coupe3w Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 I already acknowledged that, but you're talking about a few pounds here or there. You're not going to "engineer" a 300 lb weight loss without using carbon fiber or other lightweight materials and/or making it somewhat smaller. Strength of materials, testing, and FEA it still takes engineering to get it right. So technically it is "engineering" . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Strength of materials, testing, and FEA it still takes engineering to get it right. So technically it is "engineering" . Did you miss this part in his post? without using carbon fiber or other lightweight materials He did not say you could do it without engineering, he said you could not do it without lighter weight materials. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coupe3w Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 (edited) Did you miss this part in his post? He did not say you could do it without engineering, he said you could not do it without lighter weight materials. No didn't miss it. Each goes hand in hand. Do you think these light weight materials came from a pencil pusher or from an engineer? Edited November 25, 2015 by coupe3w Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 No didn't miss it. Each goes hand in hand. Do you think these light weight materials came from a pencil pusher or from an engineer? Thank You! That's exactly what I've been trying to say! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 No didn't miss it. Each goes hand in hand. Do you think these light weight materials came from a pencil pusher or from an engineer? Yes, they go hand in hand, but the decisions on which material comes from both. What, do you think the engineer just picks the material without putting any thought into cost? Upper management: "We have to reduce weight by y lbs." Engineer: "We could maybe cut x lbs by updating this part and re-engineering it, but to decrease weight by y lbs, we have to go with a different material. Let's use carbon fiber." Pencil pusher AKA bean counter: "OK, sounds great. You've got $xxx.xx to spend on that part." Engineer: "Oh. Well, then we have to use aluminum." So, to say you can reduce weight solely with engineering is incorrect. To say you can reduce weight with materials alone is incorrect. It is a combination of both of those, but the biggest factor of all is cost. Everything has to be done to a cost. Nobody is going to buy a Mustang GT for $75k when the Camaro is $35k. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 No didn't miss it. Each goes hand in hand. Do you think these light weight materials came from a pencil pusher or from an engineer? Well, if you want to be pedantic about it, the materials probably came from chemists and metallurgists. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Well, if you want to be pedantic about it, the materials probably came from chemists and metallurgists. Well, don't they actually originate in the ground? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted November 25, 2015 Author Share Posted November 25, 2015 Well, don't they actually originate in the ground? Something something Big Bang Theory? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 " my oh my, whats happening here exactly...." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coupe3w Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Well, if you want to be pedantic about it, the materials probably came from chemists and metallurgists. Probably someone with a Masters or Phd for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Happy t day everyone...at ya later.......... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 Well, don't they actually originate in the ground? Quiet in the cheaper seats! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 The Camaro losing weight was low lying fruit due to its platform it was on. It finally matched the Mustang's weight that it had since 2005 or so. The 2015 is pretty much nothing more then a improved S197 platform with IRS added back to it. As for the Mustang losing weight, that might have to wait till the next model, since just adding aluminum/whatever parts to an existing platform wont show major weight loss (200-300lbs), so I don't think we'll see a huge improvement in weight with an MCE...adding more power would be easier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfpack219 Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 I think 200-300 lbs is alot and would significantly impact the handling and performance. That's one or two people depending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GT-Keith Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 300lbs is 8% of the Mustang's mass, close to the 11% that the F150 lost. That's pretty significant and I agree that Ford won't incorporate aluminum with the MCE. With the 2020 'stang however, I can see that along with a new 4.0L TT V8 and maybe a lighter chassis overall. I think we'll also see the 2.7L or the 3.0L Ecoboost in a midlevel model. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 What about increasing the use of HT Steel as a weight reduction method? Going that route instead of aluminum body would get Mustang half way there with only a fraction ot the cot and mush less tear up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 What about increasing the use of HT Steel as a weight reduction method? Going that route instead of aluminum body would get Mustang half way there with only a fraction ot the cot and mush less tear up. Ford's push has been toward aluminum for quite some time; the F150 was just the biggest rock in the pond, not the first or only one. I don't see them putting the Mustang on a different course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 Ford's push has been toward aluminum for quite some time; the F150 was just the biggest rock in the pond, not the first or only one. I don't see them putting the Mustang on a different course. I think his point was if they tried to do some light-weighting before a full redesign, perhaps they could use high strength steel instead of aluminum until that redesign. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 I think his point was if they tried to do some light-weighting before a full redesign, perhaps they could use high strength steel instead of aluminum until that redesign. I'm not sure switching to high strength steel would save much over switching to aluminum. The only uses I could see for that would be in structural areas, which should trigger the same engineering processes and safety testing as switching to aluminum, both of which would seem a bit much for an MCE. Using high strength steel would probably save in manufacturing cost, but on the engineering front it looks like a step backwards, or sideways at best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 I agree in thinking we won't see any such changes either way until a full redesign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 (edited) I'm not sure switching to high strength steel would save much over switching to aluminum. The only uses I could see for that would be in structural areas, which should trigger the same engineering processes and safety testing as switching to aluminum, both of which would seem a bit much for an MCE. Using high strength steel would probably save in manufacturing cost, but on the engineering front it looks like a step backwards, or sideways at best. Well Ford has come out recently and said not to expect aluminum bodies in other vehicles, I take thas as Ford saying that there are other better ways to achieve fuel economy be that with transmissions or clever light weighting by reviewing design and materials. Reading about the S550 genesis, it's clear that Ford made a lot of changes that triggered more changes to take the Mustang in the right direction for both styling and driving dynamics. The weight increase was probably due to time constraints and limited resources, more can and should be done. Just thinking about the weight reductions achieved with F150, 600 lbs of that was the alloy body while the other 100 lbs or so was lightening of the frame - even if you use the single cab as a guide , that's still 500 lbs off so if Ford ever made the jump, Mustan weight would start just below Camaro. Looking at the Silverado experience, the body weight reduction from steel to HT steel is about half the expected reduction by going to full aluminum and eminently doable with existing pressing and stamping lines - probably a 200-250 lb loss at best. Edited November 27, 2015 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmm55 Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 The Camaro is more 'bad ass' because you can't see out of it? You can't punch your way out in a V6 like the SS. The Camaro is a slave to the 67-69 styling. Get over it already! The Mustang is more user friendly and has a more elegant yet aggressive design. The GT-350R is an answer, but really the GT is great at what it does.....even if it's .5 seconds slower LOL. I'm sure a DI 5.0 is in the works. A light weight GT-S, a Mach1 or another BOSS 302 could fill in the gap. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 (edited) The Camaro is more 'bad ass' because you can't see out of it? You can't punch your way out in a V6 like the SS. The Camaro is a slave to the 67-69 styling. Get over it already! The Mustang is more user friendly and has a more elegant yet aggressive design. The GT-350R is an answer, but really the GT is great at what it does.....even if it's .5 seconds slower LOL. I'm sure a DI 5.0 is in the works. A light weight GT-S, a Mach1 or another BOSS 302 could fill in the gap. Exactly. Ford has so many different variations of Mustang it can pick and choose from, I doubt the GM competition will be able to keep track of so many variations each variation could supply something that appears unique all without blowing the budget... desirability is key. Edited November 27, 2015 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sizzler Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 (edited) There seems to be a lot of apples vs oranges comparisons in this thread; comparing outward visability of the 2015 Camaro instead of the 2016's version, GT350 and GT500 versions which, based on pricing and intended use might better be compared to a Corvette, missing tonneau cover in the Mustang convertible, missing CD player, aging styling. As for weight savings, how about dropping 3 camshafts and the hundred pounds they and the related valvetrain bits represent? Then start in on the overbite front overhang, push the wheelbase out to the front, bettering handling and weight distribution. I thought Ford and GM were working on new transmissions as part of a joint partnership...why does only GM seem to have gotten the advanced transmissions into real life use? Edited November 27, 2015 by Sizzler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted November 27, 2015 Author Share Posted November 27, 2015 Only on a transverse 9-speed and a longitudinal 10-speed. The 8-speed was never part of it. 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.