2015 Mustang in Sept 2013 R&T article (rumors: flat plane crank, turbo 4 and 6, etc.)

[Overboost]

I'll play devil's advocate here: what if the car DOESN'T lose weight?

Think about it: new platform, new body, new suspension, additional safety/standard features...all that adds up. Unless they go to more exotic materials (aluminum, carbon fiber, CFRP), which will drive costs out of reach for the common man, it might just happen.

Sponsored

 

[thePill]

I'll play devil's advocate here: what if the car DOESN'T lose weight?

Think about it: new platform, new body, new suspension, additional safety/standard features...all that adds up. Unless they go to more exotic materials (aluminum, carbon fiber, CFRP), which will drive costs out of reach for the common man, it might just happen.

With computers designing cars now, the basic structure of the "Silhouette Innovation" was created for maximum rigidity and collision safety in mind... It just so happens that computer design strongly resembles a fastback.

The basic principle shape of the safety structure reacts similar to a raw egg under equal pressure. It requires a greater amount of force to deform the safety structure. You can see this applied to the "Control Blades" of the CBIRS. They are very, very, very thin because they were designed to absorb fore and aft weight and force, not left and right forces.

Taking weight out of a new chassis isn't difficult as long as you are willing to reduce some size and spend some money. The S550's budget is probably huge... and it looks like the car has shrunk a decent amount. The Fiesta lost 88lbs just by switching to Boron and UHSS in the safety structure without and major redesign... It is possible, at least 88lbs can be removed using primitive (2000) technology and still keeping the vehicle at nearly the same price point. I expect this to be a 10 year chassis and profits will be spread along those 10 years to keep cost down.

 

[Norm Peterson]

You can see this applied to the "Control Blades" of the CBIRS. They are very, very, very thin because they were designed to absorb fore and aft weight and force, not left and right forces.

The basic concept here is "structural efficiency", which will eventually have to be optimized for any load carrying part of the car.

But it's a little deeper in the case of the CB. There, it isn't just a case of not designing them to resist lateral loading - you're actively trying as hard as is practical to keep lateral and torsional loads from being attracted to them. This is accomplished by making those CB "directions" very flexible. Avoiding the torsion is perhaps more important.

This is not a new technique even for rear suspensions. The 1930's-design original VW beetle used precisely this approach (and also made the "control blades" carry the rear corner weights).


Norm

 

[Icy]

I'll play devil's advocate here: what if the car DOESN'T lose weight?

Think about it: new platform, new body, new suspension, additional safety/standard features...all that adds up. Unless they go to more exotic materials (aluminum, carbon fiber, CFRP), which will drive costs out of reach for the common man, it might just happen.

Yea I'm not holding my breath on 2-300 pounds. The more diminuitive size may just net-zero loss the weight gains from IRS for all we know. Little gains added together may still get us to 100lbs though. Sleeker exterior should lead to a sleeker interior as well. Shed some fat from the seat backs, lose an inch or two from the roofline, the front/rear overhangs, sparing use of aluminum, etc.

 

[jimmythepage666]

I suppose that the final numbers will meet somewhere in the middle between our guesses. They do have a decent target (c7) and if they achieved 90% of that cars performance, I would be happy. Especially if I can pick one up for $35k vs $51k for the corvette. I doubt the gen 6 camaro will be able to keep up if ford plays their cards right by knocking on the corvettes door.

 

[Metronome]

I thought the gt350 wasn't going to be a "Shelby" since ford owns "gt350".

Looking at the recent spy shot from Arizona, the s550 definitely looks smaller when looking at it head on. I would be tickled Shitless if the s550 ends up being lighter than the corvette. 300lbs seems a bit too unrealistic. I also think 420hp for the gt seems unlikely. Power to weight is key though, I would like to see the vette get trumped in that category. With the hellcat on the way, and the z28 hitting the streets soon, ford needs some street cred with the power of the gt350.

That could be why we may see the gt350 sooner than many thought? I think recently rumors have said possibly in the first S550 model year. I think if it were to be 2016 or later, Shelby would not have announced they are stopping production so soon.

As for weight, I am not expecting too much on the regular S550's. 200 pounds would be fairly ambitious. I think the real bragging rights that will be measured against the Vette and z28 will be Ford's gt350 and other special editions. They are said to make some use of more exotic materials like CF so the real weight savings might not be the chassis but the body and internals.

 

[Red]

This is off-topic, but hopefully of some interest. Looking at some of Jimmy's numbers, 7.3 lb/hp puts the car into NHRA's BB/S or BB/SA (manual or auto) classes. The index is 10.30, while the national record in BB/SA is currently 9.05 @ 147+ (by a Dodge Challenger). A 6.9 lb/hp puts it in AA/S or AA/SA. Index is 10.00; AA/S national record is 8.89 @ 154+ (Fezell w/ his 08 CJ Mustang).

Serious stuff...

Yes, I do know the above is for NHRA factored HP, which can be higher or lower than the stock number. Still, I think the above gives some perspective to those wgt/hp numbers.

 

[Falc'man]

You care to expound on what 314 is then?

Sheesh, what's gone wrong in this world - an Aussie talking imperial and Americans talking metric. As opposed to 330 cubes of the article.

 

[Melino]

Sheesh, what's gone wrong in this world - an Aussie talking imperial and Americans talking metric. As opposed to 330 cubes of the article.

ahh flew right over my head...

:headbonk:

 

[S550Boss]

. I doubt the gen 6 camaro will be able to keep up if ford plays their cards right by knocking on the corvettes door.

Except that the new Camaro will have the same exact engine and transmission that the C7 has. And may well weigh less than the Mustang, or at least identical.
And the Camaro will eventually get all the same optional engines the C7 has, perhaps a bit detuned in the upper end. That story is yet to be written.

 

[cj428]

A friend told me a few days ago that Roush were testing a flat plane crank motor on the dyno for Ford, so one could be possible in the future.

 

[SStormtrooPer]

Except that the new Camaro will have the same exact engine and transmission that the C7 has. And may well weigh less than the Mustang, or at least identical.
And the Camaro will eventually get all the same optional engines the C7 has, perhaps a bit detuned in the upper end. That story is yet to be written.

The Camaro will be on Alpha, and most likely significantly lighter than current. This is true.

It will not be as light as a Corvette. It will not have a Corvette transaxle -- at least not with any reasonable back seat it won't. And It also won't share the exact engines.

Lets be at least a little realistic here. Chevy may be very hungry for Ford blood -- but they won't get it competing with and at the expense of their halo car that costs $25,000 more. Not without Camaro being at the same price point that is.

 

[S550Boss]

That's all well and good, but don't so quickly believe rumors of "600 naturally aspirated horsepower". The idea that Ford would build an emissions legal 115 HP/liter engine is a huge stretch. A flat crank alone isn't the only part of the answer to that. The engine would have to rev higher, and probably have a variable lift intake cam. All the technology exists, but would and could are two different things when budget, emissions, mileage, and engineering resources (when there is so much to be done to other more important - higher volume - products) are taken into account.

Meanwhile, the next (light weight) Camaro will have the same base LT1 that the C7 Corvette has, just as the current Camaro has the same engine as the base C6. And now it has the same LS7 (to the detriment of the Boss 302). It will probably differ again in the ZL1 model (like it does now, where the engines are similar except for having a different intercooler setup, less boost, and slightly higher compression amongst other minor diffs). And the LT1 has a helluva lot of torque... a higher spinning Coyote still wont' make that much. So some things never change.

 

[SStormtrooPer]

That's all well and good, but don't so quickly believe rumors of "600 naturally aspirated horsepower". The idea that Ford would build an emissions legal 115 HP/liter engine is a huge stretch. A flat crank alone isn't the only part of the answer to that. The engine would have to rev higher, and probably have a variable lift intake cam. All the technology exists, but would and could are two different things when budget, emissions, mileage, and engineering resources (when there is so much to be done to other more important - higher volume - products) are taken into account.

Meanwhile, the next (light weight) Camaro will have the same base LT1 that the C7 Corvette has, just as the current Camaro has the same engine as the base C6. And now it has the same LS7 (to the detriment of the Boss 302). It will probably differ again in the ZL1 model (like it does now, where the engines are similar except for having a different intercooler setup, less boost, and slightly higher compression amongst other minor diffs). And the LT1 has a helluva lot of torque... a higher spinning Coyote still wont' make that much. So some things never change.

My post didn't mention one thing about the Ford engine or what I believed. I was replying to your Camaro comment.

And you are forgetting 400 - 500 really important differences between the Camaro and Corvette. Those 400 - 500 details are pounds. The current Camaro has the extras. They can afford to have similar engines now without alienating the Corvette fans because the Camaro is a quarter of a ton heavier.

They are not going to charge Corvette buyers a $25,000 - $50,000 premium(depending on the trim) over the Camaro to remove a back seat and add few HP -- because that is basically what you are saying. Not going to happen.

Will the Mustang decimate the Gen 6 Camaro? Who knows -- we don't know enough about the Mustang yet. But if it doesn't it won't be because GM decide to have the Camaro and 'Vette in direct competition.


Back on topic -- news of a flat plane crank motor is awesome. It is time for something drastically different in this segment, and I hope Ford pioneers it with the Mustang. And I hope it is 600 HP. And I hope it decimates the Camaro.

 

[Dirk McGurck]

A friend told me a few days ago that Roush were testing a flat plane crank motor on the dyno for Ford, so one could be possible in the future.

I really hope your friend is correct.

Sponsored