, etc). Rolling chassis compared to rolling chassis, the Alpha and S550 are more-less equals.

>The Alpha platform is a RWD platform specifically designed for sporty, performance and luxury vehicles and not bespoke to one car model (ATS, CTS, Camaro). The platform is not a compromise and designed, specifically, ground up for the purpose. There is extensive use of various alloys and composites to help with light-weighting and extra bracing to help overall package stiffening. The suspension (front and rear) is an evolution away from the Zeta platform stuff (Commodore, Caprice, 5th Gen Camaro) and a benchmark with BMW and Mercedes (front and rear).

The S550 is not a bad platform, but it is compromised more due to the pressures of the Mustang being a vehicle very different than the rest of Fords (less accruing of costs and pressure to a price point).

[shaffe]

I think that is a very fair and honest assessment ^

Back on topic to Mach 1. I had this thought while driving into work this morning. I am sure I will be in the minority here but I think Ford should have put/offered a version of the 3.5 HO in the Mach 1.

[crysalis_01]

Originally Posted by shaffe

I think that is a very fair and honest assessment ^

Back on topic to Mach 1. I had this thought while driving into work this morning. I am sure I will be in the minority here but I think Ford should have put/offered a version of the 3.5 HO in the Mach 1.

I've been saying this for a while. And actually the cyclone 3.5 was designed to be opened up to as much as 4.0L from the factory. With that displacement bump, they could differentiate it from other EB's while not having to develop a new mill from scratch.

Tune it to an easily achievable 525hp/560tq. This would give an output more inline with the GT to Shelby "bridge" slot. It would also help to cement the EB nameplate with Mustang even more.

Add to that that it would be a nice way to test the waters and see the take rate. If interest were high enough it would show that most would be ready for a V6EB to replace the V8 in GT. Let's face it it's gonna happen eventually. Why not ease into it?

And I'm not saying axe the V8, just keep it for the top tier HiPo models.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by crysalis_01

I've been saying this for a while. And actually the cyclone 3.5 was designed to be opened up to as much as 4.0L from the factory. With that displacement bump, they could differentiate it from other EB's while not having to develop a new mill from scratch.

Tune it to an easily achievable 525hp/560tq. This would give an output more inline with the GT to Shelby "bridge" slot. It would also help to cement the EB nameplate with Mustang even more.

Add to that that it would be a nice way to test the waters and see the take rate. If interest were high enough it would show that most would be ready for a V6EB to replace the V8 in GT. Let's face it it's gonna happen eventually. Why not ease into it?

And I'm not saying axe the V8, just keep it for the top tier HiPo models.

I honestly am surprised they haven't I mean they have put the 3.5 in literally almost everything else so it seems to be fairly easy (relatively speaking) to configure it to a certain type of vehicle.

Only thing I can think of is is they know it would/could outperform the 5.0 and that would upset the got to have my V-8 crowd. That to me is why a special model like Mach-1 would have been perfect guinea pig

[Mountain]

Originally Posted by shaffe

I honestly am surprised they haven't I mean they have put the 3.5 in literally almost everything else so it seems to be fairly easy (relatively speaking) to configure it to a certain type of vehicle.

Only thing I can think of is is they know it would/could outperform the 5.0 and that would upset the got to have my V-8 crowd. That to me is why a special model like Mach-1 would have been perfect guinea pig

A TT V6 Mustang would've been a very popular vehicle for sure!

Would've rather seen that than the Mach 1 and EB PP2 combined.

Actually... they should have done the GT500 that way! Basically the GT500 as is, but replace the SC 5.2L with a TT V6. I know Ford looked at a TT 5.0L, but it didn't make sense packaging wise. You can argue, "Hey! A GT500 is supposed to be V8 and the high-power version!". Well, Mustang is also now an electric SUV... in the name of being "evolutionary". I think a DCT + TT V6 is more evolutionary than a DCT + same-song-and-dance-SC V8.

TT V6 vs. SC 5.2L V8:
-More space for engine cooling
-Lighter on the nose/easier on front tires
-Probably similar weight to the GT350
-Ability to make good power (maybe better HP/weight than GT500)
-"Cool-Factor"/exclusivity of a high performance American sports coupe with TT and DCT.
-A lot of the base engineering/lessons learned already done (i.e. SHO and ST models; Focus ST Grand-AM race car).

[oldman]

Originally Posted by DaveC113

Mach1 seems like what PP2 should have been, if the price is significantly lower vs GT350 it seems like a good idea. If it's closer to GT350 and ZR1 pricing then maybe not, but Ford seems to have no issues selling special edition Mustangs even if the price seems high.

Originally Posted by Mountain

The Alpha vs. S550 debate comes down to this:

>The S550 platform is a bespoke RWD platform for the Mustang, compromised by cost due to that and in respect to it's market segment/price point. Because of this, it has to use cheaper materials/cheaper to process materials, meaning more steel. The rear suspension takes a page out of Ford's pre-existing SUV IRS book - which is not designed for high performance dynamics in mind (more ride and comfort, cost and simplicity thing). The front suspension is nothing that particular to the S550 and benchmarked to many other cars (BMW, Mercedes, Camaro, etc). Rolling chassis compared to rolling chassis, the Alpha and S550 are more-less equals.

>The Alpha platform is a RWD platform specifically designed for sporty, performance and luxury vehicles and not bespoke to one car model (ATS, CTS, Camaro). The platform is not a compromise and designed, specifically, ground up for the purpose. There is extensive use of various alloys and composites to help with light-weighting and extra bracing to help overall package stiffening. The suspension (front and rear) is an evolution away from the Zeta platform stuff (Commodore, Caprice, 5th Gen Camaro) and a benchmark with BMW and Mercedes (front and rear).

The S550 is not a bad platform, but it is compromised more due to the pressures of the Mustang being a vehicle very different than the rest of Fords (less accruing of costs and pressure to a price point).

[RobbyBeefcake87]

Originally Posted by shaffe

I think that is a very fair and honest assessment ^

Back on topic to Mach 1. I had this thought while driving into work this morning. I am sure I will be in the minority here but I think Ford should have put/offered a version of the 3.5 HO in the Mach 1.

Somehow I don't hate that idea.. Especially being that Ford has really been pushing the ecoboost engines.. would have been a great bridge between GT and Shelby power, plus the after market potential would have been huge.

Having said that I'm a sucker for a v8 so the 480hp 5.0 is still pretty great.

[oldman]

I agree, and make it better looking. I just can't take the two funnels in the grill and the cheap chicken wire overall.

[TheRealJA105]

Originally Posted by RobbyBeefcake87

Somehow I don't hate that idea.. Especially being that Ford has really been pushing the ecoboost engines.. would have been a great bridge between GT and Shelby power, plus the after market potential would have been huge.

Having said that I'm a sucker for a v8 so the 480hp 5.0 is still pretty great.

Yeah I'm a big V8 guy and I really love the beautiful sounds the Coyotes and Voodoos make, but I am surprised they haven't thrown that Raptor motor in a Mustang yet also. I'm sure it's coming with the next generation.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by RobbyBeefcake87

Somehow I don't hate that idea.. Especially being that Ford has really been pushing the ecoboost engines.. would have been a great bridge between GT and Shelby power, plus the after market potential would have been huge.

Having said that I'm a sucker for a v8 so the 480hp 5.0 is still pretty great.

Originally Posted by TheRealJA105

Yeah I'm a big V8 guy and I really love the beautiful sounds the Coyotes and Voodoos make, but I am surprised they haven't thrown that Raptor motor in a Mustang yet also. I'm sure it's coming with the next generation.

Agree. If I was in the market and they had the 3.5EB in the Mustang and the 5.0 I would probably lean 5.0 just for the sound and V-8 but I would have to think long and hard about that

[RobbyBeefcake87]

Originally Posted by TheRealJA105

Yeah I'm a big V8 guy and I really love the beautiful sounds the Coyotes and Voodoos make, but I am surprised they haven't thrown that Raptor motor in a Mustang yet also. I'm sure it's coming with the next generation.

For sure, we may not like it but at some point in the near future the death of the v8 may be coming and a tt v6 isn't a bad 2nd option.

The twin turbo v6 worked well on the ats v. A mustang with a raptor engine's 510lbs of torque would be a fun ride.

[IOMike]

I like the Mach 1, without the handling package. With it, it gets a little over the top for my tastes. Mach1 is my favorite s550 mustang to date. It really shows how Ford gets their customers. This is a real "special edition", where GM takes 2 years and releases a redline sticker package, or the shock and steel? GM really misses the mark when it comes to this kind of stuff. Even the 1LE, while it has the hardware lacks the swag something this has.

It boils down to this. Most GM vehicles are designed and packaged by a committee. Want something special? What's in the parts bin? Ford has far more "car guys", like FCA. The only reason the Alpha platform cars perform as well as they do is the committee said it was important.

Flame away, but team GM is losing me. I'm not gone yet, but it's started. Coming from a guy who's bought about 20 GM vehicles, 0 Fords (had work vehicles though) and 1 Chrysler. 2 imports.

[TRZ06]

Originally Posted by IOMike

I like the Mach 1, without the handling package. With it, it gets a little over the top for my tastes. Mach1 is my favorite s550 mustang to date. It really shows how Ford gets their customers. This is a real "special edition", where GM takes 2 years and releases a redline sticker package, or the shock and steel? GM really misses the mark when it comes to this kind of stuff. Even the 1LE, while it has the hardware lacks the swag something this has.

It boils down to this. Most GM vehicles are designed and packaged by a committee. Want something special? What's in the parts bin? Ford has far more "car guys", like FCA. The only reason the Alpha platform cars perform as well as they do is the committee said it was important.

Flame away, but team GM is losing me. I'm not gone yet, but it's started. Coming from a guy who's bought about 20 GM vehicles, 0 Fords (had work vehicles though) and 1 Chrysler. 2 imports.

In regards to your 1LE comments, you are not the target market for the 1LE.

The 1LE IMO was GM's best achievement. For its intended market (performance first and built right) crowd , it hits all its marks. It has all the components needed right out off the box and looks the part. You factor in its cost for performance and it doesn't get much better.

I have had mine for 2 years now and I still love it. I had the 16' M3 prior and hated it after about 3 mths. Granted I am probably in the minority, but for what I was looking for as a car/performance guy, it does not disappoint.

The Alpha chassis IS superior to the Mustang chassis. You know this if you spend any time at 9/10th 10/10ths of the limits in both and throw in some off camber corners, broken pavement mid-corner, etc. The Alpha chassis stays well sorted and composed, which gives drivers confidence. This is the target market for the 1LE

I honestly could give a rats ass of others think of my car, I buy a car for how it makes me feel when driving it, not what others think as I drive by. That fact actually works in my favor because I get a bigger discount off MSRP when I go to sign on the dotted line.

The way I see it is that GM did their homework before hand and produced a great product that didn't need much tweaking, while the others played catch up. Is that the best sales strategy, maybe not, but as a consumer that doesn't have unlimited funds to upgrade every year I would rather buy a proper performance car once.

I learned this lesson the hard way with my M3. The M3 is very similar to the Mustang approach in that regard, BMW put out a underperforming model and makes small changes to try to bandaids its shortcomings, or puts out a "special" model and jack up its price. While someone like me who can't buy a new car every year gets stuck with shit. I suffered 2.5 years until my lease was up on the M3. While a great sales tactic to screw over people, I won't be fooled again. So, for me I will take GM's approach on how they did the 1LE over how Ford does the Mustang.