silvrsvt Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 Just throwing this out there....about all the complaints about how "big" the 2005-2013 Mustangs are: Specs 1969 Boss 302 Wheelbase: 108 inches Length: 183.6 Width: 71.3 Height: 49.2 0-60 mph: 5.7 sec 0-100 mph: 13.7 sec Quarter Mile: 13.9 sec @ 103 mph Curb weight: 3387 lbs 2013 Boss 302: Wheelbase 107.1 Length (in.) 188.1 Width (in.) 73.9 Height (in.) 55.1 0–60 mph 4.6 sec 0-100 9.2 sec Quarter Mile: 12.3 sec @ 115.8 mph Curb Weight: 3621 lb I think just under 250 lb increase between the two is pretty commendable considering all the extra stuff that the newer cars have in them.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 IMO, the new Mustang needs to get lower and sleeker, but still have the familiar design cues and upright driving stance that immediately tell crowd that it is a Mustang. My weight goal if I were head of Mustang team would be no more than 3200 pounds. For 2013, the team aeroed out the front end a bit, but it is IMO still too upright and not low or sleek enough. Also bring the air scoop in front of rear fender back to prominence and make it functional. I've heard more people tell me that aluminum sector is good investment in that every vehicle out there needs to go on diet if new CAFE rules are to be met. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 Just throwing this out there....about all the complaints about how "big" the 2005-2013 Mustangs are: Specs 1969 Boss 302 Wheelbase: 108 inches Length: 183.6 Width: 71.3 Height: 49.2 0-60 mph: 5.7 sec 0-100 mph: 13.7 sec Quarter Mile: 13.9 sec @ 103 mph Curb weight: 3387 lbs 2013 Boss 302: Wheelbase 107.1 Length (in.) 188.1 Width (in.) 73.9 Height (in.) 55.1 0–60 mph 4.6 sec 0-100 9.2 sec Quarter Mile: 12.3 sec @ 115.8 mph Curb Weight: 3621 lb I think just under 250 lb increase between the two is pretty commendable considering all the extra stuff that the newer cars have in them.... Above shows a lot evolution in engine performance and fuel efficiency that makes cars of today faster even though they have put on the pounds like many Americans. Engine performance has graphed up steeper than curb weight resulting in better power to weight ratios. Further evolution in lighweight steel and use of aluminum and carbon fiber should help even more. I know that Ford before it sold Jaguar figured out how to use adhesives to fuse aluminum body to chassis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 (edited) bring the air scoop in front of rear fender back to prominence and make it functional. What's it going to do? Cool the spare tire? Intakes are significant aerodynamic liability. Edited June 27, 2012 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 I had a 69 Mustang. I never considered it a "small" car by any means. The comparison of these two cars leaves out a very large gap of much smaller Mustangs before the 69 and before the 2012. Both the 69 and the current Mustang come after eras of smaller Mustangs. The original 64 Mustang was smaller and each consecutive model got bigger and bigger until things "reset" with the Mustang II. The same goes for the 2012 Mustang and it's previous incarnations. Take a look at the specs for the 1979 Mustang in comparison to the 69 Mustang and the 2012 Mustang. Specifications for the 1979, 1980, 1981 Ford Mustang:Wheelbase, inches: 100.4 Length, inches: 179.1 Curb-weight range, pounds: 2,530-2,672 (1979); 2,601-2,692 (1981) Width, inches: 69.1 Sure, it is impressive that the current Mustang weighs the same as the 69 with all the added features. But with the advent and use of lightweight materials, only the physical size of the car is going to change it much going forward. It's simply a bigger car then it was just 20 years ago. The big question is, will the next generation follow the cycle of growth >> contraction? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 (edited) ...and to add...performance currently just rocks no matter the size / weight. It can only get better with a more compact size. Edited June 27, 2012 by Intrepidatious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 I had a 69 Mustang. I never considered it a "small" car by any means. The comparison of these two cars leaves out a very large gap of much smaller Mustangs before the 69 and before the 2012. We were making these observations when I had a bunch of guys from my Cobra club over this past weekend. My SN95 and another guy's Fox looked tiny next to a newer GT500. My poor fender snakes are an inch shorter than the current ones. :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted June 27, 2012 Author Share Posted June 27, 2012 It can only get better with a more compact size. But at what point do you start impacting the practicality of it for people who are taller/bigger? People are taller/fatter then they where 20-30 years ago too I know some people who looked at the BRZ/FR-S, who where over 6 ft tall and didn't feel they could fit into the car comfortably. I like the size of the current car, I fit fine in the front seat of the car without any issues at 6'2 and 220ish pounds. The back seat still sucks if your over 4 foot tall, but what Mustang has had a good back seat in it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted June 27, 2012 Author Share Posted June 27, 2012 We were making these observations when I had a bunch of guys from my Cobra club over this past weekend. My SN95 and another guy's Fox looked tiny next to a newer GT500. My poor fender snakes are an inch shorter than the current ones. :lol: The current car is also taller then the SN95 and Fox body Mustangs...which makes it look bigger then it actually is. I've had SN95 Mustangs next to my Mustang and its not that big of a difference between them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 We were making these observations when I had a bunch of guys from my Cobra club over this past weekend. My SN95 and another guy's Fox looked tiny next to a newer GT500. My poor fender snakes are an inch shorter than the current ones. :lol: Remember the fender snakes on the Cobra II in '76? They were huge even if the engine wasn't. Before I looked at the stats on the '69 vs. '12, I would have thought the '69 was larger. That's just my recollection from driving a '70 years ago. It may also have something to do with the long hood that made the '69 look longer than it really is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 The current car is also taller then the SN95 and Fox body Mustangs...which makes it look bigger then it actually is. I've had SN95 Mustangs next to my Mustang and its not that big of a difference between them. The width is similar, but the 2012 is 7 inches longer, and then the height difference as you mentioned. That's not insignificant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted June 27, 2012 Author Share Posted June 27, 2012 The width is similar, but the 2012 is 7 inches longer, and then the height difference as you mentioned. That's not insignificant. Right and thats mostly from the wheelbase increase on the car to make it ride better. Heck a 2012 Focus wheelbase is 104 inches long An Escort during the same era as the 94-98 inches long... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenCaylor Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 I like the size of the current car, I fit fine in the front seat of the car without any issues at 6'2 and 220ish pounds. The back seat still sucks if your over 4 foot tall, but what Mustang has had a good back seat in it? That's an easy one. Any Mustang coupe (which they stopped making in 1994). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havelock Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 Just throwing this out there....about all the complaints about how "big" the 2005-2013 Mustangs are: Specs 1969 Boss 302 Wheelbase: 108 inches Length: 183.6 Width: 71.3 Height: 49.2 0-60 mph: 5.7 sec 0-100 mph: 13.7 sec Quarter Mile: 13.9 sec @ 103 mph Curb weight: 3387 lbs 2013 Boss 302: Wheelbase 107.1 Length (in.) 188.1 Width (in.) 73.9 Height (in.) 55.1 0–60 mph 4.6 sec 0-100 9.2 sec Quarter Mile: 12.3 sec @ 115.8 mph Curb Weight: 3621 lb I think just under 250 lb increase between the two is pretty commendable considering all the extra stuff that the newer cars have in them.... H x W x L shows a box large enough to hold a 2013 is 70.5 cubic feet larger than a box that holds a 1969. Assume the car only occupies half the volume of the box and 2013 is 35.25 cubic feet larger than a 1969...which is larger than cargo volume of an Edge with the seats up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 That's an easy one. Any Mustang coupe (which they stopped making in 1994). I think '93 was the last year of the "notch" coupe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 Right and thats mostly from the wheelbase increase on the car to make it ride better. Heck a 2012 Focus wheelbase is 104 inches long An Escort during the same era as the 94-98 inches long... An IRS would do more for the ride quality than tacking more length on the wheelbase. Given the long front and rear overhangs on the SN95 though, you could probably get close to the same wheelbase as D2C with the SN95's overall length if you could cut those overhangs back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 IMO, the new Mustang needs to get lower and sleeker, It would be nice, for sure, but don't get your hopes up for any dramatic improvement, if only because it will have to conform to EU pedestrian collision regs, if Ford wants to sell in the EU, plus the chassis would probably have to lengthen, for legroom with a more reclined seating layout for the lower roofline. It's all about optimizing the compromises that are required . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 It would be nice, for sure, but don't get your hopes up for any dramatic improvement, if only because it will have to conform to EU pedestrian collision regs, if Ford wants to sell in the EU, plus the chassis would probably have to lengthen, for legroom with a more reclined seating layout for the lower roofline. It's all about optimizing the compromises that are required . . . I know this is not going to happen, but I would like to see the next Mustang V6 and/or small displacement EBI4 remain a sport coupe model. But I would like to see the Mustang GT morph into full 2+2 sports car mode. That means lower and sleeker and an even better road racing machine. Make the Corvette nervous for about half the money. I know it won't happen, but I can dream. Very inexpensive Mustang sport coupe for those accustomed to more conventional approach, and very aggressive road machine for those who want to pay GT premium price. I know Ford already does that with its specialty Mustang models like the Boss, but make the stock GT much more aggressive as in lower, sleeker, and lighter that will significantly improve power to weight ratio and aero specs without having to increase power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 What's it going to do? Cool the spare tire? Intakes are significant aerodynamic liability. I'll let you figure out what is behind that fake air intake and what gets real hot when on road racing circuit as some Mustangs have been known to do. Gridding race cars at the last club race, I couldn't count how many came in to cool down this item before they could get back on track. And some race drivers claim you turn faster lap times without them as many overuse them causing them to ge even hotter than they should be. In fact, very fast race car came in complaining about this item, took off back onto track before letting them cool down and turned his fastest lap ever because he couldn't use them much. And these race cars have air tubes slamming air into them as they can get past 2,000 degrees F. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 very aggressive road machine for those who want to pay GT premium price. It would be an ideal Thunderbird, like the original, and stay out of Lincoln's luxury image re-building. But with a new Corvette coming, there's no way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I'll let you figure out what is behind that fake air intake I know what's behind it, and I know how useful an air intake would be to 99% of the drivers, and the EPA test. Also, here's a thought: The next time you gripe about weight or how cars are getting bigger, compare the original 911 to the current model. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I know what's behind it, and I know how useful an air intake would be to 99% of the drivers, and the EPA test. Also, here's a thought: The next time you gripe about weight or how cars are getting bigger, compare the original 911 to the current model. Don't know how fair that is, but the new 991 is lighter even though bigger than the previous 997 and the new 981 is lighter than the previous 987 and bigger also. That is saying something when lots more content got added. But getting back to Mustang, hopefully Ford can take about 200-300 pounds weight out of it using various tricks and still adding more content and IRS. And if it's true that next Mustang will be a bit smaller instead of bigger, losing some weight can't be that hard. Ford has stated more than once that a major goal is to put all its cars and trucks on a diet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaZor Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) I know what's behind it, and I know how useful an air intake would be to 99% of the drivers, and the EPA test. Yeah, I was kinda surprised when I read your original comment too. I can easily remember what I had to do to fabricate a functional intake to cool the rear brakes for my '69 Mach I (that I owned for 35 yrs). It was quite an undertaking but it worked perfectly and I did it so that I could still reinsert the plastic plug in it when I wanted to. It would not be difficult to include a similar design in the new version and gain an important element for a performance car. It would be ridiculous to continue to design in a "fake" anything on any car today - especially one that is sold as a performance sporty car. It wouldn't need to be installed/included on versions that are not performance models, but could be easily purchased via the MS Parts catalog, should one desire it. It's not like there would any significant amount of weight involved either. Injection molded ABS plastic "tubing" is very light weight. I think what you are forgetting is that Ford would sell more Stangs in the performance class if they were more serious about their functionality in that regard. But then if you never owned a performance car, or raced one, you probably wouldn't understand. Edited June 28, 2012 by RaZor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Yeah, I was kinda surprised when I read your original comment too. I can easily remember what I had to do to fabricate a functional intake to cool the rear brakes for my '69 Mach I (that I owned for 35 yrs). It was quite an undertaking but it worked perfectly and I did it so that I could still reinsert the plastic plug in it when I wanted to. It would not be difficult to include a similar design in the new version and gain an important element for a performance car. It would be ridiculous to continue to design in a "fake" anything on any car today - especially one that is sold as a performance sporty car. It wouldn't need to be installed/included on versions that are not performance models, but could be easily purchased via the MS Parts catalog, should one desire it. It's not like there would any significant amount of weight involved either. Injection molded ABS plastic "tubing" is very light weight. I think what you are forgetting is that Ford would sell more Stangs in the performance class if they were more serious about their functionality in that regard. But then if you never owned a performance car, or raced one, you probably wouldn't understand. I would agree. If you are going to put an airtake in there functional or otherwise, might as well make it easy for aftermarket to make it functional if it isn't from factory. And since there is always at least an indent crease marking off where one would go on most Mustang designs, might as well put a real one there instead for those who race their Mustangs. After all, Mustangs are RWD and therefore better balanced on race track including braking action as they are closer to 50-50 than FWD. Cars at track have to have less than 1% moisture content in their brake system and can't have too much air coming in trying to keep your brake fluid from cooking and brake pedal going mushy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Don't know how fair that is, but the new 991 is lighter even though bigger than the previous 997 and the new 981 is lighter than the previous 987 and bigger also. That is saying something when lots more content got added. But getting back to Mustang, hopefully Ford can take about 200-300 pounds weight out of it using various tricks and still adding more content and IRS. And if it's true that next Mustang will be a bit smaller instead of bigger, losing some weight can't be that hard. Ford has stated more than once that a major goal is to put all its cars and trucks on a diet. Well, at Porsche prices, they should be light as possible, maybe even as light as a Corvette? Have they managed to get the pork out of the regular 911 yet? Sure, if you want to spend 200-300K, Porsche can build an "unobtainium" lightweight, but it appears that the regular 911 is actually heavier than a Corvette. 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.