2005-2009 mustang design changes

[08TorchRedShelbyGT500]

With the low cost mods I've done to my '06 GT, I think it's close to how I would have wanted it to be from the factory.
I would have liked a better designed fuel filler neck so I could fill the tank up without interruption.

I remember my 2007 Roush 427R having that aggravating fuel filling issue. My current 2008 GT500 doesn't have that issue and did some searching and found this. My car was built in may 2008.

 

[GriffX]

..2010 front /hood... and the 05-09 rear . Better quality leather seats.. and less "CAN-BUS" stuff
Bigger front brakes ... that´s all .

4.6 with 5 speed manual and the solid axle - for me a perfect combo.

Yes, brakes and a 3.73 with a even longer 6th gear for relaxed cruising at 90 mph

 

[SteezStang]

I love all your guys’ responses, I personally think that the 05-09 would’ve benefited a lot from an N/A version of the 07-09 GT500 engine, 340+ hp, and the 6 speed, it would’ve been a lot more fun on rolls, I find these cars biggest weakness stock is definitely 3rd gear, I think the trans is just geared poorly or something, however this probably would’ve made the GT cost like 30k+ instead of the 25k price tag so that’s the trade off, I love the solid axle, it really hooks from a standstill

 

[StockishS197]

I love all your guys’ responses, I personally think that the 05-09 would’ve benefited a lot from an N/A version of the 07-09 GT500 engine, 340+ hp, and the 6 speed, it would’ve been a lot more fun on rolls, I find these cars biggest weakness stock is definitely 3rd gear, I think the trans is just geared poorly or something, however this probably would’ve made the GT cost like 30k+ instead of the 25k price tag so that’s the trade off, I love the solid axle, it really hooks from a standstill

Nothing some bolt ons and cams and gears cant fix on the 4.6 to get you there

 

[AHaze]

Car should have been kept closer to the size of the SN95. The proportions look better than the '04 IMO but not much of the exterior size increase seems to have translated to the inside.
Gaining 100 lbs. over the previous generation and then putting on a narrower tire also seems like a weird decision.
Anything done to keep the MSRP down that could be corrected by the aftermarket, I try not to be too critical about.

 

[brasil]

... agree with AHaze The S 197 a littler lighter..and a little "smaller" in size- close to the SN95 - and the fun factor would have been raised a lot more . "Smaller" cars handle better.. I have 3 Alfa Romeos buit in 74, 75 and 88.... they are way faster on country roads than a S197 Mustang...
Road Racing with them ..is a real JOYRIDE

 

[VGMStudios]

These are all good suggestions. I would like to add, change the toy look interior (it's too plasticy) and put add a bloody trunk button from factory! Lol

 

[Dino Dino Bambino]

The S 197 a littler lighter..and a little "smaller" in size- close to the SN95 - and the fun factor would have been raised a lot more . "Smaller" cars handle better.

The S197 was given a 5.8" longer wheelbase than the SN95 and this actually provided a lot more legroom for rear passengers, making it a proper four-seater instead of a 2+2. The S197 also had additional chassis reinforcement to increase torsional rigidity. The penalty was extra weight but Ford compensated by upgrading the engine from 260hp/302lbft to 300hp/320lbft, resulting in the S197 being 2-3mph & 0.2-0.3sec quicker down the 1/4 mile. The S197 also had vastly superior front/rear suspension, steering, and brakes.

Nothing some bolt ons and cams and gears cant fix on the 4.6 to get you there

No need for cams. Bolt ons alone will get you 320+rwhp & 330+rwtq with plenty of torque from low rpm.

 

[MasterofDisaster]

I would have liked a 6-speed with a steep overdrive or maybe a 3.08 rear gear. [I'd like better mileage and lower rpm on the interstate.]

I'm very happy w/ the 4.6 3V, but I would think after the 4.6 had been around for 9 - 10 years, Ford would have considered either upgrading the 5.4 or developing the Coyote earlier.

I would think too that Ford would look at GM and Chrysler and see they were making big power w/ pushrod engines. IIRC, the Coyote is as big dimensionally and as heavy as the Boss 429. Why not try a pushrod motor that makes big power, weighs less, and takes less room?

Even so, I'm really happy w/ my GT.

 

[AHaze]

The S197 was given a 5.8" longer wheelbase than the SN95 and this actually provided a lot more legroom for rear passengers, making it a proper four-seater instead of a 2+2.

It has 1.1" more rear leg room and 0.1" more up front. The rest of the 4.4" overall length and 5.8" wheelbase increase seemingly vanished into thin air. Nobody with shins can sit behind me in either car. Calling the S197 a proper 4 seater is a huge stretch IMO.

 

[GriffX]

More legroom? LOL and in the S550 only the headless horseman can sit in the 2nd row
..
..or the beheaded victims of the Syrien president....

 

[Dino Dino Bambino]

I would think too that Ford would look at GM and Chrysler and see they were making big power w/ pushrod engines. IIRC, the Coyote is as big dimensionally and as heavy as the Boss 429. Why not try a pushrod motor that makes big power, weighs less, and takes less room?

Ford was trying to extract as much HP & TQ as possible out of a smaller displacement engine to compete with the bigger boys on performance but beat them handily on fuel economy and CO2 emissions.
The wider dimensions of the Coyote engine, as you already know, are attributed to the use of double overhead cams. Without them and the use of TiVCT, the engine wouldn't have been able to rev high enough to extract 450+hp from a mere 5.0 liters and still have a smooth idle with good low rev drivability.

 

[Dino Dino Bambino]

More legroom? LOL and in the S550 only the headless horseman can sit in the 2nd row

You're definitely going to struggle to fit any adults in the rear if you have taller adults sitting at the front with the front seats all the way back that's for sure. However in an SN95 only a child could sit in the back even with an average height adult in the front. I actually deleted the rear seats in my previous '95 GT.
The other problem you have in the rear is a lack of headroom, with even an average size adult likely to have their head in contact with the rear screen.

 

[MasterofDisaster]

Ford was trying to extract as much HP & TQ as possible out of a smaller displacement engine to compete with the bigger boys on performance but beat them handily on fuel economy and CO2 emissions.
The wider dimensions of the Coyote engine, as you already know, are attributed to the use of double overhead cams. Without them and the use of TiVCT, the engine wouldn't have been able to rev high enough to extract 450+hp from a mere 5.0 liters and still have a smooth idle with good low rev drivability.

All true, but the coyote ended up being big and heavy.

One of the limitations of the rollercam 5.0 was valve and port size. You had to work around the distributor so you had unequal distribution of fuel/air. By the time you hit 5,550rpm, even w/ GT-40 heads, you were out of breath. Still, I was able to achieve >30mpg on long trips on the interstates w/ 3.08 rear gears.

What if Ford had tried something like a Boss 351 with distributorless ignition, SEFI, and decent compression? You would have a motor with a lot of grunt and room to grow. I also think the economy would not have been much worse than the roller cam 5.0 as long as you kept your foot out of it.

 

[Forty61]

I guess I just always figured the 3V was the easiest/cheapest to develop choice for them, coming from the older 2V. The Coyote was, we know in hindsight, 6 years away when the S197 launched.

Plus at that point there was no Camaro or Challenger, there wasn't really a baseline other than being better than the SN95 was. 300hp was a lot in 2005, Corvettes only had 350-400 at the time.

 

[Dino Dino Bambino]

All true, but the coyote ended up being big and heavy.

The Coyote is big dimensionally but only weighs ~440lb with the flywheel. A Chevy LS3 is much more compact but is ~20lb heavier despite also having aluminium heads/block.

I guess I just always figured the 3V was the easiest/cheapest to develop choice for them, coming from the older 2V. The Coyote was, we know in hindsight, 6 years away when the S197 launched.

Plus at that point there was no Camaro or Challenger, there wasn't really a baseline other than being better than the SN95 was. 300hp was a lot in 2005, Corvettes only had 350-400 at the time.

All true but I think a lot of people were disappointed that the 4.6 3V didn't at least match the claimed 320hp/317lbft of the '01 Cobra 4.6 4V (it still fell short with more like 306hp/309lbft despite the "fixes" following the 1999 factory recall). However all you needed was a good 93 octane performance tune on the 3V (and to remove the hydrocarbon trap inside the intake pipe of the early '05 models) to bring it up to ~320hp/355lbft with all else stock.

One of the limitations of the rollercam 5.0 was valve and port size. You had to work around the distributor so you had unequal distribution of fuel/air. By the time you hit 5,550rpm, even w/ GT-40 heads, you were out of breath. Still, I was able to achieve >30mpg on long trips on the interstates w/ 3.08 rear gears.

Having previously owned a 95 GT with the 5.0 Windsor engine, it came nowhere near matching the smoothness of the Modular 4.6 3V and it wasn't particularly happy revving above 5000rpm. Mine was done at 5500rpm despite several bolt on upgrades (including an Edelbrock Performer intake manifold) and ported E7 heads. Its cast iron block/heads also made it about 100lb heavier than the 4.6 3V despite being smaller in size. On the plus side the 5.0 Windsor was durable, reliable, and incredibly easy to work on as long as you decluttered the engine bay by deleting the EGR & smog pump crap.

 

[MasterofDisaster]

the 5.0 Windsor engine, it came nowhere near matching the smoothness of the Modular 4.6 3V and it wasn't particularly happy revving above 5000rpm.

I could not agree more. I noticed driving my 3V at night, it sounds like a turbine engine like an H-60. Good feeling.

 

[Samos3]

the 5.0 Windsor engine, it came nowhere near matching the smoothness of the Modular 4.6 3V and it wasn't particularly happy revving above 5000rpm.

I could not agree more. I noticed driving my 3V at night, it sounds like a turbine engine like an H-60. Good feeling.

You'd love a rotary, then. Super smooth, more so than an inline 6. And definitely a turbine like sound...unless you open up the exhaust, then they sound like chainsaws.

 

[Forty61]

You'd love a rotary, then. Super smooth, more so than an inline 6. And definitely a turbine like sound...unless you open up the exhaust, then they sound like chainsaws.

I love the sound of a rotary that's been ported, such weird little motors!

 

[Recon]

I don’t mind the 3V but I think they already had a 4V which should’ve been used in them. And the trans isn’t bad either, but the TR6060 would’ve been preferred. And if they went through with the IRS in the Shelbys, that would’ve been awesome to swap in the lower trims. They made 10 prototypes of I remember correctly. One of them has been for sale on SVTP for a while. Though I’ve not checked in a while, it could’ve sold. They could’ve done so much better than what we got, and relatively speaking, with low competition from competitors. The GTO for the first few years before the Camaro and Challenger made a return, towards the end of the decade.