from Autobytel.com, http://www.autobytel.com/content/shared/articles/templates/index.cfm/article_page_order_int/1/article_id_int/2385

Ford Mustang – 2009 Spy Photo: “History has a habit of repeating itself.” It's a phrase that can be applied to most any topic, though cars may be ruling this roost come the end of the decade. Just as was the case about forty years ago, the muscle car wars are heating up with Chevy Camaro and Dodge Challenger concepts readying to take on the redesigned Mustang. In preparation for modern warfare with its domestic adversaries, Ford is reportedly tweaking the ‘Stang for 2009, with a sleeker look and a GT pushing 350+ horses. Pictured here is an artist's rendering of what Ford's next Pony may look like. – Thom Blackett

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c47/BigFatGeek/09_Ford_MustangIllus_01.jpg

looks good.....

That's not spied, that's just an "artist's rendering."


-Matt

True, true - I just did the ol' copy-n-paste...

So the new Mustang will be the old Mustang compressed 20% vertically? :huh:

That rendering looks pretty much the same to me. Just different headlights...

I am sure FORD will tweak the mustang with some minor upgrades (HINT HINT FORD. How about independent rear suspension) before the Camaro hits the dealerships.

why would they put independent rear suspension? what kind of car is the mustang, a musclecar, which are know for drag racing. solid rear axels are much more durable for this. maybe IRS for the v6 models, because the people that buy them dont care so much about performance just ride quality and comfort.

Ford will most definitely get off it's lazy ass and put in an IRS on the Stang when the Camaro/Challenger launch. Using the excuse that a solid rear is better for drag racing is an excuse that is wearing really thin - espesially here in the year 2006... maybe in 1976 I would have bought that BS.

I think that rendering is too conservative - I think that Italian re-bodied Mustang that has been posted a couple of times already is a LOT closer to what it will look like... that one looked great... this one, not so much.

I am sure FORD will tweak the mustang with some minor upgrades (HINT HINT FORD. How about independent rear suspension) before the Camaro hits the dealerships.

I seriously doubt they will change the rear suspension.

And why are so many publications calling photoshops Spy photos? They need to stop the bull****.

Tom

I've also read comments stating that GM is having a hard time getting the price point in line w/Mustang specifically because of the added cost for implementing an IRS (take it for what its worth - from either R&T or MT, I forget)...

Ford will most definitely get off it's lazy ass and put in an IRS on the Stang when the Camaro/Challenger launch. Using the excuse that a solid rear is better for drag racing is an excuse that is wearing really thin - espesially here in the year 2006... maybe in 1976 I would have bought that BS.

I think that rendering is too conservative - I think that Italian re-bodied Mustang that has been posted a couple of times already is a LOT closer to what it will look like... that one looked great... this one, not so much.

you sure would think differently if you drove a high horsepowered musclecar, but you drive the exact opposite, a wrx, which are known for handling more than straight up power.

I wouldn't count on IRS for lower models. It costs more, and the Mustang is all about being the cheapest way to land yourself a rear-drive V8 coupe. All while telling yourself you weren't being cheap--you were buying an American legend.

Maybe they'll introduce a higher trim level with IRS, but I kinda doubt it will make its way into the cheaper models.

I like how the car is turning, the wheels are spinning, but the body isn't rolling heavily. Won't see that in a real photo of a Mustang! lolomfgbbqsomething...

Didn't one of the last Fox platform based SVT Cobras have an IRS on it? I could have sworn before they switched to the current style there was an IRS model.

It's kinda funny...it looks like that spy photo is channeling 69-70 Mustang in the headlights, where the current model looks more like a combo of 64-66/67-68 ones.

I think you are correct, in fact, I remember hearing about people swapping back to straight axle for better strength in high HP applications.

The previous model Cobra (~2004 whatever gen) had an IRS. Not sure about the older ones.

I know people love to hate Ford but I still think that's one of the sharpest looking cars on the road.

I know people love to hate Ford but I still think that's one of the sharpest looking cars on the road.

Yeah true...but it's styling seems to die out much quicker than other cars...maybe because you see so many of them. Plus...who wants a car everyone's sister, mom, and grandmother is driving because they "want to feel young?"

Personally I don't care what they do because you'll never catch me in one of those poorly designed American go fast in a straight line cars. I prefer foreign cars with their creative interiors and features, their ability to drive in any condition rather than just dry road conditions, and their ability to not guzzle gas...

Ford would really need to do a whole bunch of things to sway my vote. I really love the new look of the future Camaro...but we shall see what type of features it offers in comparison to its foreign competitors at the time that it is released.

If Ford was smart... they'd make the refresh look as close to this as possible...

http://images.leftlanenews.com/content/19-ford-mustang-giugiaro-concept-1.jpg

http://images.leftlanenews.com/content/14-ford-mustang-giugiaro-concept-1.jpg

http://images.leftlanenews.com/content/13-ford-mustang-giugiaro-concept-1.jpg

you sure would think differently if you drove a high horsepowered musclecar, but you drive the exact opposite, a wrx, which are known for handling more than straight up power.

:yawn:

So I guess the Vette, with it's IRS is not "high horsepowered musclecar" enough for you??

The whole lack of IRS is a total scam - the Vette has been pulling much, much more HP than most lousy Mustangs, and it has had an IRS since day one. It simply is that Ford is cheap and lazy, and doesn't have the direct competition to push them.

Also, you mention that my car is known more for handling - well, duh - the Mustang will never be know for handling if it sticks to backwards technology and doesn't improve.

What about cars like the Charger or GTO? Both high horsepower, large cars and both had IRS. And both the Camaro and Challenger will have IRS.

Not having an IRS might keep the price (slightly) slower for the Mustang, but it also contributes to making it cheap... and by 'cheap' I mean 'crap'.

so the 2009 has 20 inch wheels and thats it! what a refresh! :lol:

:yawn:

So I guess the Vette, with it's IRS is not "high horsepowered musclecar" enough for you??

The whole lack of IRS is a total scam - the Vette has been pulling much, much more HP than most lousy Mustangs, and it has had an IRS since day one. It simply is that Ford is cheap and lazy, and doesn't have the direct competition to push them.

Also, you mention that my car is known more for handling - well, duh - the Mustang will never be know for handling if it sticks to backwards technology and doesn't improve.

What about cars like the Charger or GTO? Both high horsepower, large cars and both had IRS. And both the Camaro and Challenger will have IRS.

Not having an IRS might keep the price (slightly) lower for the Mustang, but it also contributes to making it cheap... and by 'cheap' I mean 'crap'.

all the cars you listed are above and beyond the price of the mustang. Corvette is hardly a musclecar anymore. its a midlife crisis present to men with lots of money. 70000 it better be fast, reliable, and have all the bells and whistles to go with it.

Muscle cars are high-performance automobiles made primarily in Detroit from 1964 to 1974. Car manufacturers placed large V8 engines in mid-sized cars, giving them quite startling performance and setting off intense competition between manufacturers to produce the most powerful and extreme machine.
http://www.lingenfelter.com/images/8717wb.jpg:huh:

this concluding my point about the c6 NOT being a muscle car, but more of a supercar.

gto, meh, .3 seconds faster w/100 more hp. 12000 more than a gt fully loaded. the rest i wont touch because you are comparing whats not there.:confused:

and lastly all the subie fans(im one to) explain if Ford is crap, lazy and so on why is this http://www.motorsportrace.com/img-teams/wrc-ford-rally-team.jpg winning wrc? why is Ford plastered all over the WRC website? Why are they NOT constantly having problems here and there?

Ford is not retarded, they know what IRS is, its in almost every car including cobras and 90s mustangs. they choose it for a reason. the point that the mustang is inexpensive, fast , takes well to mods, and is reliable to date makes it what it is. a ture musclecar is not 60grand with all the lastest technology. its raw,fast power, that people enjoy fun to drive. lastly muscle cars are not stis. their handling is more than acceptable for what consumers need it for. i bet half the people on here cant even push their car to even close to its limits.

and lastly all the subie fans(im one to) explain if Ford is crap, lazy and so on why is this http://www.motorsportrace.com/img-teams/wrc-ford-rally-team.jpg winning wrc? why is Ford plastered all over the WRC website? Why are they NOT constantly having problems here and there?

Ford is not retarded, they know what IRS is, its in almost every car including cobras and 90s mustangs. they choose it for a reason. the point that the mustang is inexpensive, fast , takes well to mods, and is reliable to date makes it what it is. a ture musclecar is not 60grand with all the lastest technology. its raw,fast power, that people enjoy fun to drive. lastly muscle cars are not stis. their handling is more than acceptable for what consumers need it for. i bet half the people on here cant even push their car to even close to its limits.

Yeah that Focus is nice and I bet half the people on this board would contemplate purchasing one. However, Ford IS retarded BECAUSE they DON'T SELL THAT Focus HERE IN THE US and as far as we know they probably never will. So your argument is moot because as of right now what Ford's offering is garbage compared to what else is AVAILABLE on the market.

If Ford was smart... they'd make the refresh look as close to this as possible...

http://images.leftlanenews.com/content/19-ford-mustang-giugiaro-concept-1.jpg

http://images.leftlanenews.com/content/14-ford-mustang-giugiaro-concept-1.jpg

http://images.leftlanenews.com/content/13-ford-mustang-giugiaro-concept-1.jpg

:banana: :banana: :banana:

Gorgeous.

Yeah that Focus is nice and I bet half the people on this board would contemplate purchasing one. However, Ford IS retarded BECAUSE they DON'T SELL THAT Focus HERE IN THE US and as far as we know they probably never will. So your argument is moot because as of right now what Ford's offering is garbage compared to what else is AVAILABLE on the market.

my argument is showing that Ford is not crap, they produce very nice, fast cars at a good price. you can call Subaru retarded for not selling v6 STi's here in the states or sti leggy's, most people on this board will not give some product names a chance and simply talk out of their asses. Saying ford is crap is calling jaguar,aston martin, land rover(ok you got me) mazda, etc crap also.

putting a straight axel in the Mustang is arguably, the only way it stayed on projected costs, and kept a big powerplant under the hood. IRS would ad "substantial" cost, and frankly, most of the bulk buyers couldn't five a ****. (v6 auto). I think the decision in the end cost the project manager his job, despite it fueling one of the biggest mustang revivals. Point me a to a vette you can get for 25k and with 300hp. The current mustang, while not my cup of tea and in my opinion the worst sony xplod looking interior, is a great value. Now the Shelby should have had a bolt in conversion to IRS, or something.

finally an unbias answer, we're getting somewhere. theres very credible magazines backing that for a car of its price, with its power, and comfy leather seats, it is a steal and a half. honestly the starting platform isnt ideal for a "sti" handling car. starting with a smaller platform, focus, adding great looks will be a great car for those looking at wrxs, mazdaspeed3's. but saying the Mustang is to bad in its place with the new muscle cars is downright ignorant. remember, the concept of muscle cars originally was to get the most power from your buck.

I love the "gas-guzzling" argument for why people hate pony/muscle cars. My '01 6sp Z28 got better mileage than my 2.0 liter wrx... .I would be willing to bet that the new Camaro will have 400+ hp and will have better EPA ratings than the current STI.

my argument is showing that Ford is not crap, they produce very nice, fast cars at a good price. you can call Subaru retarded for not selling v6 STi's here in the states or sti leggy's, most people on this board will not give some product names a chance and simply talk out of their asses. Saying ford is crap is calling jaguar,aston martin, land rover(ok you got me) mazda, etc crap also.

Listen man...I am not arguing that Ford Motor Co. is crap. And I agree that the majority (not everyone!) on this board does splutter out junk without even thinking about the words that are coming out of their mouths and how stupid it sounds. They'll say anything made by FMC is junk, which is untrue. BUT while I do like Aston Martin, Jaguar, Land Rover, and even Mazda (love the Mazdaspeed3!), we're talking about Ford Division here and not FMC's other segments. Besides Mazda, all those other companies are in a completely different niche anyways.

All I am saying is that the offerings from Ford are very dull compared to the versatile offerings you get from other companies in the same target segment. It really all depends on taste though. I feel that overall the majority of Americans are not looking for a bare bones muscle car. However, the Impreza line appeals to a whole spew of people. Economy car people like the 2.5, people looking for more cargo room enjoy the wagon, people who want a car that is quick and handles will get the WRX, and people who want a track ready car get an STI. The Mustang is just not as versatile. It's a coupe or 2 door convertible, and no matter what speed it comes in, slow (base), fast (GT), or super fast(cobra), all other aspects of it stay the same overall...it still handles like blah and the interior is still just dull. I understand if you're looking for something different you can go buy from Mazda (basically FMC) but people in the US don't look at it that way and they expect Ford to deliver a full line of cars that meet everyones needs instead of just fitting a few segments here and there.

And there is no need for a V6 STI when they're making nearly 300HP/Torque out of a 4. That's pure mustang muscle car thinking right there.

I love the "gas-guzzling" argument for why people hate pony/muscle cars. My '01 6sp Z28 got better mileage than my 2.0 liter wrx... .I would be willing to bet that the new Camaro will have 400+ hp and will have better EPA ratings than the current STI.

X2...it had 6th gear with crazy overdrive. My friend had a 94 T/A that would get over 30 mpg on the highway if he stayed out of the throttle.

I think what's lost in most arguements was the original goal of these cars.

The Mustang wasn't a muscle car...at least not in it's inception. It was a rebodied Ford Falcon that was build to appeal looks wise (not power wise) to the younger market. With the success of the initial car, that's when GM released the Camaro and Firebird to compete. Later these cars were raced on the Trans Am circuit.

The original muscle cars were the midsize cars with fullsize motors. The cars were not meant to do anything but go fast in a straight line. That's it...hell, some muscle cars didn't even have front disc brakes.

If Ford or GM wanted to build a car that handled, I'm sure they would, but at the moment they're trying to redo the muscle/pony car. That is to look good and go fast in a straight line.

Comparing a WRX/STI/Evo to a Camaro/Mustang is an apples to oranges type arguement.

Now, I'm not defending Ford or GM or anything in my comments. My own personal experience with Ford was not a good one (My mom's Escort systematically imploded at 106K miles, even with meticulous maintenance), but who knows what their current products are. I do agree that a lot of the Ford offerings are boring, but with America's late 90's/early 2000's obsession wiht SUV's, obviously they're not going put as much effort into their cars as they would their trucks, since those were the products bolstering their bottom line.

I would LOVE to see Ford bring their performance package Falcons over here to America. I doubt the emissions laws would allow it though.

And there is no need for a V6 STI when they're making nearly 300HP/Torque out of a 4. That's pure mustang muscle car thinking right there.


alright i understand what youre saying. when i said v6 sti i meant version6 sti not a v6 engine lol. i know i would rather have a version6 sti than a 04-06 sti.

As for the bad gas milage, on a trip up to DC we got around 25mpg and we were going 100 the whole way there!

musclecars were not intended on being good handling cars either.