Ford Mustang Thread: 2011 General Talk

  • Thread starter Thread starter YSSMAN
  • 1,163 comments
  • 76,541 views
Otherwise it would have been body-colored

So you leave a rocker panel unpainted, and all of a sudden it becomes a aerodynamic device?

Lower bodywork = less airflow underneath = less drag/lift.

The only thing is, the rocker panel doesn't effectively lower the body work, as there would still need to be some type of body to tie in the transition from the lower door to the undercarriage even if the rocker panel was removed. Obviously you don't just take the rocker panel off the car and suddenly hack 3-4" off of the bottom of the car and undercarriage. For argument sakes (disregarding aesthetics), even if the obtrusive/unaerodynamic rocker panel on the Mustang was left out in the design process and the remaining area was smoothed underneath, it wouldn't have any affect on aero efficiency in that area.

The rocker panel on the Mustang is strictly there for aesthetics and as a means to fill in the gap without any INTENDED affect on aerodynamics. The undertray (on the side) on the 458 is there to improve aero efficiency...not to fill in the gap between the transition between the door to the undercarriage like in the case of the case of the Mustang.

Hopefully we can get this back on topic soon :lol: Sorry!
 
Last edited:
Sorry, just assuming since I don't know what is under there. My car doesn't use any black crap down there. Rocker panel to undercarriage.
 
It's there to cover up a part of the body close to the ground. That part is close to the ground for aerodynamic reasons. If it weren't, there wouldn't need to be a rocker panel to cover it and to cover up the fact that the body is dang tall.

This is in continuation of the front bumper, which is close to the ground for no other reason. Which is the reason why we don't have the sexy front bumpers of cars from the 60's, anymore... if they didn't have that front bumper so far down, they wouldn't feel the need to cover up the bottom with a black lip (in the same vein as the 911 on the other page) or the need to continue this all around the car.

Of course, they could avoid this all by making the car slimmer in the first place... but that's a plaint you could level against all the other cars cited... and just about every modern car on the road today.

-

Maybe it was a mistake to assign the aerofunction solely to the rocker panel... I'm sorry for that oversimplification.
 
It's there to cover up a part of the body close to the ground. That part is close to the ground for aerodynamic reasons. If it weren't, there wouldn't need to be a rocker panel to cover it and to cover up the fact that the body is dang tall.

That "part" of the body is already close to the ground as you even say yourself, so why is the obtrusively designed and attached rocker panel necessary to improve aerodynamics?

I still don't believe the 458 side undertray and the Mustang rocker panel share the same purpose, from a aerodynamic standpoint :dopey:

But maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree :sly:

EDIT:

Maybe it was a mistake to assign the aerofunction solely to the rocker panel... I'm sorry for that oversimplification.

Well yea, the piece we're talking about on Mustang is the rocker panel...I'm not really sure if we can even call the side undertray device on the 458 a rocker panel to begin with, when it is only but 5mm thick (mainly protruding from the body), and is only intended to improve airflow in that particular region. It's not really intended to make the car look slimmer, as Ferrari/Pininfarina would have most likely left it out had it served no performance purpose.

The more we talk about this the more I confuse myself :dunce: :lol:
 
Last edited:
If the 458 didn't have that piece, airflow would be coming up around the curvature where the car is painted. That wouldn't be as good for airflow as it would be to have the flat CF piece. Simple as that for the Ferrari. Who knows about the Mustang, as its a straight body line to begin with.
 
This exists... In concept form...

leadshelbygt3502011.jpg


So, that's the new Shelby GT350. Pretty legit. Minus the fact it looks terrible, and kinda jacks things up by going with forced induction. Can't win every one I guess...



Ford Has Apparently Priced the 2011 Mustang As Well

gt260_opt.jpg


Judging by TMS' information, a base Mustang coupe will cost $22,995 (*including $850 for destination) – that's $750 pricier than the 2010 model, but over $500 cheaper than the base Camaro. The base GT coupe will reportedly crack the $30,000 barrier for the first time with an MSRP of $30,495 including destination. That's $1,250 more than a 2010 GT and $1,300 cheaper than a 1SS Camaro.

If that really is the price of the GT, that's a major loss of value, IMO. The GT was always killer at the $27-28K range, and while it is still going to be a hell of a ride, there is that pesky Camaro. I'm curious to see what you guys think.
 
That leaves room for a $26k to $27k EcoBoost Mustang? It'd be cool. But it'll probably never happen. One can dream though.
 
This exists... In concept form...

leadshelbygt3502011.jpg


So, that's the new Shelby GT350. Pretty legit. Minus the fact it looks terrible, and kinda jacks things up by going with forced induction. Can't win every one I guess...

I like it all the way around actually.

Ford Has Apparently Priced the 2011 Mustang As Well

gt260_opt.jpg


If that really is the price of the GT, that's a major loss of value, IMO. The GT was always killer at the $27-28K range, and while it is still going to be a hell of a ride, there is that pesky Camaro. I'm curious to see what you guys think.

Inflation. The Mustang is still better value. And now that the V6 has balls the V6 is even more of an incredible value. I wonder how fast the V6 manual is going to be.
 
Where would an ecoboost model fit? Assuming they'd meet halfway at 350hp, there's going to be so much overlap in power and cost.
 
That GT350 is nice, but sure as hell not $50,000+ nice.

The V6 price will be a steal & it'll only take a nice little turbo to boost it over the GT.
 
I quite like the GT350 look, but now I need to come up with new naming for my Mustangs in GT5 and LDP.:p
 
GT350 looks too bulky to me with it's body kit, unlike the original.
 
That GT350's a joke IMO.

$70k for a Mustang with an extra 85hp, mediocre suspension/brakes/wheels, and a questionable body kit.
 
Last edited:
Jay
GT350 looks too bulky to me with it's body kit, unlike the original.

Its not clean, or mean. It just looks heavy, and tossing a supercharger on top of it really doesn't make things better IMO. I'd have hoped it would have just been a stripe job, a small engine and suspension upgrade, and maybe a sticker price increase of $10K. That, at the very least, would be a little bit of a deal, and still holding somewhat true to the previous GT350 ideals.
 
The GT350 is ugly. What is Shelby thinking with that one?

I'll take the less expensive and more powerful GT500 over that any day.

I would have loved if he followed the same recipe as the '60's GT350. Small power bump over the base GT (425-450 range), suspension mods and weight reduction.
 
I would have loved if he followed the same recipe as the '60's GT350. Small power bump over the base GT (425-450 range), suspension mods and weight reduction.

This is the way they should have gone about it. It would open the car up to a different market instead of just selling too many similar variations of essentially the same thing to the same group of people.

A lighter more driver focused car would gain more attention from enthusiasts and would probably appeal to other foreign markets who would probably never think of buying a Mustang normally.
 
If that really is the price of the GT, that's a major loss of value, IMO. The GT was always killer at the $27-28K range, and while it is still going to be a hell of a ride, there is that pesky Camaro. I'm curious to see what you guys think.

It's a 10% increase in base price for a 33% increase in power. Totally worth it and still untouchable value.

Think of it this way: Ford is actually cutting prices. The V6 now performs similarly to the old GT for thousands less. And the GT now moves up a whole performance bracket with a minimal increase in price.


M
 
I suppose that makes sense. I just have a hard time thinking of the GT at $30K. Its weird, I know.
 
I suppose that makes sense. I just have a hard time thinking of the GT at $30K. Its weird, I know.
Out of curiosity Brad, what kind of price did the options go for on the previous GT?

$2,300 for navi., $2,500 for a California PKG, $1,700 for Brembos, & any other options sounds like it wouldn't be hard to start getting at $40K for a fully loaded Mustang which is right around where it costs for a fully loaded 2SS.
 
I'm not the kind of person that would go for those things in the first place. I tend to worry about the basic MSRP, with perhaps only minimal add-ons. Back in the fall, they had a Daytona Blue 2010 GT on deck for just a hair over $28K with destination. Two option boxes were checked, the spoiler delete and the optional rear axle ratio. To me, that's a pretty obscene value, especially considering that it was probably the best car you could buy in the segment.

Adding the extra power makes it a better deal, I wholeheartedly agree with that. Its still probably going to be the best car you can buy in the segment. Perhaps I'm too used to seeing sub-$30K GTs with nothing added on. I do wonder what the standard equipment is in the GT, however. I'm not mad about the price change, it just feels weird.
 
In reality it's no surprise that the GT has reached the $30k mark. Just about every other vehicle on the market has increased in price with time and inflation. The Mustang is, and should be no different.
 
Depends on the dealership and when you buy.

I bought my 07 GT for $2k off the sticker. There probably won't be many deals on the 2011 GT as soon as it hits the market, but if you shop around you could probably find somewhere who would be willing to negotiate. Of course with time I'm sure there will be more dealers offering good deals/price reductions as well.
 
Does Ford do wheelin' and dealin' on the Mustang or is it purely a sticker price affair?

'Round here, you can usually flex it a little bit, but it just depends. Of course, given that its a new Mustang, there will probably be "Market Value Adjustments" for the first year or so. Back when the GT500 first came out all those years ago, dealers were adding $8-10K on the sticker price for that.


...In other Mustang news...

Motortrend, well, they're usually idiots. Jalopnik has picked up on that scent. According to the article, since Ford is looking to make everything global pretty soon, the Mustang may become an international vehicle sooner than later... That likely means the inclusion (finally!) of an IRS, EcoBoost engines, and a few other crazy ideas.


While I'm calling BS on the crazy stuff, the addition of the IRS seems reasonable. Especially when there is a fairly likely chance that the next Mustang could share its platform with the Falcon, and vice-versa. We'll see. Otherwise, like they point out, it may just be another evolution of the current car.
 
I'd personally pick Jalopnik's option B: Euro-snob option. A smaller, lighter Mustang with IRS. One that would make sense with Ecoboost fours and a V6. But I give it similar chances... and it ain't snowing in hell yet.

You never know. This isn't Ford as we know it. This is Mulally-la-la-land... this is the Ford that finally approved the Fiesta for the US. Anything can happen.

With an IRS and a small-displacement Ecoboost model for overseas consumption, the Ford should be able to compete with the Genesis Coupe and 370Z in other markets.
 
They could combine the first two. The current platform should take an IRS system as it stands, and the platform itself is still pretty good.
I'm still not sure that I buy the "all Ford platforms will be global" thing anyways.
 
Hopefully the next one will be a slimmer (Not so tall and chunky), modernized version of the current. Ditch the retro interior and keep the current exterior shape. Add IRS and, really, I think that's all it needs.

Otherwise they could perhaps resurrect the Sierra as the "Motortrend is on crack" option and let the mustang continue to be the big american drag-axle car. That makes sense as the turbo car.
 
Back