Spy Shots: Ford Mustang Bullitt caught!
 

Spy Shots: Ford Mustang Bullitt caught!
Filed under: Spy Photos, Coupes, Sports/GTs, Ford


Last December we were invited to Detroit to view Ford's "Showroom of the Future" and were shown a dozen cars and trucks stretching out all the way to 2012. Nothing in Ford's pipeline we saw that day excited us more than seeing the upcoming Ford Mustang Bullitt in person. That was ten months ago, and since no cameras were allowed in the room, all we have is a hazy memory of a gorgeous green Mustang.

The car you see here (click the Read link for more pics) is likely the production version of the Bullitt Mustang we saw back then. A StangNet community member snapped these pics recently, and they suggest that the Bullitt will do away with any superfluous accoutrement like spoilers, louvers and hood scoops. Instead, it will be simple and plain, but more powerful than a standard Mustang GT.

Unfortunately, this little peek is all we get, so we can't comment on specifics except to refer you to a previous post on the Bullitt's leaked specs. The Mustang GT's 4.6L V8 should be producing 312 HP in the Bullitt thanks to a Ford Racing Performance Parts Power Pack, and suspension and brake upgrades are expected, as well.

We hope we'll meet the Mustang Bullitt again in person come January at the 2008 Detroit Auto Show, but until then we expect everyone in Motown to lift up any car covers you see.
[Source: StangNet.com]

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/05/15/2...-specs-leaked/

http://www.mustangevolution.com/20070514410/


[IMG]local://upfiles/9/C44D8671AD9F4250B4961790DA8BEF22.jpg[/IMG]

RE: Spy Shots: Ford Mustang Bullitt caught!
 

I gotta admit, that is a fine-looking car. Of course, 'Bullitt' is why my '00 Mustang is dark green. :D

RE: Spy Shots: Ford Mustang Bullitt caught!
 

Alright that's it, discontinue the Fusion, Focus, Tauruses, Escape, Expedition, Explorer, Ranger, and F-series. Obviously, Ford is more concerned about not losing sales to GM and Chrysler (which is inevitable), than they are about keeping the rest of their product line competitive, let alone selling. Ford needs to come to a moment of truth about this. They are still in danger of going under and they just can't stop trying to keep people interested in the Mustang. Well I have a proposal for Ford on how to keep people interested in the Mustang despite GM and Chrysler reentering the segment. Build a V8 that does not need a forced air induction to remain competitive and make sure it sets a new benchmark in fuel economy. That is what would make things the most difficult for GM and Chrysler. Also, when you offer a V6 make sure of two simple factors. One, that it is actually reliable, and two, that the fuel mileage isn't just as bad as the V8s is.

RE: Spy Shots: Ford Mustang Bullitt caught!
 

Looks cheap for some reason.

RE: Spy Shots: Ford Mustang Bullitt caught!
 

Because it is. They are using the V6 grille set up for this version, if the V6 version is so much better looking why didn't they use that one for the GT model in the first place or give the V6 and GT what the GT currently has and reserve the V6 grille for the special models.

RE: Spy Shots: Ford Mustang Bullitt caught!
 

This reminds me of the Steve McQueen in the commercial when he get the keys from the kid in the corn field as the Legend Lives On.

One of my favorite car commercials

RE: Spy Shots: Ford Mustang Bullitt caught!
 

Call me the minority here, but I like it. Certainly brings back the image of the original, which ain't a bad thing.....

RE: Spy Shots: Ford Mustang Bullitt caught!
 

I hate it and I'll tell you why. Saturation. There are more versions of this car then any other car I can think of, which I'm sure someone will point out others, and all that is done is mainly body work. The rest is a minor bump in power here and bump in suspension there. I like the Shelby GT500, but not the Shelby GT. That is just a joke. Ford is trying to milk everything for what this is worth and people will buy it. I'm happy with my GT, no Billet, no California Special, no clear coat mother of pearl neon green. If I want those things then let me go out and get them, don't saturate the market with all of it straight from the factory.

As for the engines, the V6 really is a joke. I mean 210 hp for a pony car. Really? I mean weren't there critics out there complaining about the Avenger R/T not having enough hp, that the Toyota this and the whatever that had more power and that this was low compared to those? Where were they when the Mustang came out? 25 more hp on a family sedan then in a sports car, Avenger with ten less then the old 5.9 V8. I would say that the Avenger V6 is actually pretty impressive if you ask me. Maybe not on par with the Charger engine, but is it suppose to be? I thought it was in a lower class for a reason.

As for the V8 Mustang, I am impressed with it and the mileage. Sticker is 19/28. Sticker on the 3.5L V6 Charger is 21/28. Not much difference. The 5.7 takes a bigger jump, obviously at 17/24. It might not be a big difference, but it might be enough to make people pay attention a little and make a decision off of that. Though at the same time I doubt it because if you are driving the R/T and SRT, I'm sure MPG doesn't really matter that much, though for me it would since I would be driving the R/T.

Now the hp thing. Yeah, Dodge does have and advantage on the Stang when it comes to the 5.7L, but my question is, will that make a difference when this car comes out? HP only goes so far, but if this car outweighs the Mustang by over 1,000, speculation since I don't know for sure yet, then wouldn't that pretty much negate the 145 hp difference? Woudn't the get up and go in these cars pretty much be the same do to the weight?

I'm no fan of Ford, seriously, just the muscle cars, hence the only reason I own the Ford right now, but no other Ford in my life. I don't care what it is or who it's made by as long as it's American, but if I had half the chance then I would jump on with the Challenger in a heartbeat. Dodge/Chrysler, has been my love pretty much all my life, but I would have a hard time dishing out $5,000-$10,000 more for a car that runs on par with the Stang, but can't outrun it, which may be hard to do anyway because of solid rear axel VS IRS and weight. Will be interesting to see how the weight and the IRS will effect the take off power of this car off of the line.

RE: Spy Shots: Ford Mustang Bullitt caught!
 

Many goods points Axle, but I must correct you on a couple things. Although the 4.0L V6 does not produce much hp, it has a more than respectable 0-60 time of about 6.9 secs, which is a tick or two slower than the original version of the 4.6L 2 valve SOHC Modular engine. The Avenger R/T according to some sources might be slightly faster than the Mustang V6; however, the Avenger R/T is not very competitive in its class as much as I hate to say that. The reason why people are upset about the 3.5L only producing 235hp in there is the 3.5L's last update was in 1999 when it was introduced into the 300M/LHS, when it produced 253hp. The 3.5L lacks many technological advances that would make the Avenger a lot more competitive such as a VVT system and more recently direct injection. These would not only help the power, but would supposively help the fuel economy which is important with fuel prices these days. Right now, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, GM, Mistsubishi, and pretty much everyone except for Ford has more hp and torque with similar sized engines in their midsized cars than the Avenger R/T does and if Dodge wants to be competitive, they need to match the competition, let alone exceed it.

The Mustang GT is only rated at 25mpg on the highway when equipped with the 5-speed manual. The only version that gets 19/28 is the 4.0L V6 with a 5-speed manual. To better clairify my point, the 05-06 V6 versions only got 25mpg when equipped to their 5-speed automatic under the pre-08 rating system which is what a lot of V8 cars get on the highway including the GT when equipped with the manual. My point basically is that they should offer a V6 that has good fuel economy and reliability in either transmission choice.

The version of the Charger that gets 21/28 mpg is the 2.7L offering, the 3.5L offering gets 19/27 mpg. The 5.7L version gets 17/25 when offered in the RWD version and 17/24 in the AWD version. Comparing apples to apples, the 17/25 version is the more relevant one as the Mustang is only offered in RWD currently. Also it is more logical to compare the automatic version of the GT since the Charger unfortuneatly is only an automatic car. The automatic transmission version of the GT gets 17/23 mpg.

Although you are correct that the weight disadvantage that the Challenger might have if they do not take steps to make it lighter, could potentially make it lose any advantages it has in the power department, the difference is more accurately at around 750 lbs instead of 1000 lbs (curb weight of the Mustang GT is about 3356 lbs and the Charger R/T is around 4100lbs). So of this will depend also on the transmissions they decide to use.

I don't know how accurate it is to say that the Challenger will not be able to outrun the Mustang. The projected top speed of the 6.1L powered Challenger is 174 mph vs. the GT500's 155 mph. If the Chrysler estimates are accurate, it appears that for some reason the Challenger is just about as fast with the 6.1L as the GT500 is, possibly from the structure of the rear end and so forth, as this is also slower than the significantly less powerful 2000 Cobra R. Seeing what the SRT-8s have done so far with their automatic offerings does not seem entirely unbelievable for this to happen, but I would still prefer them to offer the 6.4L engine.

RE: Spy Shots: Ford Mustang Bullitt caught!
 

Oh yeah, forgot about the breast cancer support version Mustang. Now I'm all for support and all, but that's a little overkill. Oh yeah, they also have Mustang cologne. What next, Mustang transaxle aftershave?

And that's what I hate about a lot of things. People just look at the power of the car, but I hope there are people that look at other things about this car. I have to say that I really hate the power in the Avenger, the SE and the SXT that is. I know that the SE is a four cylinder, but I swear the Neon moved a lot better then this did with less power. Of course this is a lot more car even if it does have more power then the Neon. The SXT with the E-85 V6 really isn't any better. Now when we got in the R/T, I was pretty impressed. To me it does the job and would get us out of the way of traffic. I'm very impressed with the transmission on the four cylinder and the 3.5L V6. They are very smooth and something I would never expect from an auto. This car is really nice if people would give it a chance. To me it has enough power and doesn't need to be bumped up there with my Mustang GT. If you want that much power then get a sports car or a truck. Though I can't say anything about the gas mileage. Yes, being as old as this engine is and the gas prices, that is something they definitely should have improved on, or just have thrown the HO engine in it.

My fault on the mpg on the GT. I was trying to find a window sticker to look at, mine is in my car and I was/am at work so I couldn't grab it, so I just looked online real quick. Apparently I saw the 4. and didn't notice the 0 after it. That's what I get for being in a hurry, blind, or maybe just both. lol. Thanks for correcting me on that one. On another note, sadly, it doesn't look like they really care about the V6 market. Just offering something as cheaply made as they could so they could get it to the younger audience who can't afford the GT. To be honest, I'm really surprised the GT isn't more cheaply made like the V6 considering the price it is offered for. Though it is still cheap considering the solid rear axel and the many upgrades that you can get for this thing just through Ford Racing alone. And it's not like Mopar upgrades, it is quite simply things that should have been on the car from the factory, but it would have bumped the price up to much.

And again on the Charger. Remind me to not go to a Go Dodge website when I look up those window stickers. Seems they are all screwed up. I pulled one up for the 3.5L V6 on the Charger and it gave me the 21/28. I pulled one up for the AWD V6 and it's the 17/24 you mentioned. I did the second one from the top and the last one on the bottom. http://www.gocarsandtrucks.com/index...ymm&radius=200

I'm curious about that weight though, is that for the concept? I'm wondering what things are going to make the production heavier or lighter? I know some is going to be added for the hood since it most likely won't be carbon fiber, and then some would be taken off for the wheels as I doubt they are going to be that big. I do hope that they bring it down though and it doesn't outweigh the Mustang by that much. What does 1badmirada say? Every 100 lbs takes off how many point of a second off the quarter mile? 750 may not be 1000, but it still would be a nice amount to add some 0-60 time onto this car. That's my main concern. How fast can I get my butt up and moving on that on ramp to the highway? lol.

Right now I was just thinking about the R/T and the GT for comparisons. The SRT and Shelby's are in a different class and I hope that when we are able to start comparing those in the near future that it will in fact have a 6.4L in it. I'm sure at some time it will, but we are going to have to wait a little bit until that happens. I can't wait to see KR taken

RE: Spy Shots: Ford Mustang Bullitt caught!
 

The Challenger concept is 4160 lbs. The entire car is carbon fiber but has the big wheels an is on an LX platform.

Change the car to steel, make the wheels smaller and shrink it by 4" on the LY platform and you are probably back to 4160 lbs.

I am just guessing but those are some of the variables.

RE: Spy Shots: Ford Mustang Bullitt caught!
 

Slight comparison to what the production may way, very silght, would be the stock car that they are racing. Though actually now that I think about it, eveything under it is going to be totally different so actually I'm sure that's not a good comparison.

RE: Spy Shots: Ford Mustang Bullitt caught!
 

so this, like the 2001 Bullitt is basically little more than an appearance package. The 01 Bullitt was about 4-5 grand more than the base model GT...for some badges.

RE: Spy Shots: Ford Mustang Bullitt caught!
 

It looks like they put the FRPP CAI and tune and I think the suspension is better that stock. From the description, as far as the performance, it sounds like the Shelby GT. But probably won't be as expensive, as it doesn't have the Shelby name on it.

RE: Spy Shots: Ford Mustang Bullitt caught!
 

Here is a site with more detailed info on fuel mileage ratings. www.fueleconomy.gov Now I'm going to warn you that you have to make sure of which ratings you are looking at between the 85-07 type or the 08 and after ratings. They have adjusted every category for the new ratings so you have to be sure which ones you are looking at.

The AWD versions of the Charger whether it is the 3.5L or the 5.7L are equal on fuel economy but the 3.5L lost 3 mpg in the process (possibly due to slight gearing changes plus the AWD system) and the 5.7L only lost 1 mpg.

Don't worry about the errors, Us all mistake made once in a while.;) I have driven all version of the 2008 Avenger and I agree that the 3.5L has plenty of power, but the issue is the competition is offering more and when you want to rebuild your image you have to match your competition if not exceed them. I have driven the competition (Aura, Camry, older Altima, etc.) and I hate to say it but they do feel a little more powerful. The reason why the fuel mileage has not improved much is due to the gearing and the lack of some modern technology. The gearing is still acceleration orientated at 3.43, if they want to be more competitive in the fuel mileage category they need to put it probably in the 3.07 range. The 3.5L is about the only new car that lacks a VVT system which would really help it stay more competitive in both categories. The SE and SXT both feel pretty powerless I agree. The SE would feel better though if they would have dropped in the new six-speed auto over the 40TES. The 2.7L V6 needs to be given the Donald Trump treatment (You're sludged!) as it really doesn't serve a purpose anymore and really was never needed in the first place.

Yes the 750lbs difference is quite significant. Hopefully they are able to come up with an idea on how to make it weigh less. It will be interesting to see how they do all of this.

Patrick: That's what it sounds like overall. Just another attempt by Ford to weasel a few extra dollars out of the consumers pocket book without a truely justifiable model, just like the Shelby GT is.

RE: Spy Shots: Ford Mustang Bullitt caught!
 

Thank you RLSH. Always good to have a conversation with someone who won't bite your head off when you make a mistake and can point you in the right direction of where he found his information. It is always great to have a nice conversation and/or debate with a fellow board man if you will.

Basically, we both agree on the same thing. Hopefully Chrysler/Dodge will start doing things that are going to make them or keep them competitive with todays market. There is some updating that they need to do, but I do wonder how much this new company is actually going to spend to do that? Do they want to make money before they spend money? Do they actually thing they are going to make money without spending any? I know one thing, the Avenger won't get an update for next year since it's an 08 model. Disappointing to say the least.

Yes, I'm really tired of seeing this Mustang with this small mod and that small mod. If someone would be so kind in 09 to help me rid my Mustang to get a Challenger, you know collect the insurance money, I would greatly appreciate it. ;)

RE: Spy Shots: Ford Mustang Bullitt caught!
 

All they had to do was make green a choice, and let everyone do it up like they want. I wish they had that color choice. My favorite color. Most of my new vehicles were a dark green. I take that back, with the mustang it is half of the cars I have had were green. 3 out of 6. When I got the other three, it was because they were not offered in that color.

RE: Spy Shots: Ford Mustang Bullitt caught!
 

on a somewhat unrelated note...we had a 3.5L 300 for about a week, and i was really pleased with it. the interior was more comfortable than the rental charger, and the 3.5L made it a fairly healthy car to drive. it romped the stratus from a dig and a low roll, and did nice smokey burnouts...:D

also, the 3.5L 300 got better mileage on the highway then did the 2.7L charger that we frequently have...and i drive pretty much the same way all of the time.

another point about the carbon fiber body panels. carbon fiber isnt always the lightest choice. the "popular" hood that many of the Evo8 owners switch to is carbon fiber, and it weighs more than the stock hood...and looks just like a cf rendition of the same hood.

RE: Spy Shots: Ford Mustang Bullitt caught!
 

Don't exaggerate, Bad Mirada. The badges were only $25. The rest of the money went for the gas cap door. ;)

RE: Spy Shots: Ford Mustang Bullitt caught!
 

Axle: It was fun debating. I enjoyed the discussion of ideas. A little advice, don't wish bad luck on your cars because when you do, it will happen to the car that you like and the car that you don't like will end up spotless (believe me, I've been there before). Most of the answers to your question, we are going to have to wait and see.

Patrick: I know plenty of people that had 1st gen Intrepids with the 3.5L who switched over to the 2.7L in the 2nd gen hoping for better fuel economy who found that the 3.5L got the same fuel mileage and others had your experience of better fuel economy. Being that the models you drove were heavier and less arrow dynamic, I have no doubts that the fact that the 2.7L is very underpowered would come through even more and would as a result get worse fuel mileage. The 3.5L is a good engine, it just needs an update is all, since the last time it got an update was over eight years ago. I just want to see them being able to compete with the other cars in the same class with the same engine size is all.

TechmanBD: I hear you loud and clear about the dark green color choice. That is one of my favorite color on cars as well.

Back to the 2001 Bullitt, didn't they offer a Ram-Air or something along those lines as well? I remember the output being at least 5hp & 3ft-lbs of tq. These upgrades are very insignificant in performance-in fact, I think I remember reading that the Bullit was slower than the regular GT in some tests 0-60 for it was around 5.8secs; meanwhile, the normal GT was supposed to be around 5.6 secs-but they add a lot to the pricing. Also, didn't they have special gauges as well?

RE: Spy Shots: Ford Mustang Bullitt caught!
 

i dont know about gauges, but the Bullitt in 2001 was almost nothing as far as performance...it was an badge package, and a wing delete...and it may have had the chin spolier, but im about 95% sure that the ram air was only used on the Mach 1s.

RE: Spy Shots: Ford Mustang Bullitt caught!
 

Shoot. It looks good to me. and it's in my favorite color. I'm a sucker for green but can't usually find a good green on a car. The shape is sleek. It does look a bit cheap, but it's beautiful.

RE: Spy Shots: Ford Mustang Bullitt caught!
 

And that would be why they keep throwing this out and throwing that out. As long as people pay for them then they are going to milk it.

And I don't disagree that any of them look bad. It is just overkill on an oversaturated car as it is. People want choices then fine, but one million choices is just to much. I hate Dodge for forcing choices down our throats, I want remote start I don't want to have to throw in leather to get it, and I dislike Ford for giving way to many choices that are way overpriced. I'm sure that Bullitt isn't really going to be worth the money that they are asking for, but more power to anyone who would like to buy it. I just think it would be cheaper to do the upgrades yourself, including the paint.

RLSH: Enjoyed the debate myself and you're right, wishing bad luck on the vehicles is probably not a good idea.

1badmirada: The only thing I can think about with the gas mileage on the 2.7L would be the weight of the vehicle and how hard the engine would have to work. It would be like throwing a 4 cylinder in a Ram, I'm sure the gas mileage in that thing would really suck, no pun intended.