S650 Mustang Opinions/Predictions

[Twin Turbo]

So guessing this is a 2025-ish release?

S650 has been confirmed as a 2020 ('21MY) release:

"Program code for the next‐generation Mustang (S550(ng)) has been changed to S650 and the SOP has been shifted back from January 2022 to May 2020. Subsequently, the EOP for the S550 has been moved to April 2020"

Sponsored

 

[OppoLock]

For me, S650 doesn't need to be radical. Ford found a great recipe for success with S550, so S650 just needs to be a good revision.

Weight:
Lose 200-300lb (extensive use of aluminum/light weight materials)

Size:
Keep it the same. The 2+2 with a decent trunk makes this a car you don't need to make excuses for. It needs a level of practicality

Engines:
2.3 4-cylinder Ecoboost as the entry level
2.7 (or 3.5) V6 Ecoboost for the mid-range (today's GT price point)
5.2 CPC next-gen Coyote V8 (lower production numbers than today's V8 - perhaps badge as Mach 1 only)

Or.....4.7 CPC twin turbo V8 (289 Ecoboost).

Styling:
Make it recognisable as a relation to S550. Add more edge to (as per Kamal Curic's original design). Long nose/short deck is a given. As are triple tail lights. The look could move away (slightly) from the "Ford Family Face".

Those renders are all a step backward in design progress imo; all of the radical bits that make these stand out would be toned down in translation to the production models, and these just look like rough 1st year art student sketches when you boil it down to the sheetmetal styling ideas.

I'd like to see a realistic weight reduction--say 50-100lbs in curb spec--with a nominal increase in power through DI. The option of a harder edged performance package would be nice. Something to rival the SS in aggression.

A better manual, like a Tremec, a more driver oriented interior, floor mounted throttle pedal, better QC all around, better steering wheel ergonomics without the shitty 9-and-3 PacMan grips... I'd be satisfied with that.

A nice gauge cluster too. Less barreled, more high-res. Maybe a more expansive info screen in between with better brightness control.

Not a whole lot needs to change.

 

[CB]

It's the number of chassis designs/modifications they made before deciding on the final design.

Thanks for that but what the hell, from 197 to 550. They haul those engineers in on the short bus.
Now for the 650. The op asked what we would like. I don't like what the car looks like on the drawings.
What I want is, the car looking like what I have now, they can take the back window and trunk lid and make a hatch, a rear full time camera to get the rear view mirror out of my sight, a telescopic steering column to get the wheel close to me, side leg supports, a nice seat with hip and side bolsters and a harness seat belt system to keep me 'in' the seat, a 600 hp 6.8 v-10 with a four speed manual trans, NO NANNIES, NOT ONE.

 

[AmericanLegend]

1) Aluminum body.

2) 10-speed auto (although, I'd still buy the 6 speed manual).

3) Magnetic Shocks (Standard with Performance Pack).

4) Active exhaust with quad-tips (Standard on Performance Pack).

5) Not all inclusive, but some engines I'd love to see on the S650: 5.0 V8 (blend of both Port and DI, Naturally Aspirated), 5.2L V8, 2.7L or 3.5L Ecoboost Twin Turbo V6,

6) Heads-up display (Standard on Peformance Pack).

7) Keep the timeless formula: Long hood, Short deck, RWD, keep alot of the S550 styling in it...both classic and modern styling. Keep it Fast, Fun, "Affordiable" and don't forget to keep it usable in the real world (outward visibility, interior room, trunk space, etc).

 

[Bartly]

All I ask is that the new one honks it's horn at me when I try to leave it when running, has a crappy sound system which is nearly impossible to replace, comes with a clunky manual transmission option, inner paneling must be easy to scuff when getting in and out, has a hood that shakes when at speed, and that it remain the slowest production V8 on the market. Just kidding.

 

[Stuntman]

The F150 is a body-on-frame (Al body on steel frame) while most cars are unibodies. If the S650 shares anything in its platform with any other car, it will not be aluminum. A standalone Al platform will be VERY expensive, so I doubt it will be aluminum.

Plastic fenders (like on BMWs) could help reduce some weight, as could a bonded Al or carbon roof -which would be more likely.

It's not going to happen, but I'd like the car to shrink. The S550s rear track increased 3" from the S197. The Shelby's front track also grew 3" to match the rear and gives the car a great hourglass profile.

Id like for the track to shrink 3" front and rear (back to S197 widths) and also suck the doors in 3" to have the same flared fender look but in a narrower and smaller platform. I'd also like to see a smaller and slanted hood like the GT350 or even S197 vs the 550's aircraft carrier hood. One can dream.

 

[Petroleum Jesus]

Some things I agree with here and a few I don't.

I'm not really sweating the Bolt-ons; features and specific engines, etc. Ford had an excellent bucket of parts to choose from today. Features like the 10-speed tranny and magnetorheological dampers are already available and have 99.99% likelyhood of implementation. However, I believe some revolutionary changes are needed in the platform to solve some intrinsic faults.

These faults, or limiting factors, are a lack of traction, balance, composure, and response. I believe the solution lies in shifting required mass lower and to the rear. Obviously, any mass that can be shed without sacrificing function is good. Revised suspension geometry would complement.

I believe a bold solution is in order. The cornerstone of this solution is a new chassis, structurally based on an integral torque tube which connects to a rear transaxle based IRS. Belt driven accessories which are currently mounted to the front of the engine are now driven as planets of the flywheel with stab mounts similar to that of conventional starter motors. The battery is also relocated just to the the rear of the transaxle.

Anyway, the concept is merely vapor at this point. Just my 2 cents.

 

[EJS2016]

I believe the S650 will be an evolutionary-type revision and development of the current platform.

However, Ford needs to start with the basics, and in my opinion, that means and starts with a much improved quality control process/processes.
A quick review of the forums reveals significant concerns and related comments regarding driveline vibrations, squealing brakes, body panel fitment/paint quality, the integrity of ecoboost engines, seats that do not cool and various clanks, speaks and rattles.
I understand that these issues do not occur the great majority of vehicles produced and that other manufacturers probably deal with the same or similar problems.
But you don't want your car to be one of those vehicles an issue. That would suck.
Satisfactory resolution through warranty claims seems inconsistent.
It would seem that with today's technology and manufacturing processes, these kinds of issues would be all but eliminated...by both manufacturers and OEM suppliers.
I would hope that all the specific S550 issues would be resolved by the of production and the lessons learned applied to the S650.

The S650 needs incorporate the use of aluminum and other materials to drop weight, but of course, not at the expense of safety and chassis/body integrity.
Because of cost concerns, I do not anticipate a brand new chassis, but perhaps one's that slightly revised to accommodate a thoroughly reworked suspension. Agree with battery mounted in the trunk.
I would like to see a slightly shorter car with less front overhang.

As for styling...why would Ford mess too much with a good thing? It still has too look like a Mustang.

As for power, I expect Ecoboost technology to dominate.
I think the Coyote will be downsized to the 4.4-4.8L range.
I also think we will see a S650-based Lincoln coupe with an exclusive, brand-specific engine.

My 2 cents.

 

[Stuntman]

These faults, or limiting factors, are a lack of traction, balance, composure, and response.

Can you elaborate on the lack of traction?

I believe a bold solution is in order. The cornerstone of this solution is a new chassis, structurally based on an integral torque tube which connects to a rear transaxle based IRS. Belt driven accessories which are currently mounted to the front of the engine are now driven as planets of the flywheel with stab mounts similar to that of conventional starter motors. The battery is also relocated just to the the rear of the transaxle.

That's far less likely than my wish list.

 

[seth21w]

If ford is smart the coyote 5.0 is the best engine they have ever produced dont let the ecoboost crowd tell you otherwise, if ford does not offer a 5.0 coyote base mode GT without the technology it doesnt matter how good the car looks i will hold on to my last of a dying breed 2016. Nobody wants a 37-40k v6 ecoboost MUSTANG GT well imo i wont!!! Im sure they will be powerful on paper but in the long haul i plan to put 300k plus miles on my coyote.

 

[seth21w]

For me, S650 doesn't need to be radical. Ford found a great recipe for success with S550, so S650 just needs to be a good revision.

Weight:
Lose 200-300lb (extensive use of aluminum/light weight materials)

Size:
Keep it the same. The 2+2 with a decent trunk makes this a car you don't need to make excuses for. It needs a level of practicality

Engines:
2.3 4-cylinder Ecoboost as the entry level
2.7 (or 3.5) V6 Ecoboost for the mid-range (today's GT price point)
5.2 CPC next-gen Coyote V8 (lower production numbers than today's V8 - perhaps badge as Mach 1 only)

Or.....4.7 CPC twin turbo V8 (289 Ecoboost).

Styling:
Make it recognisable as a relation to S550. Add more edge to (as per Kamal Curic's original design). Long nose/short deck is a given. As are triple tail lights. The look could move away (slightly) from the "Ford Family Face".

This will destroy mustang traditionalist v6 ecoboost for the gt :tsk: so the only v8 option will be 5.2 cpc? And be 60-70k um no. The average mustang buyer will not be able to afford that so when the v8 gets priced out of reach of average buyers which is what makes current mustang sales the leader in sales of pony car wars. Ecoboost is either love it or hate it, but the efficiency between say eb and v6 is so close its not a factor, but yet they are force feeding everyone ecoboost and i dont like this im a ford man for life but this whole ecoboost thing is going to end up biting ford n/a engines are as fuel efficieent as the ecoboost but people are still falling for the sales pitch especially in the f150s.

 

[MattW]

Nobody wants a 37-40k v6 ecoboost gt well imo i wont!!!

I'll take this V6 EcoBoost GT, though a little more than $40k, like 10x more:

 

[seth21w]

I'll take this V6 EcoBoost GT, though a little more than $40k, like 10x more:

I was referring to mustang gt.:clap2:

 

[MattW]

The designer of that car insisted, according to a documentary I watched, that the engine be an EcoBoost. The Porsche Cayman is now a 4-cyl turbo. BMW M-cars are turbo. These engines provide high power with better gas mileage. The government is putting pressure (via loan conditions, from what I read) on Ford to make higher efficiency cars. The pressure to phase out NA engines seems to be large.

I guess the issue is what are Mustang enthusiasts looking for in an engine? Sound, performance, has-to-be-a-NA-V8?

I test drove a 2016 Mustang EcoBoost stick. The first impression I had was that the engine did not sound like a 4L turbo. It seemed to be tuned to sound like a V8. I didn't know what to make of it. The other impression, or issue, I had with the EB was that it was difficult to rev-match on downshifts. I don't know now whether this was turbo-lag or poor response in throttle, but it did not put a smile on my face. The V8 was much more satisfying.

 

[Twin Turbo]

This will destroy mustang traditionalist v6 ecoboost for the gt :tsk: so the only v8 option will be 5.2 cpc? And be 60-70k um no. The average mustang buyer will not be able to afford that so when the v8 gets priced out of reach of average buyers which is what makes current mustang sales the leader in sales of pony car wars. Ecoboost is either love it or hate it, but the efficiency between say eb and v6 is so close its not a factor, but yet they are force feeding everyone ecoboost and i dont like this im a ford man for life but this whole ecoboost thing is going to end up biting ford n/a engines are as fuel efficieent as the ecoboost but people are still falling for the sales pitch especially in the f150s.

Oh, I hope you're right.......and I agree a big N/A V8 can give similar mileage as a turbo'd 6......but the rest of the industry is downsizing and it may be inevitable.

That's why, if we have to have an Ecoboost 6, I'd at least like the option of a V8. Ford may well adopt the same approach as with the F150 and offer both. Personally, I'd always take the V8 option.....

Sponsored