2015 Mustang versus current Mustang

[blackstallion4209]

Ya i can't imagine how fast (on track) a BOSS would be with 50~51% on the nose, about 200-300 less pounds and the new IRS. Top that off with an updated version of the RoadRunner (I've heard some magazines call it this) 5.0 with DI and that thing would kill.

Sponsored

 

[Felix]

What the new Mustang also needs is better petal placement. It is hard to heel-toe in the S197 Mustangs, as the gas is too deep in relation to the brake pedal.

COULD NOT AGREE MORE! before I sold mine that was on of my biggest pet peeves man... and I even got big feet!

 

[Felix]

It is Overrated. The Scion FR-S is supposed to be a corner carving marvel and guess what its distribution is.....53/47. A Porsche 911 GT2 has a 37/63 ratio and Ferrari 458 has a 42/58 ratio.

Suspension, suspension geometry, tires, etc.... has more affect than distribution ratios.

absolutely overrated, a lot of it is about having a fancy number that can be printed in broshures and in marketing. my eyes whenever I see some one or company going off on how their company has perfect or near perfect 50/50 without talking about the rest of the handling components.

like you said look at those cars there some of the best handling cars out there and their distribution isnt close to 50/50

 

[TradeStepan]

So everyone says the S550 is supposed to be lighter because it's on a lighter platform. Anyone care to guess how much lighter it will be than the current models? I'm hoping 100+ pounds... possible?

 

[Ricky35]

So everyone says the S550 is supposed to be lighter because it's on a lighter platform. Anyone care to guess how much lighter it will be than the current models? I'm hoping 100+ pounds... possible?

I'd say if we see 100 pounds we should be thanking the stars.

It's tough these days for new cars to be lighter than their predecessor models because stringent safety standards and ever more electronics in the cars usually makes it all but impossible. So unless the car gets significantly smaller or starts using exotic materials for construction we usually see heavier cars.

We keep hearing how the 2015 Mustang is rumored to be lighter but I dunno about that. The S197 came out all the way back in 2005 when cars were just overall lighter. I think it may be tough to beat it in weight. We know the new Mustang isn't going to get some kinda exotic material (carbon fiber) in its build and even if the S550 platform starts off lighter than the S197, the weight advantage might be offset by better safety construction and more electronics than the S197 after all it said and done.

 

[hawkeye]

I'd say if we see 100 pounds we should be thanking the stars.

Should be closer to 200-300lbs if Ford engineers are to be believed/meet their goals.

http://www.themustangnews.com/conte...rd-f-150-and-other-technical-advances-coming/

In a recent conversation we had with Doug Sparks and Dave Pericak of Team Mustang, they confirmed that cutting 200-300 lbs from the Mustang in the coming years is on the top of their wish-list. This is both to meet new efficiency requirements but to keep performance on the improvement curve.

Unless it's just lip service, I think we could see the curb weight of the next gen GT around 3200-3300lbs.

Would love to see 50/50 weight distribution also.

 

[Harrison]

Should be closer to 200-300lbs if Ford engineers are to be believed/meet their goals.

http://www.themustangnews.com/conte...rd-f-150-and-other-technical-advances-coming/



Unless it's just lip service, I think we could see the curb weight of the next gen GT around 3200-3300lbs.

Would love to see 50/50 weight distribution also.

I think that's dreaming. I hope I'm wrong but that would be pretty surprising to me to see 3200 pounds unless this s550 platform has some miraculous weight shrinking abilities.

Don't care as much about the 50/50 distribution. The car is getting IRS already anyway so handling will be much improved.

About IRS though, the way I understand it is live axle much better for launching and straight line accel. Does that mean with the new IRS the car will be gaining better cornering but losing launching advantage?

 

[Binion]

On paper the new one should dominate the current model, on paper. Cars rarely get worse on paper and specs wise. What I'm worried about is the experience and feel of the car. Problem these days is that car makers just care about making the cars faster on paper but they are all getting numbed and dumbed down on actual feel. Usually the older models of cars are the ones that actually feel more fun and let you feel more connected. I hope the newer model isn't worse in this than the current Mustang.

 

[KZStang]

On paper the new one should dominate the current model, on paper. Cars rarely get worse on paper and specs wise. What I'm worried about is the experience and feel of the car. Problem these days is that car makers just care about making the cars faster on paper but they are all getting numbed and dumbed down on actual feel. Usually the older models of cars are the ones that actually feel more fun and let you feel more connected. I hope the newer model isn't worse in this than the current Mustang.

Depends what you mean by "more fun." Some people think anything short of driving essentially a tin box on wheels with a traditional manual gearbox and foot operated clutch is boring. I think the younger crowd is slowly taking to the idea of better performance and control over the dynamics of your car is what makes it more fun (i.e. DCT). I've heard the same debate over SRA vs. IRS, although much less plausibly than the argument for keeping traditional manual transmissions.

 

[Prodigy]

I think that's dreaming. I hope I'm wrong but that would be pretty surprising to me to see 3200 pounds unless this s550 platform has some miraculous weight shrinking abilities.

I don't see why not. By all accounts, it looks like a smaller, slimmer redesign is in the works. And with the smaller engine, it's certainly doable.

I think with its global rollout, Ford is facing a similar issue it did back in the mid 70s when it was forced to downsize (Mustang II) due to being outsold by smaller, more fuel efficient imports. It went back to its roots and redesigned a small, light weight muscle car that shed almost 1,000lbs.

Now I'm not saying it'll do anything close to that, but Ford knows in order to compete in Europe with their insane gas prices and fuel efficiency a huge concern, they wont be able to compete unless they are able to shed some major weight with the s550.

 

[ArtRios87]

I believe the new mustang will be smaller, lighter and more European while still keeping the long nose, small rear. Honestly, the current GT is very roomy for a sports car, I am sure they can shrink the interior and just make smaller seats.

 

[Norm Peterson]

It is Overrated. The Scion FR-S is supposed to be a corner carving marvel and guess what its distribution is.....53/47. A Porsche 911 GT2 has a 37/63 ratio and Ferrari 458 has a 42/58 ratio.

Suspension, suspension geometry, tires, etc.... has more affect than distribution ratios.

absolutely overrated, a lot of it is about having a fancy number that can be printed in broshures and in marketing. my eyes whenever I see some one or company going off on how their company has perfect or near perfect 50/50 without talking about the rest of the handling components.

like you said look at those cars there some of the best handling cars out there and their distribution isnt close to 50/50

What is overrated is to call 50/50 "perfect" or "ideal", because that implies too much. It probably is a good target to shoot for as far as maximizing potential lateral g capability with a "square" wheel and tire configuration is concerned.

But weight distribution is only part of the handling picture.

The Camaro has a 51/49 ratio but it still understeers, so much so that they made a running change to the suspension a few years ago. It may be overrated, but it still means something. Weight needs to be taken off of the nose, especially for the V8's, where performance matters most.

One of the things that Chevy has managed to prove with the 5th gen Camaros is that staggered tire sizes are not the hot tip for best handling - you still need to match the tires to the weight and potentially the lateral load that they will see. The SS still understeers (safer for the novice driver, but throwing away front grip with too-narrow front tires to get it is frustrating for the advanced driver in terms of understeer). FWIW, there is a definition of and mathematical computation for "understeer".

The "Camaro for the 2%" 1LE on same-size tires all around understeers considerably less. The upcoming Z/28, which I've posted elsewhere as being a car intended for maybe 10% of that 2%, will presumably have a still lighter amount of understeer.

It matters mainly cause it improves traction. I think the new edges were 57/43 and I can tell a big difference in traction between my 2003 GT and 2008 GT. Ford always dials in some understeer for safety so 52/48 for the 5.0 and IRS would be awesome.

Chevy also build in understeer. All mfrs do, since the average driver panics when the tail starts threatening to run wide only a little.

If Ford can get to 51/49 without having to stretch the wheelbase out past 110" like the Camaro (at 112" or so), that would still be better. Whether I'd prefer 52/48 @ 107" or 51/49 @ 111", I have no idea yet.


Norm

 

[Norm Peterson]

Don't care as much about the 50/50 distribution. The car is getting IRS already anyway so handling will be much improved.

Be a little careful here. A well done stick axle suspension can be and generally is better than an indifferently done IRS. At least on decent pavement.

The comparisons already at hand are the comparison tests that consistently favored the current Mustang (in some form or other) over the non-1LE Camaros. It wasn't until the 1LE that a NA Camaro consistently became the top handling dog.

A stick axle tends to be more predictable (decent pavement again), so it's generally easier to drive faster sooner in your experience. I can tell you that when the rear tires can toe somewhat independently of one another that you will feel it. If it's bad enough, you won't want to drive up there. A car that you can consistently put through corners at 0.9 lat-g will be easier to drive than one where once in a while you hit 0.92 but more ofter it feels twitchy, you get cold feet, and only pull 0.87. Being relaxed and confident = faster overall.

The Mustang has to be able to match the 1LE, at least in one "trim".

In deeper detail, I'd like to see a rear suspension configuration where the pivot axes of the various links are not in all skewed directions with respect to each other. If we can't do that, we haven't moved all that far from the triangulated/converging 4-link arrangement of the Fox-body and 1960's GM intermediate sedans. Or the 5th gen Camaro.

I'm not particularly pro-stick axle or anti-IRS, just willing to accept strengths and shortcomings both.

About IRS though, the way I understand it is live axle much better for launching and straight line accel. Does that mean with the new IRS the car will be gaining better cornering but losing launching advantage?

That tends to be the situation. For one thing, it's harder to build anti-squat into an IRS, which is what plants the rear tires while the rear suspension is still in motion (this motion only happens as fast as the rearward load transfer - incorrectly aka "weight transfer" - can compress the rear springs).

An IRS car does not particularly benefit from front sta-bar removal or the installation of a huge dragstrip rear bar, at least not by more than whatever weight distribution change occurs as a result. In a stick axle car, those mods do a lot more (it's a roll stiffness distribution thing a little more apparent to us corner-carvers).

Better cornering still comes down to getting the details right. Just "having IRS" is not a magic bullet. Though I'd hope the ride & handling team is up to the task.


Norm

 

[J.Darcy]

What is overrated is to call 50/50 "perfect" or "ideal", because that implies too much. It probably is a good target to shoot for as far as maximizing potential lateral g capability with a "square" wheel and tire configuration is concerned.

+1. But manufacturers love these marketing bullet points it can advertise.

One of the things that Chevy has managed to prove with the 5th gen Camaros is that staggered tire sizes are not the hot tip for best handling - you still need to match the tires to the weight and potentially the lateral load that they will see. The SS still understeers (safer for the novice driver, but throwing away front grip with too-narrow front tires to get it is frustrating for the advanced driver in terms of understeer). FWIW, there is a definition of and mathematical computation for "understeer".

I've only test driven the SS once, but from what I remember, the SS plows like crazy! But I guess that was no surprise since it's so heavy and has that staggered setup.

Never driven the 1LE but I think just from the square setup alone it'll feel much more neutral. You ever get time behind a 1LE before?

 

[Norm Peterson]

Never driven the 1LE but I think just from the square setup alone it'll feel much more neutral. You ever get time behind a 1LE before?

Unfortunately, I haven't had that opportunity.

The reduced understeer resulting from a 'square' setup with 40mm more front tire is pretty easily predicted. The SS's front 245/45's get saturated before the rear 275/40's do, at which point they're all done and understeer is what you get (below that point, the difference in slip angles is still going to be understeerish in nature, all else held reasonably constant). For production front engine cars, 285/35 - 285/35 is inherently closer to neutral.


Norm

Sponsored