I DO NOT want the Mustang to have a 110 inch wheelbase. 106-107 is perfect, especially with a 63/65 inch track.
With Fords statement about weight today, a 3300lbs 5.0 GT might be possible, AND, very well could have been the target weight.
Can you explain why this matters if the length is still shorter than the Mustang? Serious question.I DO NOT want the Mustang to have a 110 inch wheelbase. 106-107 is perfect, especially with a 63/65 inch track.
Boss 302 cracked 3.9 once. New GT... I think it'll dip into the 3s as well, especially with improved launch control.That M4 sure looks sexy. Don't get me wrong I love the 2015 mustangs, but BMW did well too. I'm loving the M4's 0-60 too, hopefully the GT can drop from a 4.5 to a 4 flat as well.
107x63/65 is a hell of an agressive footprint. That's where your optimal performance comes from. I expressed my concern before, BMW moving from an optimal 107x63 to a 110x63... It seems German engineering had to sacrifice performance for passenger comfort.Can you explain why this matters if the length is still shorter than the Mustang? Serious question.
It goes without saying the M4 handles just fine with a 110" wheelbase and it has more or less the same width track as the S550, it just makes better use of its size. Doesn't this create for a smoother ride (for DD purposes) and also more stability in high speed cornering for the track? since longer wheelbase leads to less front to rear weight shift?
Apologies to all if this is basic stuff.
What statement about weight?I DO NOT want the Mustang to have a 110 inch wheelbase. 106-107 is perfect, especially with a 63/65 inch track.
With Fords statement about weight today, a 3300lbs 5.0 GT might be possible, AND, very well could have been the target weight.