2015 Mustang Weight Gain

[Oblivion/2]

I really don't see why 'platform development' and 'making it lighter' are mutually exclusive goals. In fact, one shouldn't be undertaken without the other IMO, otherwise why do it? If it's just purely a cost saving measure then surely it must be cheaper just to modify a S197 especially when you're not actually gaining any benefits (again, weight) by switching platforms.

Also if cost is really the deciding factor here, we all know weight is a lot harder to take off after the platform has been developed. It's more costly than trying to get it right the first time. All of that budget (what they really need to effect change) for a new platform will have been spent and we're left with punching holes in it like some are suggesting they do for the S197 chassis, or using really expensive materials for the body. The latter two options are just the type of hold-you-over-until-the-next-platform measures that I thought we were dealing with for the last 10 years. Why not get it right this time instead of having the same convo again until the 7th gen.

Sponsored

 

[SStormtrooPer]

I really don't see why 'platform development' and 'making it lighter' are mutually exclusive goals. In fact, one shouldn't be undertaken without the other IMO, otherwise why do it? If it's just purely a cost saving measure then surely it must be cheaper just to modify a S197 especially when you're not actually gaining any benefits (again, weight) by switching platforms.

Also if cost is really the deciding factor here, we all know weight is a lot harder to take off after the platform has been developed. It's more costly than trying to get it right the first time. All of that budget (what they really need to effect change) for a new platform will have been spent and we're left with punching holes in it like some are suggesting they do for the S197 chassis, or using really expensive materials for the body. The latter two options are just the type of hold-you-over-until-the-next-platform measures that I thought we were dealing with for the last 10 years. Why not get it right this time instead of having the same convo again until the 7th gen.

They are mutually exclusive when cost savings is your number one goal. This is what Ford does, and it should no longer be a surprise.

Sure it may be cheaper to keep S550 on a modified D2C platform right now, but if the car is truly underpinned by a version of the CD4 platform like it seems may be possible, it will theoretically save a ton of money in the long run, especially when your company culture dictates that cost savings come before your customers, or your ability to produce a truly great vehicle instead of just a truly 'good' vehicle. Instead corners are cut, and they spend the duration of the product life cycle trying to explain away the shortcomings.

I really thought we were going to see something great with S550, but the more I think about it, the more I think we will see a fast, good handling, economical car that could have been that much better if corners would not have been cut. That's just my opinion, but things sure seem to be pointing that way

 

[thePill]

They are mutually exclusive when cost savings is your number one goal. This is what Ford does, and it should no longer be a surprise.

Sure it may be cheaper to keep S550 on a modified D2C platform right now, but if the car is truly underpinned by a version of the CD4 platform like it seems may be possible, it will theoretically save a ton of money in the long run, especially when your company culture dictates that cost savings come before your customers, or your ability to produce a truly great vehicle instead of just a truly 'good' vehicle. Instead corners are cut, and they spend the duration of the product life cycle trying to explain away the shortcomings.

I really thought we were going to see something great with S550, but the more I think about it, the more I think we will see a fast, good handling, economical car that could have been that much better if corners would not have been cut. That's just my opinion, but things sure seem to be pointing that way

We need to reiterate a few things to those that feel a CD4 platform is all wrong... and to tell you the truth, without major modification, it would be.

With that said, people need to understand the huge amount of changes the CD4 has to go through to become a GRWD platform. By the time Ford is done, it will have very little in common with the CD4. Maybe the trunk floor and maybe floor pans is pretty much all you can use from a FWD chassis (see Ford's CDW27 platform that was used from 1993 to 2006).

It is very, very likely that you could almost look at the M3/M4 and see a lot of inspiration for the S550... inspiration I am sure goes all the way to the bone... It's possible, Ford is building a stronger, lighter and cheaper platform just as GM did with the Alpha. Ford's is just 2-3 years behind here due to the carry over success of the S197. Besides, 2 to 3 years behind does have its advantages. The opportunity to learn from the competition, make improvements, cost come down on technologies... especially on a platform that may have to last 10 years under the Mustang...

When it's all said and done, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that the Alpha and S550 platforms are about the same age...

 

[SStormtrooPer]

We need to reiterate a few things to those that feel a CD4 platform is all wrong... and to tell you the truth, without major modification, it would be.

With that said, people need to understand the huge amount of changes the CD4 has to go through to become a GRWD platform. By the time Ford is done, it will have very little in common with the CD4. Maybe the trunk floor and maybe floor pans is pretty much all you can use from a FWD chassis (see Ford's CDW27 platform that was used from 1993 to 2006).

It is very, very likely that you could almost look at the M3/M4 and see a lot of inspiration for the S550... inspiration I am sure goes all the way to the bone... It's possible, Ford is building a stronger, lighter and cheaper platform just as GM did with the Alpha. Ford's is just 2-3 years behind here due to the carry over success of the S197. Besides, 2 to 3 years behind does have its advantages. The opportunity to learn from the competition, make improvements, cost come down on technologies... especially on a platform that may have to last 10 years under the Mustang...

When it's all said and done, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that the Alpha and S550 platforms are about the same age...

So maybe this is my ignorance -- but if you carry over the floor pans from CD4, and that is the ONLY thing you carry over with everything else being new, would that not be a new platform that is simply reusing CD4 floor pans?

 

[thePill]

So maybe this is my ignorance -- but if you carry over the floor pans from CD4, and that is the ONLY thing you carry over with everything else being new, would that not be a new platform that is simply reusing CD4 floor pans?

It depends on you opinion of chassis/platforms...

The SN95 shared the Fox Body floor pans, it was called the Fox-4. Was it a brand new platform? No, was it a new Fox Body? No again... At least I wouldn't call it "All-New" nor would I consider it a "New Fox Body" and panels/frame is my area of study.

Same with the S197 that was based on the Thunderbird's DEW platform. Was it an "All New" platform? No, there was some stuff borrowed. Is it a "Thunderbird Platform"? I wouldn't say that either...

Just like the SN95 and S197 before it, the platform will be specific to the Mustang. We could eventually even find out that the S550 was the basis for the CD class... We won't know if the Chicken came before the Egg until Ford talks to the media. I suspect the chassis started in Mid-2007 to Early 2008...

The announcement that Europe would be merging the CD3 and EUCD together into the new CD4 came early 2009... Most likely developed right behind the S550 so the parts aren't really shared or handed down but designed together, simultaneously... Which is why the exterior design of the Fusion and Mustang will resemble each other. Similar bone structure because they grew up in the womb together.

 

[Oblivion/2]

All new is kind of pointless phrasing then. Then has there ever been an all new mustang platform? Even the 65 wouldn't fit within that description. Anyway this is about weight and I will say again I have a hard time understanding what the point is if not to make it better/lighter. Cost savings can be had just by carrying over old parts.

 

[thePill]

All new is kind of pointless phrasing then. Then has there ever been an all new mustang platform? Even the 65 wouldn't fit within that description. Anyway this is about weight and I will say again I have a hard time understanding what the point is if not to make it better/lighter. Cost savings can be had just by carrying over old parts.

There has never been an all new Mustang, ever...

Even the refresh/redesigns are staggered with the power train updates so Ford doesn't dump too much R&D into a "New" product.

Even the new generation Mustang's used old drive trains for a few years until the put in the new engines.

1964- ALL NEW FORD MUSTANG (based on the Falcon and uses Ford's current engine lineup)
1974- redesign (based on Pinto, 302 continued)
1979- redesign (based on Fairmont)
1984- refresh
1987- refresh and EFI 302
1994- redesign (based on Fox Body pans)
1995- 4.6 standard (used in Crown Vic)
1999- refresh
2003- SC 4.6
2005- redesign (based on T-Bird pans)
2007- SC 5.4 (Truck Engine/2000 Cobra R engine)
2010- refresh
2011- Coyote (All New Engine, based on 4.6 deck height)
2013- SC 5.8 and refresh (big year)
2015- redesign (based on the Fusion's pans)
2016- engine? power train? Direct injection? SC V8?

Also, interior updates can sometimes push the drivetrain or refreshes back. Sometimes they are done with the exterior...

 

[HGFireHazard]

1996- 4.6 standard (used in Crown Vic)

Fixed that for ya ;)

 

[thePill]

Fixed that for ya ;)

Thanks Haz... Looks like I need to go back to Ford school :(

 

[JohnZiraldo]

Thanks Haz... Looks like I need to go back to Ford school :(

Mr. Pill, Since you did such I great job for my education in your CD4 Chassis School, let me help you with one other item in your history list.

EFI 302 came out in 86.

I know because I have one.

Don't let the discs and 5 lugs fool you though. They're from the 95 Cobra.

 

[crazyfastfreddy]

maybe it is the 2014 1/2 and not the 2015 that will put on weight.

not like collector who buys one is gonna be driving it anyway so who cares about weight. :shrug:

 

[Overboost]

maybe it is the 2014 1/2 and not the 2015 that will put on weight.

not like collector who buys one is gonna be driving it anyway so who cares about weight. :shrug:

And why would that be? If the rumors are true, and the 14.5 is based on S197, why would it gain weight? If it were based on S550, what would cause it to weigh more over a base model of the same platform? I'm not sure where you're going with this...

 

[NRMStand]

Since we are entertaining this idea, I'll bite. It's not impossible wherever this bit of info came from, that someone saw "50th anniversary Mustang" or "2014.5" with some specs including curb weight and did the math themselves assuming it was a stock S550 Mustang (in whatever trim).

And it wouldn't be hard to pack on 1-200lbs with a special collector's edition, depending on how "special" it really is. Who knows if this is going to be a base, GT or something more. Give it a wide-body kit, 22" wheels, supercharger, upgraded suspension and brakes, and you have more than enough added weight. Much like the '13 Super Snake weighs in at 4K pounds, about 150lbs above the standard GT500. It doesn't have to cost the same or be anywhere close to the power of one, but point is adding weight would be easy with some upgrades.

 

[All-Or-Nothing]

Mustang will not gain weight. 200lb minimum weight loss.

 

[let me ride]

Mustang will not gain weight. 200lb minimum weight loss.

Says you? Or someone at Ford?

I'm sure I can speak for most when I say people are getting tired of this back and forth. If you guys dropping numbers are unable or unwilling to share more than that then there is no reason to believe any of it.

Sponsored