Waiting for Godot To Fix His (Ford) Mustang Already

Lately I’ve been reading up on the latest muscle-car wars. For those of you who don’t give a shit and would rather drive your Toyota Corollas or Honda Civics for the next 150,000 miles than deal with a real All-American car that requires major repairs every five feet (less in snowy climates) I should mention that this may not be a big deal for you, but it is a big deal for me.

Because I like the Ford Mustang.

I’ve been reading about Ford Mustangs for around five years, and from what you hear in car books you’d think that the Mustang was designed by angels and built by God himself. These car books wax rhapsodic about how the Mustang just kept beating the shit out of all of those no-good Japanese cars built by the tiny yellow men to take all our fine All-American women with blonde hair the color of an incandescent lightbulb and bodies the shape of a Coke bottle only with less room for bodily organs. The car books had might as well have come right out and said the way they really felt:

************* FORD MUSTANG HELL YEAH BITCH*************

*************The Car built for men that beats the shit out of pussies and children*************

When Lee Iacocca devised the perfect car, in 1964 1/2, he did so with a sense of duty. For he, using his incredible psychic abilities, realized the need for a car that could beat the Asians that were about to try to destroy ************* THE AMERICAN WAY ************* with their well-built, fuel-efficient, and fun-to-drive compact cars. Thus, taking only a compact Ford Falcon chassis that was about as sporting as a bison, Iacocca created the impossible: A fuel-efficient, V-6 powered compact car that possessed the quintessential American car traits: Beauty, brawn, usefulness, and handling that resembled driving a tiny bison. It was a great, ************* ALL-AMERICAN ************* moment in American history.

Whenever I read this, I thought, “HELLS YEAH MUSTANG MUSTANG MUSTANG GO AMERICA GO”, which is just what you are expected to do when you read about a car like the Mustang. Unfortunately, I stopped there. Because had I read further, I might have reconsidered, as the following passage demonstrates:

…Except Ford realized that the decent fuel-economy of the V-6 engine made the car useful and purposeful, and thus UN-AMERICAN, so they remade it into a big pig-like gas-guzzler with a big honking V-8.

Ford has a full supply of engines that can undo this. They have a 3.5 liter V-6 engine that produces more horsepower, torque, and 3 mpg more fuel economy than the Mustang’s 4.0 liter V-6. They have bigger, more powerful V-8s for those who want them. They have special suspension systems that could make it handle much better than it does. I thought they would use these engines, in spite of Motor Trend saying “Don’t expect any changes in today’s, base 4.0-liter V-6 offering, as its prime purpose is motivating low-end and rental-fleet Mustangs.”

But I still held out hope. On the optimism that things can always change, wrongs can be righted and the Big Three would acknowledge fuel prices that are currently approaching plutonium-level pricing, I kept up hope that the new Mustang would get a brand-new V-6 that did not suck ass.

Fast forward. Today I finally got to see the new Mustang. My horse in the Kentucky Derby, #5 (I always choose number five) won–twice– so I figure, hey, things be goin’ my way, time to checks out that new Stang.

This is how it looks, according to Car and Driver:

Well, OK, so a Jpeg from The Mustang Source Forums. But still.

I had visions, I was going to call my car the WolfStang and have a huge growling wolf painted on the hood, with wolves running along the sides and a huge honking V-8 or fuel-efficient V-6 engine underneath it. I thought I was going to have a car that could not only run with, but eat smaller cars and their drivers and passengers.

Along with the pretty pictures of the car, they had a small blurb talking about the engines Ford’s Mustang is going to get. Long story short, I found out that Ford had decided to surprise me. I can only imagine the way this went out at Ford headquarters.

Alan Mulally (CEO): Huh, I guess we have a really good V-6 engine here.
Assistant: Yeah, it’s pretty good.
Mulally: I guess.
Assistant: We could put it into the Mustang, and make it more fuel efficient and powerful and the same time.
Mulally: Yeah, no harm in that.
Assistant: But it would be what people expected.
Mulally: Yeah.
Assistant: And who likes their expectations to come true?
Mulally: Not me, that’s for sure.
Assistant: Why don’t we surprise everybody?
Mulally: Yeah! I like that idea!
Assistant: We’ll leave that shit alone, and just put a big ugly droopy face on the car!
Mulally: HELL YEAH!
Assistant: Well, I’m gonna go home now
Mulally: Yeah, I’m gonna get in my Toyota Camry and drive home now.

So apparently, that’s it for the Mustang. Its specs will be as impressive as they have ever been, as follows: A rear seat that can hold two quadruple-amputees, assuming they scrunch their leg stumps the right way; a trunk that can fit as many as three average-sized postage stamps; an engine that is not fuel efficient with the added benefit of not being very powerful; and a “retro” interior with fire-engine red leather for top-of-the-line models and cloth seats made from the clothing of deceased Iraqi suicide bombers and filled with packing peanuts for lesser models. Meanwhile, the Chevy and Dodges will be the exact same, but with backseats that can hold small children in a pinch. And Toyota will continue to build fuel-efficient, useful and more agile, un-American small cars.

And thus begin the Muscle-Car Wars. Again. Because the Three Detroit Stooges can’t resist one last poke-in-the-eyes. Nyuk nyuk nyuk.

Advertisements

9 Responses to “Waiting for Godot To Fix His (Ford) Mustang Already”

  1. Scotty Says:

    Wait,are you actually complaining that the new Mustang, Challenger, and Camaro models lack good gas mileage? That’s NOT what they were built for at all. If you want something with decent performance and decent gas mileage, get something like a Cobalt, don’t get a car thats not meant to get great MPG then complain about it.

    And Toyota will continue to build fuel-efficient, useful and more agile, un-American small cars.

    What about Ford who makes automobiles with 27 city and 37 Highway MPG? How about Dodge, who can get 28 city and 32 highway? Both of those mileages are pretty good, and I’m guessing that both autos are useful as well, considering that these figures are for S.U.Vs

    …A rear seat that can hold two quadruple-amputees, assuming they scrunch their leg stumps the right way…but with backseats that can hold small children in a pinch…Toyota will continue to build fuel-efficient, useful and more agile un-American small cars.

    First, I would like to remind you that the rest seating space of a Mustang shouldn’t even be an issue here, since we are talking about a performance car, not a family car. Since we are discussing rear seating, however, I would like to direct you to the performance car that Toyota made, the Supra, and how little the rear seats in that are too.

    The gas mileage in the Supra isn’t something to call home about either, with 15 city and 22 highway, it ranks less than the Camaro of the same year (15 city, 23 highway) while producing only 10 ft lbs more torque than the Camaro.

    I guess even the fantastic Toyota can’t build a performance car to you’re every whim.

  2. theluigiian Says:

    Wait,are you actually complaining that the new Mustang, Challenger, and Camaro models lack good gas mileage?

    Yes, because even though they’re not built to get good gas mileage, at least one of the three (Mustang) has the ability to, with more horsepower to boot.

    Since you bring it up: The Mustang is intended to be a performance automobile, right Scotty? So why does it have a 4.0 liter base engine that makes 200 hp? 200 hp is the same amount as the Toyota Camry Solara makes by the way, and the Toyota does the same feat with 21 mpg. The Mustang weighs less and gets 19. That’s a two mile-per gallon difference from cars with the virtually the exact same weight and horsepower. That’s about two-hundred dollars more per year I have to spend on a cheap car that’s overweight, unrefined and thirty for fuel.

    Ford had the chance to put a brand-spanking new 3.5 liter base V-6 into the base Mustang that produces 263 horsepower and 249 pound-feet of torque. Instead, they kept the old 4.0 liter, which produces 53 less horsepower and 9 less pound-feet of torque. Why? Because it’s their cheapest engine. Ford’s decision to keep their least-powerful engines in their “most powerful car” has nothing to do with performance, it’s because they wanted to cheapen it out. That’s why I’m pissed off. Challenger? Sure, 20 mpg is decent from their base engine considering it can hold five passengers in comfort with a 3800-pound curb weight and still get more horsepower than the ancient Mustang engine can.

    As for your fuel-efficient American cars: Yes, the Focus is good on this. I just wish the Mustang could too. But I guess I have to give you your cheap cars, huh?

  3. Scotty Says:

    …Toyota Camry Solara makes by the way, and the Toyota does the same feat with 21 mpg. …But I guess I have to give you your cheap cars, huh?

    Are you actually complaining that the Focus is less money and gets better MPG than the Toyota Solara? That makes no sense what so ever.

    Perhaps I threw the word “performance” around a little too much, but The fact still stands that no one buys the Mustang, even the V6 version, for economy. They buy it for performance, they buy it for looks, and they buy it to say “I have a mustang.” I doubt people who drive Mustangs bought them for economy.

    The reason Ford doesn’t put in the other V6, as you put it, is to save money. Why would Ford add more competition to the already crowed economy-car market and risk their other cars selling for less?

    Also, about my mentioning S.U.V.s, i actually got that wrong, the Ford Escape gets 36 city and 31 highway.

    P.S. before anyone tries calling me on this, no, I am NOT a Ford fan boy.

  4. theluigiian Says:

    The reason Ford doesn’t put in the other V6, as you put it, is to save money. Why would Ford add more competition to the already crowed economy-car market and risk their other cars selling for less?

    Because Ford doesn’t make money off the Focus, but it could off of a 24-mpg Mustang. Far more than they do off of their Focii, anyway, which are (by the way) complete and utter shit and an abomination of the
    entire Ford brand. Why not just make less Focii (which are selling at a commensurate rate for God alone knows what reason) and more Mustangs that will make Ford more money?

    No, you’re not a Ford fanboy, because a Ford fanboy would be pushing the company to better their cars so more people would buy them. I’m not much of a fanboy myself, but my family owns a Mercury Mystique and two Fords: An Escape and an F-150. We literally own no Japanese, German, English, French, Korean, or Chinese car makes, and may never. I want Ford to make the best cars on Earth because I buy them, and I say fuck “cannibalization of brands”, “Build for your market”, “Use cheap engines and cheap parts”, and the other bullshit pablum U.S. PR wizards use to hide the fact that Ford vehicles aren’t competitive in their classes.

    Fact: The Ford Focus is not competitive in its class. It is a POS.

    Fact: The Chevy Cobalt is not competitive in its class. Its top fuel economy is around 26 mpg with four-cyl and automatic, 27 with manual, which is within 1 mile per gallon to a Nissan Altima coupe with CVT or manual that has more rear seat room. Why on Earth would I buy a compact for fuel economy when I can buy something better with the same fuel economy? Hell, the Altima gets 175 horsepower, that’s only around 25 hp less than the Mustang’s engine with seven more miles per gallon fuel economy. With the Altima weighing almost 400 pounds less, they’re within around 2 pounds per horsepower of each other (Mustang: 15.96 pph, Altima: 17.44 pph). Which means that the Mustang’s performance is lackluster and only slightly better than a considerably more economical vehicle.

    Are you actually complaining that the Focus is less money and gets better MPG than the Toyota Solara? That makes no sense what so ever.

    Try again.

  5. Scotty Says:

    The fact still remains that making a Ford Mustang that got great gas mileage wouldn’t really do anything positive for Ford at all. Why would anyone redesign a car that already sells good? Why not redesign those that don’t? Why spend time redesigning all your cars that sell but ignore those that don’t and have your reputation fall even further?

    The Mustang all ready has many positives and a good reputation, Ford as a whole doesn’t; they need to work on their other cars.

    Also, I’ve never heard of “thetruthaboutcars.com” before, so I’ll just refer you to this on the Ford Focus that says it’s a good car:

    And these that says Ford is better than some Imports:

    http://www.jdpower.com/autos/ratings/quality-ratings-by-brand
    http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2007088

    (Compare Ford to Nissan, Scion, Mazda, Subaru, Suzuki, Acura…)

    Yeah, Ford has something going for it: dependability.

  6. Scotty Says:

    How the hell I made a smiley face I’ll never know.

  7. theluigiian Says:

    Also, I’ve never heard of “thetruthaboutcars.com” before, so I’ll just refer you to this on the Ford Focus that says it’s a good car:

    That link is to Top Gear, which is a British automotive television show, and it’s talking about the European Focus, which is a stellar car that is the best in its class. We Americans get the last marque you guys (I’m assuming you’re British here, apologies if you aren’t) already had, only they made it uglier and got rid of all the sportiness it had. It is now nothing more than a terrible automotive appliance that American auto buffs almost universally despise. Enthusiasts–especially tuners who like to turbocharge compacts–are literally shunning Ford entirely because of the American-spec current Focus, which lacks any sense of personality or styling panache.

    The fact still remains that making a Ford Mustang that got great gas mileage wouldn’t really do anything positive for Ford at all. Why would anyone redesign a car that already sells good? Why not redesign those that don’t? Why spend time redesigning all your cars that sell but ignore those that don’t and have your reputation fall even further?

    The Mustang all ready has many positives and a good reputation, Ford as a whole doesn’t; they need to work on their other cars.

    Scotty, I think we agree on a lot of points. I think we both pretty much agree that the Mustang is an attractive, fairly powerful, good value for the money.

    But what you just said is what Ford has said for years. That Ford’s model lineup is good enough as it is. Edmunds said regarding the Ford Ranger until 2004 that it was a good little truck for the value that did its job well. Even the currently lambasted U.S. Focus is referred to by Edmunds as a “good value buy”.

    Ford cannot just make “good” cars, they have to make the best cars to survive against the Toyondissan onslaught. The Mustang is Ford’s halo car, it is their lifeblood, it is almost the embodiment of the Ford brand. For this car, currently among the best Ford sells, to come up short on horsepower, fuel economy, torque, interior quality, interior space, and to lack such automotive essentials as an independent rear suspension and standard antilock brakes is a tragedy and an embarrassment for Ford’s tens of thousands of workers, managers, and loyal customers. It isn’t that Ford has to fix the Mustang and make it the absolute best car it can be, it’s that Ford should make it the best. Because Ford is the best. Because Alan Mulally knows what he’s doing, understands that Americans are hurting at the gas pumps and are having trouble getting by, and want a car that can get them to work and back stylishly and as efficiently as possible. The Mustang is indeed a performance automobile which is still pretty, even with the new nose, but it doesn’t have to guzzle gas and so it shouldn’t. Not in base form with a paltry 200-horsepower V6.

    If you own a Mustang and love it, please understand that I’m glad you bought an American car and I’m glad you like it. You have no reason to be ashamed, the Mustang is a beautiful piece of machinery, even with its flaws. But Ford needs to make it better. Not just different-looking, but better, no matter how much money it takes or how difficult it is. That’s the only way Ford can win back Toyota buyers.

    Good luck. I hope you keep on supporting American carmakers, and God bless you.

  8. Scotty Says:

    I am man enough to admit, no matter how painful it is to accept, defeat.

    You raised a lot more point than me, and really, to be completely honest, the only reason I kept at it was because I hate ending an argument shortly. That and my pride woulda been bruised.

    Well, at least I least I had a chance to improve my argumentative skills, even if it was just a little bit.

    P.S. – Have you seen the article in MotorTrend (Or Car and Drive, can’t remember which) that said Ford might replace the Mustangs V8 with a Twin Charged Turbo V6? It was only a small blurb, one of those that are found in the front pages. I’m pretty sure it’s just a rumor, though.

    Also, no I’m not from Brittan, I was just trying to show how Ford does good in other countries, though that kinda has no bearing on the subject at hand, huh?]

    Anyways,I’ve wasted much of your time already, and I thank you for not brushing me off, and actually having an intelligent debate with me. You don’t find many of those on those anymore, especially on the Internet.

  9. theluigiian Says:

    Hey Scotty! No problem, thanks for commenting, man, and good luck to you in the future. Don’t get me wrong, you’ve got good points, too, I just wish Ford would offer me the Taurus engine for maybe an extra couple thousand or so. It’s no problem, though, and even this might be a rumor, I might still get my wish. You’re a good debater. I’d recommend being more careful in choosing your points and not pulling stuff out. Like, when you said “Are you actually complaining that the Focus is less money and gets better MPG than the Toyota Solara? That makes no sense what so ever.” That was a bit off.

    Nevermind, you’re good. Yeah, I did hear ’bout that EcoBoost V-6. It was in Motor Trend, which was also first to report the Mustang’s engine choices as the 4.0 liter and the 6.2.

    I hope Ford brings over the Euro Focus, by the way. If the ‘Stang doesn’t turn out well, I’d buy a Focus coupe like the one in the video you linked to. Thanks for mentioning it!

    I try to be nice (sometimes) although other times I’m not, like with my last post on Rune Traverse. Probably not the nicest I’ve been, hope nobody got their feelings hurt and I didn’t anger too many people.

    Hope I keep on improving my writing, and hope you keep on improving your debating. I disabled the emoticons too, they drive me nuts ;)

    See ya, Scotty. Maybe we’ll see each other commenting on one of the auto blogs.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: