Ford Working on Radical New Mustang

[RichardJensen]

I beg your pardon, there is one other argument being made here: "BMW makes the 1-Series and BMW is successful, therefore Ford should make a Mustang that resembles the 1-Series in size and weight."

 

 

This can be demolished quite easily:

 

- The 1 Series is considerably more expensive than the Mustang (something like $10k difference in base prices), therefore they are not in the same class. One may as well argue that Ford should copy Lotus or Ferrari.

 

Or if one chooses to assert that a well-equipped 1-Series is priced competitively with a Mustang GT, then:

 

- The 1 Series sells at a fraction of the Mustang's volume, so it is difficult to infer a broad desire for a smaller and more compact Mustang on the basis of the 1-Series' 'success'.

Edited April 20, 2012 by RichardJensen

[silvrsvt]

we the focus is larger than the mustang. inside.

 

Focus was designed as a sedan/hatchback/Wagon with intentions of fitting 4 people into it...the Mustang wasn't. Anyways the 2012 Focus feels tighter to me then my 2006 Mustang does from the drivers seat.

 

 

 

you cannot realize how by developing the d2c mustang on the cheap has hurt the development of future Ford RWD cars. while C1 program was looking to make a flexible architecture that could span generations and a wide variety of products, D2C was rendered a dead end architecture by the bean counters.

 

You have to be kidding me...the C1 is just an evolution/improvement of the C170 platform. The EUCD was based partly on the C1 platform, its not like they sprinkled some pixie dust on it and made this fabulous platform by just doing that

 

As for the D2C being a dead end....look at what has happened to Ford since 2002 or so when it went into development...they had no Mid-size or full-sized sedans that worth damn and the Fusion and 500/Taurus where just getting along in their development. It was designed to what it needed to be, and that made sense at the time and makes $$$ for Ford.

 

The D2C is much in the same way that the C170 is...it could be made into a C1 RWD type product, does the market justify the investment for it? Not really....

Edited April 20, 2012 by silvrsvt

[jpd80]

Another logical way to look at this is to start with the weight of a 2013 Focus which is close on 3,000 lbs.

Now forgetting the engineering nightmare of RWD conversion for a moment, let's just stick to the

incremental weight increase from I-4 to V6 which is 100 lbs ( Fusion) and V6 to V8 another 100 lbs (Mustang)

We now have an unconverted Focus with V8 weighing 3200 lbs but have done nothing about changing the

vehicle to RWD or adding the necessary support and strength to the frame to take the loads and give our

V8 Focus the recognizable proportions of a Mustang.

 

In that respect it is easy to see where another 200 to 300 lbs would go bringing our weight tally to between

3400 and 3500 lbs....I think that's getting close to the weight of the 2010 Mustang...

 

So really, the difference between so called "fat ass" and reasonable weight could be as little as 100 to 200 lbs...

and let's not Forget that Mustang is already that much lighter than Camaro......

[BORG]

Why not a FWD EUCD based Mustang with the 2.0L EB standard, topping it off with a 3.5L EB and AWD? No V8 necessary, the turbo age has come.

 

 

Yay, I can't get thumbed down for this anymore!

 

And Yes I'm kidding, but it's not unpossible

Edited April 20, 2012 by BORG

[jpd80]

Why not a FWD EUCD based Mustang with the 2.0L EB standard, topping it off with a 3.5L EB and AWD? No V8 necessary, the turbo age has come.

 

 

Yay, I can't get thumbed down for this anymore!

 

And Yes I'm kidding, but it's not unpossible

LOL, the current AWD V6 Sports Fusion weighs 3808 lbs

so an AWD EB 2.0 version on EUCD would be around 3700 lbs..

making it around 300-400 lb heavier than an EB 20 Mustang..(on D2C)

Edited April 20, 2012 by jpd80

[BORG]

LOL, the current AWD V6 Sports Fusion weighs 3808 lbs

so an AWD EB 2.0 version on EUCD would be around 3700 lbs..

making it around 300-400 lb heavier than an EB 20 Mustang..(on D2C)

 

Well, the Fusion is a 4-door sedan.

[jpd80]

Well, the Fusion is a 4-door sedan.

Well, I like that Idea of a Fusion coupe on EUCD, possibly on a shorter wheelbase than the 2013 Fusion

I think that vehicle would bring in a completely different genre of buyers and build on Fusion's success.

Not a Mustang replacement but certainly recognition of the market shift occurring....

[Biker16]

At the time, it was either use a dead-end architecture or no new architecture at all and keep putzing along on yet another modified Fox platform. The budget wasn't there to engineer a ground-up flexible platform that could span generations of vehicles (I'm still not convinced that's the way to go either).

 

I get that but imagine your horror that they took an lightweight, efficient, and paid-for IRS mustang and the bean counters ordered that an SRA to be used instead, under the impression that It would save money during production. Remember the late changes after a design is at or near being locked in is at very high risks for unforeseen cost increases.

 

This was the case with D2C the concept that an SRA is cheaper than the IRS was the premise the bean counters used to order a late design change.

 

that design change caused the entire rear floorpan on the car to be redesigned, which cascaded into the redesigning of other parts of the car, which then meant that the Cheap, lightweight, and space efficient IRS, had to be redesigned to fit into the space to accommodate the SRA, as the costs of the "simple" redesign became very expensive, the IRS had to be dropped.

 

purchased cost savings I was told were $200 SRA vs an IRS module, but the additional development were in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

The cost savings in purchased costs were more than outweighed by the costs involved with the changes to the floorpan and the overall cheapening of the architecture.

[Biker16]

A mustang with a < 3000lbs curb weight powered by 220hp EB 1.6 would be sweet.

 

where does that leave a potential Focus coupe?

 

is the only coupe ford offers will be the mustang?

 

That is what I said.

 

It is not impossible to have mustang that weighs less than 3000 lbs, improbable yes, but not impossible.

 

I Would like to see a 3000lbs mustang with a EB 1.6l I think it would be nice.

 

you know what I would also like to see Ford make a Mid-engined compact sports car based on the Focus ST.

 

I think a smaller mustang with an IRS would be nice too.

 

I see no reason to be ultra realistic on an enthusiast forum, wanting more is not a bad thing.

[silvrsvt]

 

 

you know what I would also like to see Ford make a Mid-engined compact sports car based on the Focus ST.

 

Pie in the sky

 

I think a smaller mustang with an IRS would be nice too.

 

 

How much smaller do you want to make it?

[rkisler]

I get that but imagine your horror that they took an lightweight, efficient, and paid-for IRS mustang and the bean counters ordered that an SRA to be used instead, under the impression that It would save money during production. Remember the late changes after a design is at or near being locked in is at very high risks for unforeseen cost increases.

 

This was the case with D2C the concept that an SRA is cheaper than the IRS was the premise the bean counters used to order a late design change.

 

that design change caused the entire rear floorpan on the car to be redesigned, which cascaded into the redesigning of other parts of the car, which then meant that the Cheap, lightweight, and space efficient IRS, had to be redesigned to fit into the space to accommodate the SRA, as the costs of the "simple" redesign became very expensive, the IRS had to be dropped.

 

purchased cost savings I was told were $200 SRA vs an IRS module, but the additional development were in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

The cost savings in purchased costs were more than outweighed by the costs involved with the changes to the floorpan and the overall cheapening of the architecture.

 

To clarify, it wasn't the bean counters or the program team. It was Phil Martens (PD VP) exhibiting his usual dictatorial style mixed with a really healthy dose of poor judgment. Fortunately, he's long gone from Ford and he's not missed. Barb Smardzich was the Vehicle Line Director, and she saluted. The Chief Program Engineer argued, and was shunted off to the side to another job.

 

It's true that the argument was over cost. it's also true that it caused a tearup to the rear of vehicle very late in development which most certainly increased development costs. But it wasn't in the hundreds of millions.

 

You are correct that once the rear floorpan was redesigned, including IRS in the program even as an option disappeared. Also, there was no room at AAI in the chassis system to accomodate an optional rear suspension.

 

PS. IRS was in the S197 program assumptions from the very first time they were detailed.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Austin

[RichardJensen]

If the part difference was $200, and the cost was even $50M (which still seems very incredibly high), the SRA switch hasn't been a money loser, unless you figure Ford lost $100 per average transaction for including SRA instead of IRS. And I don't consider that conclusion realistic.

Edited April 20, 2012 by RichardJensen

[silvrsvt]

Hundreds of millions of dollars? What on EARTH was it spent on? Had they already purchased and installed the tooling for the IRS floorpan stampings?

 

Do you have *any* source for that, at all? Or even a plausible argument to support that claim?

 

But it wasn't in the hundreds of millions.

You missed the bolded part

[RichardJensen]

I see no reason to be ultra realistic

The problem comes in when you call the Mustang a 'fat ass', and insinuate that Ford would be mistaken not to pursue your agenda, without a shred of evidence or logic.

 

And like the sub 3,000lb Mustang, GM also already built your mid-engined Focus ST:

 

 

And you know what? If it hadn't caught fire so much, and hadn't been saddled with a terrible engine, that thing might have been more than just 'that car my buddy turned into a Ferrari with a kit he bought from a catalog.'

[RichardJensen]

But it wasn't in the hundreds of millions.

You missed the bolded part

Yeah, I edited my post when I saw Austin made pretty much the same point without being such a jerk about it.

[Biker16]

Pie in the sky

 

maybe, definitely not a priority, but I think it would be nice.

 

How much smaller do you want to make it?

I would like to see the track widened an inch for a better stance, rear overhang shortened by 10 inches, maybe reduce the height my ~1

 

that would reduce the footprint from

W x L x H

73.9x188.5x 55.8

 

to

 

74.9x 178.5 x 54

 

roughly the same size as a 3 series.

 

BTW the new 3 series with its TGDI 2.0 I4 weighs only 3400lbs

Edited April 21, 2012 by Biker16

[jpd80]

To clarify, it wasn't the bean counters or the program team. It was Phil Martens (PD VP) exhibiting his usual dictatorial style mixed with a really healthy dose of poor judgment. Fortunately, he's long gone from Ford and he's not missed. Barb Smardzich was the Vehicle Line Director, and she saluted. The Chief Program Engineer argued, and was shunted off to the side to another job.

 

It's true that the argument was over cost. it's also true that it caused a tearup to the rear of vehicle very late in development which most certainly increased development costs. But it wasn't in the hundreds of millions.

 

You are correct that once the rear floorpan was redesigned, including IRS in the program even as an option disappeared. Also, there was no room at AAI in the chassis system to accomodate an optional rear suspension.

 

PS. IRS was in the S197 program assumptions from the very first time they were detailed.

Hi Austin, with regard to the 11th hour bid for common Mustang Falcon IRS:

I feel it was very much cart before the horse trying to retro a Falcon IRS into Mustang and its constrained pick up arrangement

but also recall you saying it was mainly due to Territory being at lock in stage and FoA unable to make the necessary changes.

perhaps letting Mustang go first with a well designed IRS and then adapting that to sedan and SUV use would be much easier..

 

Hard to Imagine what that project would have been like with a PD VP like Kuzak or Hindricks in charge

but that was still Ford from another time...

Edited April 21, 2012 by jpd80

[Biker16]

The problem comes in when you call the Mustang a 'fat ass', and insinuate that Ford would be mistaken not to pursue your agenda, without a shred of evidence or logic.

 

And like the sub 3,000lb Mustang, GM also already built your mid-engined Focus ST:

 

 

And you know what? If it hadn't caught fire so much, and hadn't been saddled with a terrible engine, that thing might have been more than just 'that car my buddy turned into a Ferrari with a kit he bought from a catalog.'

 

I was thinking more like this

 

 

 

 

 

but definitely not one of these

 

 

Edited April 21, 2012 by Biker16

[RichardJensen]

.

Edited April 21, 2012 by RichardJensen

[Edstock]

Well, maybe SVT could do a mid-engine conversion on the panel Fiesta:

 

 

An off-the-shelf ZF 6-speed transaxle and the F-150 EB 3.5 would do just fine. Of course, new rear wheel wells and arches for the big RWD weenies . . . probably wouldn't need the 5.0.

I may be wrong, but whatever it cost, Ford could sell every one they could build, IMHO. The 2013 version of the old Renault R-5.

[RichardJensen]

Or just bolt the sheet metal & interior onto the Focus backward.

[atomcat68]

maybe, definitely not a priority, but I think it would be nice.

 

 

I would like to see the track widened an inch for a better stance, rear overhang shortened by 10 inches, maybe reduce the height my ~1

 

that would reduce the footprint from

W x L x H

73.9x188.5x 55.8

 

to

 

74.9x 178.5 x 54

 

roughly the same size as a 3 series.

 

BTW the new 3 series with its TGDI 2.0 I4 weighs only 3400lbs

10 inches off a Mustang is this:

Edited April 21, 2012 by atomcat68

[jpd80]

Believe it or not, trunk space is fairly important to the Mustang's profile,

reducing that to storage of a six pack and a box of tissues won't work..

[RichardJensen]

Believe it or not, trunk space is fairly important to the Mustang's profile,

reducing that to storage of a six pack and a box of tissues won't work..

Hey, as long as it'll hold the following:

• one forty-five caliber automatic
  
• two boxes of ammunition
  
• four days' concentrated emergency rations
  
• one drug issue containing antibiotics, morphine, vitamin pills, pep pills, sleeping pills, tranquilizer pills
  
• one miniature combination Russian phrase book and Bible
  
• one hundred dollars in rubles
  
• one hundred dollars in gold
  
• nine packs of chewing gum
  
• one issue of prophylactics
  
• three lipsticks
  
• three pair of nylon stockings.
  

[TomServo92]

Hey, as long as it'll hold the following:

• one forty-five caliber automatic
  
• two boxes of ammunition
  
• four days' concentrated emergency rations
  
• one drug issue containing antibiotics, morphine, vitamin pills, pep pills, sleeping pills, tranquilizer pills
  
• one miniature combination Russian phrase book and Bible
  
• one hundred dollars in rubles
  
• one hundred dollars in gold
  
• nine packs of chewing gum
  
• one issue of prophylactics
  
• three lipsticks
  
• three pair of nylon stockings.