Ask the Car People.SM


Ford Mustang (2005 and Newer)

2921 messages,  Last post on Nov 24, 2012 at 7:28 PM

You are in the Ford Mustang Forum.

What is this discussion about? Ford Mustang, Coupe

Messages Page 119 of 293

#1172 of 2921 baggs32 by rorr

Jun 02, 2005 (10:36 am)

"I personally don't think we'll see the Duratec35 in the Mustang until a mid-cycle refresh. Given Ford's new refresh strategy that will probably be somewhere around 2008-2010."
 
I agree, but for a different reason. Ford has no need to offer any real improvements of this nature to a car which is already selling, and will continue to sell, as well as the Mustang. However, other cars in their lineup DO need real improvements to increase sales (Ford 500).
 
Put the new Duratec35 where sales need a boost. That won't be the Mustang for a few years.

#1173 of 2921 Re: baggs32 [rorr] by akirby

Jun 02, 2005 (10:43 am)

Replying to: rorr (Jun 02, 2005 10:36 am)
The only reason I could see them making the switch early is for fuel mileage and CAFE compliance. Otherwise I think it will be a few years, as stated.

#1174 of 2921 Re: baggs32 [rorr] by baggs32

Jun 02, 2005 (12:48 pm)

Replying to: rorr (Jun 02, 2005 10:36 am)
I agree, but for a different reason. Ford has no need to offer any real improvements of this nature to a car which is already selling, and will continue to sell, as well as the Mustang. However, other cars in their lineup DO need real improvements to increase sales (Ford 500).
 
That's actually exactly what I was getting at in a more round about way. As I stated before other vehicles which are more in need will be getting it first (I also forgot to include the Freestyle, Montego, Zephyr, and Milan in that post). The Mustang certainly does not need it right now or in the foreseeable future. The 5-speed ATX definitely helps at the pump and the possibility of a 6-speed ATX (partnered with GM) lessens the need for the 3.5 even more.
 
You can probably factor in the Explorer engine as well. I think it will still base as the 4.0L so something else will have to keep that factory going until it changes. Just a thought.

#1175 of 2921 Re: baggs32 [baggs32] by akirby

Jun 02, 2005 (1:41 pm)

Replying to: baggs32 (Jun 02, 2005 12:48 pm)
The 6 speed transmission co-developed with GM is a FWD automatic, not a RWD manual.
 
Not applicable to the Mustang platform.

#1176 of 2921 Mustang sales figures by martin3

Jun 02, 2005 (6:11 pm)

Looks like 05-Mustang numbers have been going wild according to this article.
 
http://blueovalnews.com/2005/products/rozzi.mustangmadness01jn05.htm
 
Why does FORD not go for plant expansion or increase production some more? They did it back in 1964.5. why can't they do it again? Maybe they need Lee back to help??

#1177 of 2921 Re: Mustang sales figures [martin3] by sonicblucrisis

Jun 02, 2005 (6:59 pm)

Replying to: martin3 (Jun 02, 2005 6:11 pm)
Didn't they already mark 2 production increases since intro? Ford's web site cites increases in production of 80,000 cars over 2004 numbers. I wonder how much the Mustang's popularity has exceeded Ford exec's expectations?
Adding production is a lot more complicated than just adding another shift at the factory. I would rather they keep quality up rather than slap a few more "numbers" together.
That being said, Ford, can you build mine now?? Sonic Blue please!

#1178 of 2921 Slush 6 by baggs32

Jun 03, 2005 (5:16 am)

The 6 speed transmission co-developed with GM is a FWD automatic, not a RWD manual.
 
I know it's not an MTX (and I didn't say that, did I?) but I thought it was going to be flexible enough to be used in FWD, AWD, and RWD applications. With slight modifications of course. Is that impossible?
 
This article hints at future versions near the bottom but I guess they have not been developed yet.

#1179 of 2921 Re: Mustang sales figures [sonicblucrisis] by graphicguy

Jun 03, 2005 (5:48 am)

Replying to: sonicblucrisis (Jun 02, 2005 6:59 pm)
Ford originally planned to make 150,000 '05 Mustangs.....a 10,000 unit increase over the '04 Mustang figures. With the demand so high, Ford cranked up the Flat Rock plant to produce somewhere around the 190,000 figure for '05 Mustangs (a whopping 50,000 unit increase over the '04s and a 40,000 unit increase over Ford's already aggressive production figure).
 
What's amazing is that the Mustang, by itself, has captured over 2.4% of the total car market in the U.S.
 
The Mustang shares the production plant with the Mazda 6. You're right about one thing, it's not an easy (nor cheap) endeavor to outfit another plant to make Mustangs. First, you have to coordinate all the suppliers (who are already strained) to make more parts for the Mustang. Then, you have to finc a suitable facility to build it, buy all the tools & dies to stamp out the parts, hire another workforce to build them, train the work force, make more engines, etc.....etc.....etc. It's not something you can do cheaply, nor quickly.
 
I agree that the Mustang has top notch build quality and I'd want to keep it that way more than I'd want to "slap them together" to increase production (even if you could increase production, which you can't).

#1180 of 2921 volume by akirby

Jun 03, 2005 (7:52 am)

The question is whether the higher production volumes can be sustained more than a few months. If so then it makes sense to increase production. But I think the belief is this is a temporary spike that will settle down after a few months. What they should do is increase the ratio of GTs if possible since that's where the shortage is right now.
 
What we don't need is for production to be increased too much so that they have to start offering incentives to move them.

#1181 of 2921 Re: Slush 6 [baggs32] by akirby

Jun 03, 2005 (7:57 am)

Replying to: baggs32 (Jun 03, 2005 5:16 am)
Not sure where the MTX came from - sorry. I don't think you can just convert a FWD tranny to RWD - I think they're totally different animals. Ford already has a RWD 6 speed automatic tranny anyway - it's the ZF unit that's used by Jaguar and in the new Navigator. Only problem there is cost. The FWD ATX probably doesn't handle a lot of torque and is therefore much cheaper.

Messages Page 119 of 293

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement