The new 2015 Mustang is dazzling...WHEN WILL MOPAR ANSWER?!?!?

-
The first (and only) NEW car I ever bought was a PT Cruiser. They had just come out and I had to wait almost 8 months before it arrived. At the time you may recall they were considered to be one of the most innovatively styled vehicles produced. Chrysler initially couldn't keep up with the demand. The PT was never marketed as a performance car. Chrysler had more or less come up with a mini minivan with fold down/removable seating that could comfortably seat 4 (5 was tight) and could double as a cargo hauler. The size made it easy to park and maneuver traffic. But it was the retro-styling that excited folks the most.

Although there are very few people today that would herald the PT as one of Chrysler's finest, it is an example of both risk taking and innovation by Ma Mopar.

The Prowler was another foray into untested waters that Chrysler took. Although it wasn't marketed as heavily as the PT Cruiser it is a car that I doubt anyone else would have tried to put into production.

The Viper is unobtainable by those with working class pocket books, but few would deny that it's in the class of supercar.

The naysayers out there are quick to point out the lack of competitiveness in the ponycar market but they neglect to acknowledge the real reason Mopars are near and dear to us. Innovation. Chrysler has dared to be different. They aren't known for stealing designs from Ford and GM.

Although NASH had produced the first unibody car clear back in 1941, they had never been mass produced until 1960 when Chrysler began doing it. Today we see that everyone else has followed. In 1984 Chrysler was the first U.S. car manufacturer to successfully market a minivan. It didn't take long for Ford and GM again to follow suit.
And it wasn't long after the PT was released when GM copied them with the HHR. Soon after that Ford decided to make their retro Thunderbird.

Most folks don't realize how many things that became common first came from Chrysler. They were the first to have:

Sealed beam headlights
Electric windshield wipers
All-electric window lifts
Built-in defroster vents
Resistor spark plugs, standard, to avoid radio interference
Two-speed windshield wipers
Padded dashboard
Ignition-key starting (instead of turning the key and pressing a button)
Tailgate window washer
Functional hood air scoop
first to have alternators standard in a civilian car
Four wheel antilock brakes
they were the first to install Electronic ignition in all of their cars in 1973
Cruise control

And these are just a few examples.

Would I still like to see them produce a kick *** ponycar? Hell YA!!
 
MOPEkidD-3 said:
Some of you guys need to pay better attention to what's going on before forming your opinions (then again I have the opposite problem ha)... In the works over the next few years is a new smaller (midsize) RWD sporty car which will feature single- and twin-turbo packages for the current Pentastar V-6 engine meaning 400+ HP no sweat, and maybe even a V8 option. Rumors are it might be called Barracuda and branded as a Chrysler but that part is still just speculation.
...
Click to expand...


I think you're one of those guys who should pay attention before spreading rumors. :)

The Barracuda has been shelved. No new rumors have surfaced on that car in months.

I'd be thrilled if you proved me wrong but I'm pretty certain that the small/RWD project is dead for now.
 
My desire for a new Mustang is gone with this model. Not only did they mess up the looks but the IRS is a deal breaker. That solid rear axle in a car capable of high 12's at 110mph for just over $30,000 WITHOUT breaking the differential like a Challenger of Camaro will running much slower times at much higher cost was the Mustang's biggest advantage. That sissy IRS was not for the people buying Mustangs but for the people selling them and for the magazine writers. The only thing more sissy than the IRS is that the automatics have a steering wheel mounted paddle shifter.
 
roycrown said:
My desire for a new Mustang is gone with this model. Not only did they mess up the looks but the IRS is a deal breaker. That solid rear axle in a car capable of high 12's at 110mph for just over $30,000 WITHOUT breaking the differential like a Challenger of Camaro will running much slower times at much higher cost was the Mustang's biggest advantage. That sissy IRS was not for the people buying Mustangs but for the people selling them and for the magazine writers. The only thing more sissy than the IRS is that the automatics have a steering wheel mounted paddle shifter.
Click to expand...

If you're only worried about straight line performance, you're basically right...
but I have been living with that Mustang solid rear axle in two GTs for the past five years now (2009 GT 5spd, 2011 GT, Brembo brake package 6spd and I can tell you, it has its limitations.

The thing with the current muscle (pony) cars is that they're also designed to handle...and while the current Mustang GT handles just as well or better than the SS and R/T (and SRT) on the race track, real world handling is a different story. The rear end of the car is very easily upset on broken pavement in a way that I did not observe in my many miles in Challenger R/Ts and my handful of miles in a Camaro SS. So in the real world, carving up back roads, the IRS in the Challenger and Camaro really help.

Second, don't believe what you read about the Mustang's axle being drag strip ready. They wheelhop terribly without some mods. My '11 GT has the summer-only Pirelli tires and you can totally forget about smoking up the tires. The stock SRA isn't as virtuous as some seem to think.

My point is that I can see why they're making the change to IRS. It has the potential to expand the performance envelope for the whole car and you're not giving up too much to get it.

FWIW, they are going to offer a bolt-in solid rear axle for the new Mustang platform. :glasses7:
 
MRGTX said:
I think you're one of those guys who should pay attention before spreading rumors. :)

The Barracuda has been shelved. No new rumors have surfaced on that car in months.

I'd be thrilled if you proved me wrong but I'm pretty certain that the small/RWD project is dead for now.
Click to expand...

Quoted from Allpar.com:


The “true” next generation 2015 Chrysler 200 has a Chrysler 2.4 four-cylinder and 3.6 liter V6 with optional AWD (200C/200S only, V6 required), with a standard nine-speed ZF automatic. Top fuel mileage is expected to be 35 mpg with the four (highway) and appears to be around 31 mpg with the V6.
Dodge Avenger now seems to be moving to a rear wheel drive version of the midsized cars, which it will share with an Alfa Romeo and SRT Barracuda (which we think will just be called Avenger after all). The rear wheel drive midsized setup was reportedly approved in early 2013.

RVC wrote, echoing other sources, “This new D architecture is a joint project, developed in Detroit with permanently embedded Fiat engineers ... Having a RWD D-segment architecture is costly, and took two years of tinkering between finance and marketing ... E-Evo was discarded [for this purpose, in 2012].”
Thus, we now expect Dodge Avenger to be a rear wheel drive four-door sedan and SRT Barracuda-or-Avenger to be a limited production coupe, powered by a 6.2 liter supercharged Hemi, sharing with an Alfa Romeo coupe and hatch. These are due for model year 2016 (which could mean production will start in 2015 or early 2016). The supercharged Hemi V8, dubbed HellCat, is now said to be pushing 680 horsepower.


Sounds pretty certain to me... I'm stoked :supz:
 
1967 'cuda said:
The first (and only) NEW car I ever bought was a PT Cruiser. They had just come out and I had to wait almost 8 months before it arrived. At the time you may recall they were considered to be one of the most innovatively styled vehicles produced. Chrysler initially couldn't keep up with the demand. The PT was never marketed as a performance car. Chrysler had more or less come up with a mini minivan with fold down/removable seating that could comfortably seat 4 (5 was tight) and could double as a cargo hauler. The size made it easy to park and maneuver traffic. But it was the retro-styling that excited folks the most.

Although there are very few people today that would herald the PT as one of Chrysler's finest, it is an example of both risk taking and innovation by Ma Mopar.

The Prowler was another foray into untested waters that Chrysler took. Although it wasn't marketed as heavily as the PT Cruiser it is a car that I doubt anyone else would have tried to put into production.

The Viper is unobtainable by those with working class pocket books, but few would deny that it's in the class of supercar.

The naysayers out there are quick to point out the lack of competitiveness in the ponycar market but they neglect to acknowledge the real reason Mopars are near and dear to us. Innovation. Chrysler has dared to be different. They aren't known for stealing designs from Ford and GM.

Although NASH had produced the first unibody car clear back in 1941, they had never been mass produced until 1960 when Chrysler began doing it. Today we see that everyone else has followed. In 1984 Chrysler was the first U.S. car manufacturer to successfully market a minivan. It didn't take long for Ford and GM again to follow suit.
And it wasn't long after the PT was released when GM copied them with the HHR. Soon after that Ford decided to make their retro Thunderbird.

Most folks don't realize how many things that became common first came from Chrysler. They were the first to have:

Sealed beam headlights
Electric windshield wipers
All-electric window lifts
Built-in defroster vents
Resistor spark plugs, standard, to avoid radio interference
Two-speed windshield wipers
Padded dashboard
Ignition-key starting (instead of turning the key and pressing a button)
Tailgate window washer
Functional hood air scoop
first to have alternators standard in a civilian car
Four wheel antilock brakes
they were the first to install Electronic ignition in all of their cars in 1973
Cruise control

And these are just a few examples.

Would I still like to see them produce a kick *** ponycar? Hell YA!!
Click to expand...

You mean PT LOSER I owned one and it was the biggest piece of junk know to mankind
 
dodge71demon said:
You mean PT LOSER I owned one and it was the biggest piece of junk know to mankind
Click to expand...

That's why I stated that very few people (if any) would ever look back at it and say it was one of Chrysler's finest. I had a number of complaints about mine. It bothered me that the larger minivan was capable of hauling more with more power and got 50% better gas mileage. The back roof sail panels(?) really obstructed the driver's view out back. Mine had a tendency to have the glovebox latches break (and I didn't abuse them). The rear shock design was awful. Access to the engine compartment was almost nonexistent. My fog light switch never did work correctly. My door handle buttons constantly gummed up.

But I did like the multi-purpose nature of the design. I did like the general small car handling ability without really feeling you were in such a small car. People might appreciate the the retro styling more today if the car had been a true limited production vehicle. I've owned mine for 14 years without any major mechanical issues. No it's definitely far from being a great car but my personal experiences with it weren't so bad.
 
roycrown said:
My desire for a new Mustang is gone with this model. Not only did they mess up the looks but the IRS is a deal breaker. That solid rear axle in a car capable of high 12's at 110mph for just over $30,000 WITHOUT breaking the differential like a Challenger of Camaro will running much slower times at much higher cost was the Mustang's biggest advantage. That sissy IRS was not for the people buying Mustangs but for the people selling them and for the magazine writers. The only thing more sissy than the IRS is that the automatics have a steering wheel mounted paddle shifter.
Click to expand...

Shelby was screaming for an IRS back in '06. The second gen GT500 was a nose heavy turd and tended to plow into corners. The IRS, in Shelby's engineering, would have lent a better balance and gotten the car to actually corner. But what does Shelby know? :roll:

As for the live axle's advantage, I've seen a lot slower Mustang GT's rated at 300 horse with just a few power add-on's rip the snot out of 8.8's. Rebuilt quite a few of 'em when I was at Ford.
 
The 2015 stang IMO is UGLY. Not into fords much but the 2011-2014 mustang is beautiful. Though small and uncomfortable (I'm 6'2). The challenger is a better looking, more comfortable car. But I guess I'm biased...here's my dads 70.

Posted via Topify on Android
 

Attachments

  • topify_1404840428156.jpg
    33.6 KB · Views: 173
73 340 said:
The 2015 stang IMO is UGLY. Not into fords much but the 2011-2014 mustang is beautiful. Though small and uncomfortable (I'm 6'2). The challenger is a better looking, more comfortable car. But I guess I'm biased...here's my dads 70.

Posted via Topify on Android
Click to expand...

My first reaction is to begrudgingly say that we all suffer from the same problem. - We are so in love with the styling of the cars from the 60s and 70s that we're biased against change. But then when I drive one of our old cars around and see the reaction that (even) little kids have, it makes me think that there really IS something better looking about that style.

I tend to agree 100% with your feelings 73 340. - And I think it's the reason why I wasn't too big of a fan of the new Camaros. They just didn't get the right look.
 
The more I've looked at pictures of the newer cars, the more it seems to me that they have been evolving into rice grinder wannabees. American cars (especially American muscle cars) have always had a uniquely American look. Our cars tended to be bigger because our roads were bigger. Although aerodynamics were important we didn't sacrifice style past a certain point. Everything tends to resemble a football today. - Very swoopy lines that I'm sure slip through the air much easier.

Although this is a Mopar site, there are a lot of folks here that really liked what Ford had done with their retro styling on the last generation Mustang. Far fewer seem to like the 2015. Why? - Probably because the 2015 has lost more of it's 'American musclecar' look and moved further towards the Euro-sportscar style.

I'm sure that there are folks here that do like the new Dart but I feel they failed to capture the musclecar image we had hoped for on that one.

Personally I'd take a 2014 Mustang over the new one and regardless of performance statistics the new Challenger has had the right look. If they make it the fastest car out there but ugly it up, I'd never want to own one.
 
..you may have a point there..but with all non asian car companies..

My neighbour has a Porsche whatever convertible in orange and every time it see it I think "ricer"..

btw, I started disliking the look of the mustangs after '09...
 
1967 'cuda said:
The first (and only) NEW car I ever bought was a PT Cruiser. They had just come out and I had to wait almost 8 months before it arrived. At the time you may recall they were considered to be one of the most innovatively styled vehicles produced. Chrysler initially couldn't keep up with the demand. The PT was never marketed as a performance car. Chrysler had more or less come up with a mini minivan with fold down/removable seating that could comfortably seat 4 (5 was tight) and could double as a cargo hauler. The size made it easy to park and maneuver traffic. But it was the retro-styling that excited folks the most.

Although there are very few people today that would herald the PT as one of Chrysler's finest, it is an example of both risk taking and innovation by Ma Mopar.

The Prowler was another foray into untested waters that Chrysler took. Although it wasn't marketed as heavily as the PT Cruiser it is a car that I doubt anyone else would have tried to put into production.

The Viper is unobtainable by those with working class pocket books, but few would deny that it's in the class of supercar.

The naysayers out there are quick to point out the lack of competitiveness in the ponycar market but they neglect to acknowledge the real reason Mopars are near and dear to us. Innovation. Chrysler has dared to be different. They aren't known for stealing designs from Ford and GM.

Although NASH had produced the first unibody car clear back in 1941, they had never been mass produced until 1960 when Chrysler began doing it. Today we see that everyone else has followed. In 1984 Chrysler was the first U.S. car manufacturer to successfully market a minivan. It didn't take long for Ford and GM again to follow suit.
And it wasn't long after the PT was released when GM copied them with the HHR. Soon after that Ford decided to make their retro Thunderbird.

Most folks don't realize how many things that became common first came from Chrysler. They were the first to have:

Sealed beam headlights
Electric windshield wipers
All-electric window lifts
Built-in defroster vents
Resistor spark plugs, standard, to avoid radio interference
Two-speed windshield wipers
Padded dashboard
Ignition-key starting (instead of turning the key and pressing a button)
Tailgate window washer
Functional hood air scoop
first to have alternators standard in a civilian car
Four wheel antilock brakes
they were the first to install Electronic ignition in all of their cars in 1973
Cruise control

And these are just a few examples.

Would I still like to see them produce a kick *** ponycar? Hell YA!!
Click to expand...

chrysler came out with the first 4 wheel disk brakes also. no it wasnt the corvettes in the 1960's. it was chrysler. in 1949...
 
roycrown said:
The only thing more sissy than the IRS is that the automatics have a steering wheel mounted paddle shifter.
Click to expand...

paddle shift on the wheel is not sissy. rofl.

it was designed by F1 racers to improve shift control as they ease into corners at 150mph and leave those corners at max power
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top