S550Boss
Well-Known Member
- Thread starter
- #1
Exact measurements will have to wait until I get to my drafting table... but here are the measurements of the 2015 as I see them (while sitting in an airport and with a large printout and a borrowed ruler).
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")
And the worst measurement of all, confirming my fears that this is indeed the new Camaro: the height from the window sill to the point where the curve of the window stops: 11.25" (2013: 13.75"). Meaning awful visibility (as you can see with the driver above). Wearing a helmet is going to be awful in this car, same as it is in the current miserable Camaro (for anybody past 14 years of age). It's the Camaro concept-car looks that grabbed so many buyers; Ford is just copying that "look" here.
Assumptions: I worked with the brake rotors first, and working from there every other measurement fell exactly into place. Also, this image is slightly askew, so there are additional inaccuracies introduced there. And the camo confuses the length a bit.
Note the ATS 4-door is 182" in length, wheelbase 109.3, so a 2-door version of that aka 2016 Camaro would be a bit shorter. I think the competition is coming into sync.
The tire height would be tough but I would believe it's all but the same as the 2013 19" because that's what we saw on the mules and getting the height right would be critical for testing the new suspension. But, generally, I think these measurements are pretty close. Remember that massive wheels and tires don't make for a handling car, they increase weight and mass and reduce suspension travel. Suspension geometry is what counts, and at least in the back we finally have that with the IRS.
This can be shot full of holes... but it's simple method and no doubt the engineers over at Camaro land and Charger land have already done it exactly.
So we have a shorter car, as predicted. Weight should drop proportionately. Interestingly, we have bigger wheels (heavier, more mass = really dumb) but the same size rotors (less mass = better). Apparently the 14" front rotors are good enough. Good to see the back rotors increase in size - that suggests there is a better weight balance than the current car (the engine is in the same exact place up front, so the weight balance must have balanced out a tiny bit better with the new suspension in back). I remain disappointed that there aren't more serious brakes in back - with in-drum parking brakes and 4-piston calipers. Ford has cheapened out the rear brakes on these for years.
I expect there will be holes in my quick measurements. But in six months and three weeks, at the earliest, we'll know for sure IF Ford brings a prototype or production-based showcar to the Detroit show. As opposed to the Thunderbird (DEW-98)-based "Mustang GT" showcars for the 2005s (showing a far better car than we got in the end)!
Sponsored
