Truths about the 2015 Mustang

[DrivingEnthusiast]

That recent article in Edmunds claiming a 400 pound lighter Mustang the size and width of a Focus isn't even remotely accurate, except for the length. Their source was obviously some floor sleep in a dealer rather than anybody in the know. That's what they get for listening to somebody who claims to be an insider. They should be ashamed of themselves for such shoddy rumors.

 

All you need to do is to look very closely at the existing spy photos. At DrivingEnthusiast.net, we used them to do an analysis of the 2015 Mustang ( http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php?t=710 ) and came up with these dimensions:

 

Wheelbase 107.1" (2013" 107.1) (this is just an evolved S197, after all)
front rotors: 14: (2013: 14")
rear rotors: 12.4" (2013: 11.8")
wheel diameter: 20" (2013: 19")
length: 175.5" (2013: 188.1")

 

See the full article at the link above for all the details. The measurements were easy enough to do, and certainly the competing engineers over at GM have already done it too so that they can keep the Alpha-based 2016 Camaro ( http://www.drivingenthusiast.net/sec-blog/?p=15925 ) on track.

 

Bottom line, this new car isn't so new... given the engine compartment details and the measurements, it's clear that this is just an "evolved" S197. The front track is all but the same, and the rear adds 2 inches. The engine compartment is very close to the current car, with the engine and firewall in the same place ( http://www.drivingenthusiast.net/sec-blog/?p=15161 ).

 

We'll know more IF we see a concept car in January (or we may not, if we're cheated again, as in 2004 when Ford showed a Thunderbird-based 2005 concept and passed it off as what was coming: http://www.drivingenthusiast.net/sec-blog/?p=15873 ). IN any case, the final numbers will be out when the 2015 is launched next April.

 

All the above is based on reality, not what "some guy heard somewhere". The reality is the measurements of the actual prototype cars running around right now, which are in their final form. So that's a fact.

 

Now let me go out on a limb... we know that the car has to loose weight and that Ford has a program going to take major weight out of each new platform. For the F-150, we have all sorts of stories about a huge weight loss..,. none confirmed yet. For the Mustang, we have an interview with the chief that says 200 pounds is a goal. so, IF that is reality (and there wil be no way to know for sure until the launch when the final specs will come out), IF we are very lucky the overall car will weigh around 200 pounds less than the current car. That means that the 4 cylinder EB MIGHT weight in the high 3200 range, but the V-8 models would only weigh 200 pounds less than they do now (3418, down from 3616 in a current base V-8). And remember that the EB Mustang might be standard, or might be an option as it is in the EB Flex and Edge. In the Edge, it's a premium up-market option.. that means that additional features will be standard - all of them adding weight. So the car might not make it down into the low 3200 range afterall. Or, if the EB is standard, then there will be a model to keep the weight as low as possible.

 

This 200-pound assumption is what we based our 2013-2015-2018 charts on. This is the one and only time we went out this far out on a limb.... and the only evidence to support this is the fact that the S550 is just an evolved S197 - not an all-new platform. Updating an existing platform has built-in limitations as to what actually can be accomplished.

 

And then there are the completely unsubstantiated rumors like a 600+ HP flat-crank naturally aspirated Coyote engine. We're laughing at that one, frankly. It'd be nice if it's true, but the Coyote engine architecture can't support it. Somebody must have installed their NOS into the wring intake - their mouth.

Same for the rumors started by a single individual: that the rear control blade suspension has been lifted from the Falcon (look at the pics, it has not), and that the rear suspension has been lifted intact form the Fusion (again take a look, it has not - and if anybody wants a Fusion suspension that wasn't designed to take massive V-8 torque, then good luck to buyers). Both of these can be knocked down by looking closelyk at the IRS spy pictures, which we've had since last year. The control blade suspensionwas considered very briefly for the 2005, knocked out of the race quickly, and an entirely new IRS was designed (which we have pics of, and which was cancelled at the last moment by Phil Martens - who then was himself cancelled right out of the company). Ford had been experimenting with various IRS designed right back into early days of the SN95 ( http://www.drivingenthusiast.net/sec-blog/?p=12501 ) and the final design for the 2005 was very robust ( http://www.drivingenthusiast.net/sec-blog/?p=11329 ) and designed to handle the torque of the the planned big-block 7 liter DOHC "Boss" engine (again, cancelled by Phil Martens very late in the development game).

 

Sorry to say that some people get offended by the revelation that the "new" Mustang is just the "old" Mustang in it's bones (granted with significant updates). Wanting it to be an all-new platform (or 400 pounds lighter) doesn't make it so.

[mackinaw]

You mean people are spending hours of their time looking at photos of a camouflaged prototype and making guesses as to the car's dimensions? Did they ever hear of the expression, "get a life?"

[DrivingEnthusiast]

No, but after seeing all the BS going around (and self-professed insider leaks), it was time to "get a ruler". Time to take all the guesses out of this.

[chevys]

You mean people are spending hours of their time looking at photos of a camouflaged prototype and making guesses as to the car's dimensions? Did they ever hear of the expression, "get a life?"

They do when its a Mustang. The OP is right imo about the weight. 400 lbs is not going to happen. I wish it was true but I dont think it is. With any luck it might weigh in like the Sn95 cars did. I dont think we can expect any more to be honest.

[papilgee4evaeva]

"Truths" in the title...

 

As far as length-width and weight, no one outside of Ford knows the truth about the Mustang until it debuts. Everyone's speculating. Even the Photoshop engineers.

[DrivingEnthusiast]

It's good to be skeptical.

 

But in this case, except the for measurements (not the weight), that is not the case at all. We have the prototypes driving around and simple measurements can zero in pretty closely to the dimensions. we know the wheelbase is identical (which itself is very telling), and the length is within probably 2 inches.

Edited August 17, 2013 by DrivingEnthusiast

[rkisler]

That recent article in Edmunds claiming a 400 pound lighter Mustang the size and width of a Focus isn't even remotely accurate, except for the length. Their source was obviously some floor sleep in a dealer rather than anybody in the know. That's what they get for listening to somebody who claims to be an insider. They should be ashamed of themselves for such shoddy rumors.

 

All you need to do is to look very closely at the existing spy photos. At DrivingEnthusiast.net, we used them to do an analysis of the 2015 Mustang ( http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php?t=710 ) and came up with these dimensions:

 

Wheelbase 107.1" (2013" 107.1) (this is just an evolved S197, after all)

front rotors: 14: (2013: 14")

rear rotors: 12.4" (2013: 11.8")

wheel diameter: 20" (2013: 19")

length: 175.5" (2013: 188.1")

 

See the full article at the link above for all the details. The measurements were easy enough to do, and certainly the competing engineers over at GM have already done it too so that they can keep the Alpha-based 2016 Camaro ( http://www.drivingenthusiast.net/sec-blog/?p=15925 ) on track.

 

Bottom line, this new car isn't so new... given the engine compartment details and the measurements, it's clear that this is just an "evolved" S197. The front track is all but the same, and the rear adds 2 inches. The engine compartment is very close to the current car, with the engine and firewall in the same place ( http://www.drivingenthusiast.net/sec-blog/?p=15161 ).

 

We'll know more IF we see a concept car in January (or we may not, if we're cheated again, as in 2004 when Ford showed a Thunderbird-based 2005 concept and passed it off as what was coming: http://www.drivingenthusiast.net/sec-blog/?p=15873 ). IN any case, the final numbers will be out when the 2015 is launched next April.

 

All the above is based on reality, not what "some guy heard somewhere". The reality is the measurements of the actual prototype cars running around right now, which are in their final form. So that's a fact.

 

Now let me go out on a limb... we know that the car has to loose weight and that Ford has a program going to take major weight out of each new platform. For the F-150, we have all sorts of stories about a huge weight loss..,. none confirmed yet. For the Mustang, we have an interview with the chief that says 200 pounds is a goal. so, IF that is reality (and there wil be no way to know for sure until the launch when the final specs will come out), IF we are very lucky the overall car will weigh around 200 pounds less than the current car. That means that the 4 cylinder EB MIGHT weight in the high 3200 range, but the V-8 models would only weigh 200 pounds less than they do now (3418, down from 3616 in a current base V-8). And remember that the EB Mustang might be standard, or might be an option as it is in the EB Flex and Edge. In the Edge, it's a premium up-market option.. that means that additional features will be standard - all of them adding weight. So the car might not make it down into the low 3200 range afterall. Or, if the EB is standard, then there will be a model to keep the weight as low as possible.

 

This 200-pound assumption is what we based our 2013-2015-2018 charts on. This is the one and only time we went out this far out on a limb.... and the only evidence to support this is the fact that the S550 is just an evolved S197 - not an all-new platform. Updating an existing platform has built-in limitations as to what actually can be accomplished.

 

And then there are the completely unsubstantiated rumors like a 600+ HP flat-crank naturally aspirated Coyote engine. We're laughing at that one, frankly. It'd be nice if it's true, but the Coyote engine architecture can't support it. Somebody must have installed their NOS into the wring intake - their mouth.

 

Same for the rumors started by a single individual: that the rear control blade suspension has been lifted from the Falcon (look at the pics, it has not), and that the rear suspension has been lifted intact form the Fusion (again take a look, it has not - and if anybody wants a Fusion suspension that wasn't designed to take massive V-8 torque, then good luck to buyers). Both of these can be knocked down by looking closelyk at the IRS spy pictures, which we've had since last year. The control blade suspensionwas considered very briefly for the 2005, knocked out of the race quickly, and an entirely new IRS was designed (which we have pics of, and which was cancelled at the last moment by Phil Martens - who then was himself cancelled right out of the company). Ford had been experimenting with various IRS designed right back into early days of the SN95 ( http://www.drivingenthusiast.net/sec-blog/?p=12501 ) and the final design for the 2005 was very robust ( http://www.drivingenthusiast.net/sec-blog/?p=11329 ) and designed to handle the torque of the the planned big-block 7 liter DOHC "Boss" engine (again, cancelled by Phil Martens very late in the development game).

 

Sorry to say that some people get offended by the revelation that the "new" Mustang is just the "old" Mustang in it's bones (granted with significant updates). Wanting it to be an all-new platform (or 400 pounds lighter) doesn't make it so.

I was very heavily involved in S197 from the very beginning -- even before we pulled a program number. I agree with all of your comments. On the IRS, it is true that Hau Thai-Tang started with the C170 control blade, but there were issues, including the packaging of the front of the blade due to the short-coupled nature of the Mustang (it intruded into the door opening), and other issues with robustness. So that's not where the programmed IRS ended up. I'm assuming the IRS designed for S197 was pretty much reborn and brushed up for this S550.

 

Phil Martens cancelling the IRS late in the game was sheer idiocy. He's doing fine for himself as CEO of Novelis, but he left a trail of good people pushed off to the side in his wake..

 

Even finding 200 pounds is a big deal. There are opportunities, but weight costs $$ and the Mustang has always stood for affordable performance which means the task is very difficult.

[DrivingEnthusiast]

Actually the IRS that was designed for the 2005 had no relation to the Aussie's control blade at all (or the DEW98, or the SVT SN95). There are pictures of it on the net, including my site. It was a beautiful work of art, very much over-engineered, and undoubtedly very expensive. Coupled with the cancelled big-block, this would have been a fierce car... and nose heavy and a gas guzzler.

Remind me never to work for Novelis. And unfortunately, that idiot Hau Thai-Tang is back from South America.

 

Also the S550 IRS zero relationship to the IRS for the S197. It is again a clean sheet design, nothing in common. It looks fairly cheap to build, certainly less so than the S197's IRS would have been (with it's huge aluminum castings and forgings), and if it is standard across the line it will not impact assembly (as the Cobra SN95 IRS did, a bit). It will also have less than optimum geometry, and cheap rear brakes. Again, the cost is being kept down.

 

My involvement - as an outsider - with the S197 came much earlier. I was involved in talking to a Ford VP for two years who was doing a study to justify their original decision to base the next Mustang on the then-current DEW98. Unfortunately, it lost out to cost.. .and the SN95 program came about (with all the same weaknesses, including the weak floorpan and the accident waiting to happen gas tank location). And it's a shame... since this same thing was tried years before with the MN12 Tbird chassis. That would also have made a great Mustang, albeit heavy where the MN12 was not altogether successful as a platform.

 

I had two SVTs with an IRS, both great handlers. I'm sold. I also did a transplant of one into an earlier car. And I spent some serious time with the SVT engineers talking about the design and it's compromises... and also how to improve it (they also filled me in on the S197 IRS, and on the huge failures of the Ford GT program). I was running Cobra R spring and shock rates thanks to their help before the R came out (and then duplicated that again in my 2003). That was ten years ago... and I;m still waiting and waiting for Ford to catch up to themselves.. yet again.

 

So after umpteen years... we finally have a Mustang with an IRS.

Edited August 17, 2013 by DrivingEnthusiast

[sullynd]

the S550 IRS zero relationship to the IRS for the S550.

How does that work?

[twintornados]

You mean people are spending hours of their time looking at photos of a camouflaged prototype and making guesses as to the car's dimensions? Did they ever hear of the expression, "get a life?"

You are gonna piss off BORG.....he has camo piercing vision....

Edited August 17, 2013 by twintornados

[RichardJensen]

"Truths" in the title...

 

As far as length-width and weight, no one outside of Ford knows the truth about the Mustang until it debuts. Everyone's speculating. Even the Photoshop engineers.

 

This.

 

I think the OP is more right than not, but a bit of modesty would not detract from the post.

[SoonerLS]

...that idiot Hau Thai-Tang...

You're going to have to explain this statement, as I've never heard anyone, including people I know who've met and worked with him, say anything at all like this.

[DrivingEnthusiast]

Here's his quotes in the press over the course of a year:

1. “Drag racers and Ford’s accountants will be pleased at the choice of a live axle out back. Among our customer groups that know and care what sort of rear suspension their car has, a large number of them want a solid rear axle; they’re primarily the core enthusiast drag racers, and they like the durability, reliability, and ease of modification with it, changing axle ratios, etc.,” says Thai-Tang. “There’s another group that wants the sophistication and cornering advantage of an IRS, and we’re going to offer it on the upcoming SVT Cobra. Unlike the last time, when we kind of shoehorned the IRS in [an older platform]; this time, we’ve designed the rear architecture to accommodate both right from the beginning.”
2. “Ninety-two percent of (Mustang) Cobra customers wouldn’t have considered a Ford product”
3. “We’ll never appease those IRS snobs.”

Quote 1 and 3 - long lead discussion of the '06 SVT Cobra

Quote 3 - after Phil Martens cancelled it.

 

I see you have an LS. An indication of what could have come. I have one too, 17k miles. It's like the first gen G35. Too bad there wasn't a second gen.

Edited August 17, 2013 by DrivingEnthusiast

[RichardJensen]

1. “We’ll never appease those IRS snobs.”

 

You know what? I agree with him, even though I think that was a poor choice of words for public consumption.

 

The IRS had been canceled, so he couldn't, as a representative of Ford Motor, talk about how great it would be in a Mustang anymore. You just can't do that if you're going to get to oversee development of the Mustang and take home a six figure salary. Voicing *your opinion* in public is one of the things you give up for those benefits.

 

And by that point in time, I'm sure Tang had had enough of the IRS issue and unfortunately let that frustration slip out in an interview.

 

As an aside, I agree with him about IRS snobs. There are people who don't know the first thing about suspension geometry who assume that all IRS setups are inherently superior to all SRA setups. And then within the IRS community you have people who have dogmatic views about something which cannot have a perfect implementation under any circumstances. I'd call these people snobs without lumping *all* enthusiasts into that bin.

 

But, again, Ford wasn't paying Tang to voice his opinion. Calling a segment of the enthusiast community "IRS snobs" was as out of line as it would be to continue to talk up Mustangs with IRS after they had committed to SRA.

 

However, calling Tang an idiot because he overdid himself that one time eight years ago when he had to toe the company line on IRS (something that, again, he is handsomely compensated for doing)............. That's just.... Not quite sure I agree with that.

Edited August 17, 2013 by RichardJensen

[rkisler]

Actually the IRS that was designed for the 2005 had no relation to the Aussie's control blade at all (or the DEW98, or the SVT SN95). There are pictures of it on the net, including my site. It was a beautiful work of art, very much over-engineered, and undoubtedly very expensive. Coupled with the cancelled big-block, this would have been a fierce car... and nose heavy and a gas guzzler.

Remind me never to work for Novelis. And unfortunately, that idiot Hau Thai-Tang is back from South America.

 

Also the S550 IRS zero relationship to the IRS for the S197. It is again a clean sheet design, nothing in common. It looks fairly cheap to build, certainly less so than the S197's IRS would have been (with it's huge aluminum castings and forgings), and if it is standard across the line it will not impact assembly (as the Cobra SN95 IRS did, a bit). It will also have less than optimum geometry, and cheap rear brakes. Again, the cost is being kept down.

 

My involvement - as an outsider - with the S197 came much earlier. I was involved in talking to a Ford VP for two years who was doing a study to justify their original decision to base the next Mustang on the then-current DEW98. Unfortunately, it lost out to cost.. .and the SN95 program came about (with all the same weaknesses, including the weak floorpan and the accident waiting to happen gas tank location). And it's a shame... since this same thing was tried years before with the MN12 Tbird chassis. That would also have made a great Mustang, albeit heavy where the MN12 was not altogether successful as a platform.

 

I had two SVTs with an IRS, both great handlers. I'm sold. I also did a transplant of one into an earlier car. And I spent some serious time with the SVT engineers talking about the design and it's compromises... and also how to improve it (they also filled me in on the S197 IRS, and on the huge failures of the Ford GT program). I was running Cobra R spring and shock rates thanks to their help before the R came out (and then duplicated that again in my 2003). That was ten years ago... and I;m still waiting and waiting for Ford to catch up to themselves.. yet again.

 

So after umpteen years... we finally have a Mustang with an IRS.

First things first. I have a different opinion about HTT; don't really care to discuss.

 

It's ancient history, but I need to clean up your narrative a bit on S197.

 

1. You are right that the SVT IRS did work well. It was actually very, very similar to the IRS in the Falcon (same design engineers), but there were no parts in common. Due to the lack of volume and required obustness, the IRS was frightfully expensive -- in the neighborhood of $900 over the live axle. You certainly know a lot more than I do on the technical details, but there were some compromises on function because both the Falcon and Mustang had to package within the confines of an underbody meant for a live axle.

 

2. I don't doubt your conversations on S197, but the chronology doesn't quite square up with my recollection of timing. Here's what happened:

 

a. The SN95 was a relatively low-investment rescue effort to revise the existing Fox platform enough to keep Mustang in production. There was no DEW at the time, and to the best of my knowledge, no analytical effort was undertaken at that point.

 

b. The company was asleep at the switch; if no actions were taken on SN95, it would have had to go out of production due in part due to regulatory actions, so

 

c. A team was formed to sort out Mustang program direction. Although another iteration of SN95 was considered, it was pretty far down on the list. The team pulled together every RWD Ford had available -- SN95, MN12 T'bird, Falcon, and an analytical DEW (there were no DEW prototypes at that point -- just a couple of cobbled T'birds, and a prototype body-in-white buck). The team conducted a thorough product and a less thorough business analysis over a period of a couple of days with VP attendance. (This was during the Ford 2000 Vehicle Center days). At the end of this discussion, SN95 was pretty much taken off the table although it came back from time to time as new players kept asking already-answered questions.. As was MN12 for a whole host of reasons (even though further studies continued to make sure). Falcon also was taken off the table. That left only DEW98 as a build-from. Creating a new platform (also a want of Jaguar for a proper 3-series fighter) was deemed not acceptable -- Ford was still stinging from criticism for the $6 billion they had spent on Mondeo and was looking to reduce platforms, not create platforms.

 

d. The detailed analysis of the DEW-based Mustang was undertaken -- literally part by part. It morphed from DEW primarily for affordability, but also for function, but the intent was to throw parts overboard only if necessary. So macpherson in front, but using DEW mount points; IRS in rear, but less expensive. Front battery mount vs. rear. Etc, etc. The financials of this program got close, but really only made sense if it could be built in the same facility as the LS (which was a problem since the LS was crammed into a corner of expensive Wixom).

 

e. As the program progressed, it walked further and further from DEW, until there was literally no commonality. Cost was one reason; proportions was another; as was engine package. The fact that Mustang was moving to a facility where it wouldn't be sharing with another RWD vehicle also allowed for uniqueness as the production tooling was going to have to be all new regardless of what went in the plant. I should mention that there were several intensive side studies along the way including a another full-court press trying to commonize with Falcon, and also sharing with various Ford and Lincoln 4-door derivatives.

 

f. IRS was in the S197 program from the get-go. Not as a "want", but as a "given" and that involved a lot of heated arguments with the existing program team.

 

g. The program was initially programmed for 2002, but slipped. There continued to be extreme pressures on the financials.

 

h. The uniqueness of the D2c, and the need to keep investment down on this unique platform to keep Mustang affordable while still being profitable is a huge reason why we should expect an improved D2c. Without other models to share tooling costs, Mustang can't afford "all new." unless there is some magic that has happened.

 

Edited August 17, 2013 by Austin

[RichardJensen]

First things first. I have a different opinion about HTT; don't really care to discuss.

 

Geez. Maybe someday I'll be as smart as you and know when to keep my mouth shut about stuff like this..... Ah well.

[DrivingEnthusiast]

1) Yes, plenty of compromises, but I Ioved it on the track - especially with twice the standard spring rate. Some of the racers told me "you can't have enough spring in the rear". My '99 was my 12th Mustang.

2a) Yes, my statement was off in the timing. I had that DEW conversation with him in very late 97 and 98 (when the DEW was public knowledge, and prototypes were running around (one infamous photo set was a broken down DEW found abandoned on the road outside Detroit, with no keepers - everything on and under it got photographed.). I also, as a vendor and visitor to Ford, much had the opportunity to see an LS with the eventual S197 suspension underneath (well off campus). That's when I knew the gig was up.

2b-h) - yes, excellent detail.

 

Both of these platforms had issues, further development of both was needed. And of course the story of the MN12 debacle is legendary. But they were also a chance to get some sophistication into the Mustang - and some development dollars from high volume usage back into those platforms. Ford could have done the same thing as Nissan with it's FM platform if they had continued development. The first gen FM under the G35 wasn't perfect, but it was excellent for the time. I equate that and LS. And look what happened with the second gen G35 - near perfection, and a much better Z derivative too.

[SoonerLS]

However, calling Tang an idiot because he overdid himself that one time eight years ago when he had to toe the company line on IRS (something that, again, he is handsomely compensated for doing)............. That's just.... Not quite sure I agree with that.

This. There comes a time in every person's career when you just have to salute, say "yes, sir," and do what you have to do for the company, whether you like it or not. It may not have been the best phraseology, but it certainly doesn't, IMHO, make him an idiot.

[DrivingEnthusiast]

This. There comes a time in every person's career when you just have to salute, say "yes, sir," and do what you have to do for the company, whether you like it or not. It may not have been the best phraseology, but it certainly doesn't, IMHO, make him an idiot.

WRONG - you don't promise your customers something and then turn around and call them snobs. Whatever he personally felt, whether it was in line with the company or not, he had no business saying that to Ford's customers. He could have just said "we couldn't justify it, and we are holding it for another time". Which is just what his successor said in an AutoWeek interview a year later.

 

In any other company, that person would be shown the door. He should have been fired. As it was, he managed to slide himself out of the way during some serious downturn years.

 

But all this negative history takes away form what is coming in 2015. We've reviewed the history of all this enough, seen things promised and then delayed. Now it;'s 2015 and the purpos eof this thread was to debunk rumors and state what we have and do not have, as far as is known.

[jpd80]

I think there's a problem with looking at a photograph taken at a point away from the car in question

and then trying to norm base reference the wheel diameter, wheelbase and extrapolate the length.

With a rounded shape on the ends, you could miss two or three inches by looking on the oblique.

 

To me there's a type of parallax error creeping in where you're not really measuring the true extremity

of the car especially at the rear - the photo appears to be centered on the A Pillar.

 

Would it not be easier to superimpose a current Mustang images and compare them?

Edited August 17, 2013 by jpd80

[DrivingEnthusiast]

There are actually photographs of the car from both sides, and they support the same measurements. The slightly newer photo of the car facing to the right came out more recently (same split spoke wheels,, but small brakes) and that confirmed them again. There may be some padding underneath the camo front and rear... so the length may indeed be off a few inches. The rear is pretty easy to tell where it ends. The front a little less so.. it may be a tad longer up front than I first thought. Add in the usual huge front Ford license plate mount and it will be longer still.

 

So despite the disclaimer, it's very clear that this 2015 mustang is much shorter than the current car (based on these two pics taken from the side), the same width up front (based on the fundamentally unchanged engine compartment where the strut towers, although very slightly different, are in the exact same place), and 2 inches wider in the rear (based on the mule spy pics of last year, showing the complete new IRS mounted in the current S197 - and with a clearly wider track on each side, and a fuel filler door extended out away from the existing body). The killer fact to me is that wheelbase is exactly the same. If it were truly a new platform, it'd be different: +-2 inches off, or 2 tenths off, more or less for example - but not exactly the same.

 

In any case, the damage is done by the release of the spy photos: GM can see clearly and almost exactly what they are competing against a year or more before their own new Camaro comes out. They'll do even more accurate measurements than I was able to. That kind of foreknowledge means a lot in industry competition. And they certainly have other sources as well.

 

And on top of that perhaps not all the spy photographs were published openly. Those spy photographers are going to get the really big bucks selling them to GM or to the car magazines, not to Mustang enthusiast sites. There may well be better pics of the dashboard by now, for example (we've already seen that the big huge "bumper car" steering wheel has been ditched, and the general shape of the seats from the side). Inevitably, those dash covers are moved aside. Perhaps the photographer at the Arizona hotel ran up closer and got some better interior shots, hopefully in focus this time! That one that we saw was too darned fuzzy.

Edited August 18, 2013 by DrivingEnthusiast

[SoonerLS]

WRONG

Well, thanks for letting me know that I no longer need to pay attention to what you say.

[jpd80]

In any case, the damage is done by the release of the spy photos: GM can see clearly and almost exactly what they are competing against a year or more before their own new Camaro comes out. They'll do even more accurate measurements than I was able to. That kind of foreknowledge means a lot in industry competition. And they certainly have other sources as well.

It really doesn't matter that much because not many Mustang - Camaro sales interchange, so what GM does with their car

will appeal to their buyer sub set and likewise Ford will deliver a Mustang that hopefully appeals to that buyer set.

Coupes tend to be economic barometers, so an improving economy should see increases in sales for both.

[Havelock]

There are actually photographs of the car from both sides, and they support the same measurements. The slightly newer photo of the car facing to the right came out more recently (same split spoke wheels,, but small brakes) and that confirmed them again. There may be some padding underneath the camo front and rear... so the length may indeed be off a few inches. The rear is pretty easy to tell where it ends. The front a little less so.. it may be a tad longer up front than I first thought. Add in the usual huge front Ford license plate mount and it will be longer still.

 

So despite the disclaimer, it's very clear that this 2015 mustang is much shorter than the current car (based on these two pics taken from the side), the same width up front (based on the fundamentally unchanged engine compartment where the strut towers, although very slightly different, are in the exact same place), and 2 inches wider in the rear (based on the mule spy pics of last year, showing the complete new IRS mounted in the current S197 - and with a clearly wider track on each side, and a fuel filler door extended out away from the existing body). The killer fact to me is that wheelbase is exactly the same. If it were truly a new platform, it'd be different: +-2 inches off, or 2 tenths off, more or less for example - but not exactly the same.

 

In any case, the damage is done by the release of the spy photos: GM can see clearly and almost exactly what they are competing against a year or more before their own new Camaro comes out. They'll do even more accurate measurements than I was able to. That kind of foreknowledge means a lot in industry competition. And they certainly have other sources as well.

 

And on top of that perhaps not all the spy photographs were published openly. Those spy photographers are going to get the really big bucks selling them to GM or to the car magazines, not to Mustang enthusiast sites. There may well be better pics of the dashboard by now, for example (we've already seen that the big huge "bumper car" steering wheel has been ditched, and the general shape of the seats from the side). Inevitably, those dash covers are moved aside. Perhaps the photographer at the Arizona hotel ran up closer and got some better interior shots, hopefully in focus this time! That one that we saw was too darned fuzzy.

When making your calculations, what did you use for your reference? You have the front rotors and the wheelbase as the same for the 2015 and 2013. Is there something about the rotors that identify them as 2013s? Is there a close up of the tires that show the size on the sidewalls? When the SN95 was developed from the fox platform, Ford added 1-2 inches to the wheelbase so wheelbase can change even if the s550 is developed from the s197.

[Project-Fairmont]

And then there are the completely unsubstantiated rumors like a 600+ HP flat-crank naturally aspirated Coyote engine. We're laughing at that one, frankly. It'd be nice if it's true, but the Coyote engine architecture can't support it. Somebody must have installed their NOS into the wring intake - their mouth.

Why is this a joke? Change the crank to 180 degree, add correct firing order (new cams); why couldn't this be done on the "Coyote"? ~This is completely feasable~