2021 MUSTANG (S650) - 7th Generation Mustang Confirmed

[Nameless]

I'm sure the base GT will be rated at 500hp by then. As far as weight goes, 3400lbs wouldn't be crazy.

3400 would still be a 300lb cut over the current Mustang GT which in my opinion I don’t see it very likely and almost impossible) with it’s current size.

Sponsored

 

[MadCow]

Taking a page out of the Foxbody Playbook isn't a bad idea. Its a car that has converted the most die hard chevy guys to race a ford. That and they couldnt beat em.... But it just goes to show how good and how affordable the Foxbody was/is.

 

[EJS2016]

IMHO...I believe the overall size, dimensions and weight of next generation Mustang could and should be relatively comparable to specifications the of the ‘65-‘68 models.

The ‘65-‘66 cars offered a compact front end design with relatively little overhang.
The ‘67-‘68 models offered a real fastback roofline...while front end dimensions and overhang increased to accommodate the FE 390.

I’m certainly not an automotive engineer or designer, but I can’t imagine why the next generation Mustang could not combine a more compact and tidy front end appearance with a true fastback roofline...to. maintain the classic Mustang long hood / short deck DNA.
I understand there crash test standards and performance/reliabilty variables like cooling to consider and achieve.

Other than that, I’m not suggesting any kind of retro-type design, but rather body lines shapes and proportions that project an very purposeful and powerful presence on the street, riding on a longer and maybe wider wheelbase with wheels out at the four corners.
But, unmistakably a Mustang.
3450-3600 lbs
NA 4.7L (289 did) Coyote for GT
EB 4.7L for GT500?

My .02 cents

 

[MX5NDriver]

I was really hoping a lighter all around platform was being developed. I prefer light and nimble but always wish for more powoar!

I’m still eagerly looking for a mustang, I have always been a fan yet never owned one.

I wills just keep driving my heavily modified 16 MX5 club in the meantime ; )

Although I might consider the new MKIV FoRS when it comes out.

Cheers

 

[Twin Turbo]

I doubt they would abandon the 2+2 design, that's a key criteria for a mustang. I think the Supra is going to be a 2+2 as well

Yes, the “yet to be launched” Supra. The Mustang was going to continue being a 2+2 Car.... but having a (just guessing, however in the same ballpark) 100-102 in wheelbase and a length of around 180 in.

Hmm, the BRZ is a 2+2 as well, but not a very usable one.

I certainly don't mind them shaving an inch or two here and there, but I think a drastic change like that would put many people off buying one, me included.

Anyway, sounds like that's not happening now

 

[DrGrabster]

If Ford made the next Mustang a little titchy thing there is no way I'd buy one. There are plenty of squity little sports cars around to choose from.

Given a choice between a midget Mustang and a Jaguar I'd choose a Jaguar.

That is Jag, you, argh, not Jag, waar.

 

[Topnotch]

UPV = Some sort of Prototype Vehicle
PA = Program Approval
FAA = Final Appearance Approval
FDJ = Final Data Adjustment
VP = Verification Prototypes
PEC = Preliminary Engineering Completion
FEC = Final Engineering Completion
LR = Launch Readiness
TT = Tooling trials
LS = Launch Sign-of
PP = Pilot Production
J1 = Job 1 / Start of Production
MP = Mass production

 

[Nameless]

UPV = Some sort of Prototype Vehicle
PA = Program Approval
FAA = Final Appearance Approval
FDJ = Final Data Adjustment
VP = Verification Prototypes
PEC = Preliminary Engineering Completion
FEC = Final Engineering Completion
LR = Launch Readiness
TT = Tooling trials
LS = Launch Sign-of
PP = Pilot Production
J1 = Job 1 / Start of Production
MP = Mass production

This “timeline” just changed a few months ago (for example VP phase won’t be called like that anymore) since Ford is now using a new “system” (let’s call it like that) however this terms are very accurate.

So... I remember a few months ago that someone in here (was it you TopNotch?) said that tooling trials (TT) will be on the fourth quarter of this year and that VP Happened on the first quarter of the year. Thanks to that we know what we are looking at right now.

 

[Topnotch]

PEC and FEC are supposed to have finished up... for first CD6's...dunno if Mustang was part of that batch

 

[Spork3245]

If Ford made the next Mustang a little titchy thing there is no way I'd buy one. There are plenty of squity little sports cars around to choose from.

Given a choice between a midget Mustang and a Jaguar I'd choose a Jaguar.

That is Jag, you, argh, not Jag, waar.

If you’re referring to the F-Type, I love that car, but it’s by no means “little”.

 

[Nameless]

PEC and FEC are supposed to have finished up... for first CD6's...dunno if Mustang was part of that batch

Sorry, wrong thread hahaha (I was thinking in the S550 GT500).

I guess that by “for first CD6’s” you mean the Explorer and Aviator.

 

[jake_zx2]

Once the car is out I guess more people will be able to speak about this and give us a more detailed information and yes, I meant the upcoming Z4 based Supra. The purpose of all of this was to reduce weight (by offering a significantly smaller Mustang). The plan was to reduce the size and move to the next segment below the mustang (proportions-wise). Let’s say keeping the proportions of a Foxbody Mustang or a 2+2 300ZX.

Why was your brother disappointed?

Now, this may sound like a Doomsday-esque attitude (I haven't been able to help myself ever since they put Hackett in charge), but when I read "reduce weight", "significantly smaller mustang", and "next segment below the mustang", I read it as "no more V8, too big and heavy". Especially if we're going into the FRS/Supra/Z segment, theres no need for much more than 400hp (which could easily be achieved by a EB 2.3/hybrid powertrain).

I truly don't understand why they don't keep the mustang a grand tourer to compete with the M3/M4 and make a Thunderbird to compete in the FRS/Supra/Z segment. Or maybe make that segment something like a new Probe (albeit RWD) or, for a less (is "disgraceful" the word I'm looking for?) head nod to a prior 2+2 sporty economy coupe, "ZX2", and save the Thunderbird name for a Vette fighter. But hey, guess that's why I'm not one of the execs :shrug:

I find that my thoughts on a Lincoln Coupe apply to a lot of potential markets for ford; High hopes, low expectations

 

[Falc'man]

I had similar thoughts, too, Jake, except there was always the talk of the hybrid V8, and that was directly from Ford.

One thing I don't understand is, in light of the recent information relating to Focus' platform - that it is quite scalable, and that it can cater for vehicles ranging in size from the Fiesta to the Edge - why can't D6 have the same flexibility? It could very well be just as flexible so I'm not sure how to interpret the motives behind this direction. There could be another reason besides weight to keep them from moving it to D6. As mentioned earlier, this platform as a stand alone isn't economically sensible therefore I'm expecting it to expand and be shared with to other vehicles.

 

[Nameless]

Now, this may sound like a Doomsday-esque attitude (I haven't been able to help myself ever since they put Hackett in charge), but when I read "reduce weight", "significantly smaller mustang", and "next segment below the mustang", I read it as "no more V8, too big and heavy". Especially if we're going into the FRS/Supra/Z segment, theres no need for much more than 400hp (which could easily be achieved by a EB 2.3/hybrid powertrain).

Now if you ask me, I think that was Hackett's decision to "Stop that project" (in case that ever happened). In my opinion a smaller 3300lb "SN95 Sized" Mustang using the Coyote engine (with the 480HP "Bullitt Output" that wouldn't surprise me if they use it as the baseline output) would be fantastic but I'm pretty sure that Hackett saw that as a "risky project" that involved a lot of money..... so, I tried to think like him and this is my conclusion:

Why bother in making a "revolutionary" change in the Mustang that requires A LOT of money invested if I can just refresh/update the current succesful design? I mean, I already have the best selling coupe in the world (for third straight year). No, we don't need that... let's just leave the Mustang image and proportions "as it is" and focus on releasing more SUV's since that's where the money lies...

However I get your point. I guess they would have decided a lineup something like this:
2.3 Ecoboost with 310HP (Base model)
3.0 Ecoboost with 400HP (GT variant)
5.0 NA with 480HP (Boss or Mach1 Variant)
3.5 EB with 600+HP (GT500)
aaaaand the hybrid 2.3L that I don't know what kind of output it could have.

(I know, I'm just dreaming)

I truly don't understand why they don't keep the mustang a grand tourer to compete with the M3/M4 and make a Thunderbird to compete in the FRS/Supra/Z segment. Or maybe make that segment something like a new Probe (albeit RWD) or, for a less (is "disgraceful" the word I'm looking for?) head nod to a prior 2+2 sporty economy coupe, "ZX2", and save the Thunderbird name for a Vette fighter. But hey, guess that's why I'm not one of the execs :shrug:

I find that my thoughts on a Lincoln Coupe apply to a lot of potential markets for ford; High hopes, low expectations

It would be cool to leave the mustang as it is and have a Thunderbird as a "Corvette Fighter" (at least in lower tirms) and a new compact/subcompact RWD based coupe, I'm thinking something like what it used to be the (awfully looking) Ford Puma with both 1.6 and 2.0L Ecoboost available.

 

[jake_zx2]

Now if you ask me, I think that was Hackett's decision to "Stop that project" (in case that ever happened). In my opinion a smaller 3300lb "SN95 Sized" Mustang using the Coyote engine (with the 480HP "Bullitt Output" that wouldn't surprise me if they use it as the baseline output) would be fantastic but I'm pretty sure that Hackett saw that as a "risky project" that involved a lot of money..... so, I tried to think like him and this is my conclusion:

Why bother in making a "revolutionary" change in the Mustang that requires A LOT of money invested if I can just refresh/update the current succesful design? I mean, I already have the best selling coupe in the world (for third straight year). No, we don't need that... let's just leave the Mustang image and proportions "as it is" and focus on releasing more SUV's since that's where the money lies...

I agree that it was probably Hackett's decision, I just meant that as in "the mustang's future is EXTREMELY unpredictable with him in charge". I agree that a smaller (maybe a bit bigger than supra-sized, more along the lines of an M4, but a touch smaller) mustang with a 480hp 5.0 would be incredible. However, there are a couple of issues with that;
1. we would either have to sacrifice interior space, i.e. usable back seats, or have to give up the classic long nose design of the car
2. there would be no real segment for that car to compete in

I think we were looking more along the lines of "ditch the V8, boost the output of the EB power plant to match the supra's 335ish hp, and offer a higher output hybrid option". That would also explain why Farruko's brother was so disappointed.

However I get your point. I guess they would have decided a lineup something It would be cool to leave the mustang as it is and have a Thunderbird as a "Corvette Fighter" (at least in lower tirms) and a new compact/subcompact RWD based coupe, I'm thinking something like what it used to be the (awfully looking) Ford Puma with both 1.6 and 2.0L Ecoboost available.

If I could have it my way, that's exactly how I would want to go...

M4 sized grand tourer with a high revving 480hp V8 to compete with camaro/challenger, Lincoln sedan and coupe version to compete with M3/M4 (mustang)
Corvette sized FR (or maybe MR) layout roadster with a coupe option (Thunderbird)
FRS sized RWD 2+2, possibly with a convertible option, running a 2.0EB and having a hybrid option to compete with Supra and 370Z or next generation Z (maybe it could be a new Falcon, since the original was a sporty compact 2+2)

Sponsored