Biker16 Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 With collision regs being what they are, the width is probably not going to change, maybe 1" narrower, but side impact regs and big-butt North Americans means there is a limit to size reduction. IMHO, just keep the front overhang to a minimum. really. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kk3T8Na4LvM&t=10s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 The area the mustang could shrink is in it's huge ass. lob 10 inches off of it. now th car is 178 inches long. Taking 5 inches off the front end and rear end isn't going to be easy to do with the current platform....its not like the car is huge either...its roughly the size of a mid-sized car. If you want a small car, get a Focus... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Taking 5 inches off the front end and rear end isn't going to be easy to do with the current platform....its not like the car is huge either...its roughly the size of a mid-sized car. If you want a small car, get a Focus... It's getting a whole new platform. But it isn't getting much smaller. How much shorter can the wheelbase be? Consider that even with an all-alloy V-8, there has to be enough engine set-back for proper weight distribution, and rear-seat legroom.Keep the front overhang to a minimum, and that leaves one simple question: how much trunk room and rear overhang? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PREMiERdrum Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 It's getting a whole new platform. Say what? I thought Mustang continues to evolve on D2C... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2b2 Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Say what? I thought Mustang continues to evolve on D2C... I'm expecting it to be similar to the DEW98>D2C transformation... ...right, only half of the DEW98's floorpan will remain unchanged Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 I'm not absolutely certain, but I believe the Mustang is the lightest RWD 4 seater on the market. Tell me again how Ford has dropped the ball managing the weight of this thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 I'm not absolutely certain, but I believe the Mustang is the lightest RWD 4 seater on the market. Tell me again how Ford has dropped the ball managing the weight of this thing? I believe the Genesis coupe is lighter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PREMiERdrum Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Correct, just barely: Genesis Coupe V6 3389 lb Mustang Coupe V6 3501 lb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Correct, just barely: Genesis Coupe V6 3389 lb Mustang Coupe V6 3501 lb BMW 1-series coupe is lighter than both. Under 3,300 lbs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah Harbinger Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Anyone abbreviate it as CF again and I will spray Kalydeco on you... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 It's closer than that. The manual transmission 'Stang is 3,453 lbs. Look, you can probably shave a few inches off the Mustang, but you're getting rid of *plastic* not structural steel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 BMW 1-series coupe is lighter than both. Under 3,300 lbs. So there you go. That's what Ford needs to do. Build a car that's like 300lbs lighter than the 1-Series in order to please a guy who is not going to buy one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 So there you go. That's what Ford needs to do. Build a car that's like 300lbs lighter than the 1-Series in order to please a guy who is not going to buy one. Or a Focus ST coupe...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Sometimes what you seek is already right in front of you... Ford said the EVO has a lot of Mustang in it. I bet the next Mustang will be <400 lbs than the current 'Stang.... I hope Ford uses the next Mustang platform and build a new Lincoln and Thunderbird out of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 My prediction: The next gen Mustang loses about 40 lbs. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 So there you go. That's what Ford needs to do. Build a car that's like 300lbs lighter than the 1-Series in order to please a guy who is not going to buy one. the 1 series weighs 3,208, with its 3.0l I6. would it be reasonable to lose an additional 80-100lbs by switching to using a EB 16? if so that could yield a 3100 lb car. surely a fine number for a sports car. to please a guy who is not going to buy one. Why does someone driving a 2000 mercury sable care how much mustang weighs? maybe becuase our interests are not limited by the Cars we buy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Say what? I thought Mustang continues to evolve on D2C... Exactly...just major improvements to the rear of the car with the form of IRS... My prediction: The next gen Mustang loses about 40 lbs. All depends on how you want to define weight loss....if Ford offers the 2L Ecoboost engine in it, I'd assume that would be a weight savings of about 100 pounds or so over the current 3.7L V6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Why does someone driving a 2000 mercury sable care how much mustang weighs? maybe becuase our interests are not limited by the Cars we buy. But your agendas do.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 All depends on how you want to define weight loss....if Ford offers the 2L Ecoboost engine in it, I'd assume that would be a weight savings of about 100 pounds or so over the current 3.7L V6 And I still say 40 lbs. I'm guessing it'll actually add 60 lbs or so elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 a fine number for a sports car. The Mustang is not a sports car. Why does someone driving a 2000 mercury sable care how much mustang weighs? maybe becuase our interests are not limited by the Cars we buy. See, here's the difference: You're saying, "Ford is doing it wrong. They should do it my way." To which I respond, effectively, "what is your proof, and why should Ford listen to you?" You've so far supplied the BMW 1-Series as proof that a very tiny car could be turned into a Mustang if you put a Mustang badge on it, and as far as effective demand goes, you've got none because you're not in the market. -- See, if you're going to argue that someone else has screwed up, you kind of have to prove that they're screwing up. So far..... Um. I'm not seeing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 BTW: Bonus points for bringing up my car. I love it when people do that. Nothing like bringing extraneous material into a discussion..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Taking 5 inches off the front end and rear end isn't going to be easy to do with the current platform....its not like the car is huge either...its roughly the size of a mid-sized car. If you want a small car, get a Focus... we the focus is larger than the mustang. inside. If you use an IRS you can reduce the rear overhang, while maintaining or even increasing the trunk, and or rear seat room. but that is a another story It's getting a whole new platform. But it isn't getting much smaller. How much shorter can the wheelbase be? Consider that even with an all-alloy V-8, there has to be enough engine set-back for proper weight distribution, and rear-seat legroom.Keep the front overhang to a minimum, and that leaves one simple question: how much trunk room and rear overhang? the key to the next mustang and Ford general GRWD architecture is to develop a Global flexible frontal structure for the new mustang that can meet all global crash standards, natively adaptable for RHD or LHD, and be capable of fitting of I4 and V8 engines of the future. like 2B2 said you can completely replace the frontal structure, while carrying over the floorpan of D2C, forming the basis of an eventual GRWD architecture. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 D2C was rendered a dead end architecture by the bean counters. 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). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 The Mustang is not a sports car. It isn't? See, here's the difference: You're saying, "Ford is doing it wrong. They should do it my way." To which I respond, effectively, "what is your proof, and why should Ford listen to you?" You've so far supplied the BMW 1-Series as proof that a very tiny car could be turned into a Mustang if you put a Mustang badge on it, and as far as effective demand goes, you've got none because you're not in the market. -- See, if you're going to argue that someone else has screwed up, you kind of have to prove that they're screwing up. So far..... Um. I'm not seeing it. so you disagree with me? that is really what you are trying to say, right? It is my opinion, unlike you I never try to pass it off as being Fact. As to the 1 series you are the guy that said "I believe the Mustang is the lightest RWD 4 seater on the market. Tell me again how Ford has dropped the ball managing the weight of this thing?" when you are proven wrong YOU are the one making passive aggressive insults about unrelated things like "in order to please a guy who is not going to buy one." which has nothing to do with the subject of our discussion, but serves only to harm the character of people that disagree with you. BTW: Bonus points for bringing up my car. I love it when people do that. Nothing like bringing extraneous material into a discussion..... becuase I "is(am) not going to buy one." I no longer have the right to offer an opinion on this subject. how extraneous is that comment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 (edited) And I've done it again. Up to my elbows in an exchange between someone who has conflated "opinions" and "arguments". Opinion: "I think this", "In my opinion, this" Opinion masquerading as fact: "This is this." Argument: "Independently verifiable this, therefore reasonable that." But I will address your claim that I am unfairly making your preferences an issue: Your unwillingness to buy a Mustang is most certainly an issue if you choose to criticize what Ford is doing with the vehicle. Why? Because you have furnished no logical argument other than your own perception of the current Mustang as a 'fat ass'. Your only logical argument, so far, is 'I consider the Mustang to be too heavy, therefore I am not going to buy one.' In such an instance, it is perfectly fair to point out your unwillingness to buy Mustangs generally. (Fallacy of the False Cause--the weight of the Mustang is not your primary reason for not buying one) It would also be appropriate to point out the folly of relying on anecdotal evidence to infer broader trends (e.g. "I do not want a 3,500lb Mustang, therefore many people do not want a 3,500lb Mustang, therefore Ford is overlooking many customers). (Anecdotal Fallacy) If you were offended that I called your purchases into question, then let's take it as read that I accused you of committing an Anecdotal Fallacy, instead of the Fallacy of the False Cause. Edited April 20, 2012 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.