2015 Mustang Weight Gain

[DJ]

As far as the trend of all cars gaining weight and size, remember that the Nissan 370Z is shorter and lighter than the Nissan 350Z.

We can hope that Ford has the balls to do the same.

That's the thing tho, it is really difficult to decrease weight if it doesnt get shorter and smaller. I read posts on other forums where some people say they dont want the Mustang to get much smaller..... that a muscle car should be big, bad and mean looking. I can see the point..... but then you see some exotics out there that are much smaller looking and seem to have no prob intimidating other cars with performance and styling.

Would it be so bad to go back to Fox proportions? Is it even possible now?

Sponsored

 

[Rob]

That's the thing tho, it is really difficult to decrease weight if it doesnt get shorter and smaller. I read posts on other forums where some people say they dont want the Mustang to get much smaller..... that a muscle car should be big, bad and mean looking. I can see the point..... but then you see some exotics out there that are much smaller looking and seem to have no prob intimidating other cars with performance and styling.

Would it be so bad to go back to Fox proportions? Is it even possible now?

Which is ironic given that in the early days of the muscle car era around 1966 / 1967 / 1968 cars like the Mustang and Camaro were considered to be small cars and in fact were small cars by comparison to the other cars on the road. By the time muscle cars got big and heavy in the early 70's, sales had dropped way off because consumers preferred the earlier and lighter variations of the "muscle car" and because of the looming gas crisis. Fast forward to 2013 and everyone thinks the big 71 MACH 1 Mustangs were the hay day of the muscle car when in fact those were the cars that sort of killed the muscle car era.

 

[Dirk McGurck]

An updated Fox/SN-95 sized Mustang would be perfect.

The more I look at the S197s, the bigger and fatter they look. Especially when they color-matched the rocker panels on the 2013/4 and with that new nose.

They don't need to make it tiny, just buck the tradition of making the newer model longer, wider, taller, and heavier. EVERY other car does this. Put a modern Civic next to a 1980s Accord. They're the same size.

Manufacturers also keep making each successive model larger, then introduce a new, smaller car under the rest.

Reduce the overhang, slamming the wheels into the corners. Keep it the same width, keep it the same height/shorter and you would maintain most of the interior space and stance. It would actually probably look more aggressive.

We don't necessarily need the Mustang to be a muscle sedan. There's other options for that.

 

[StangFX]

O RLY?


I am :clap2:

In that case, care to throw any info our way regarding weight... if you have heard any whispers about + or - LBS? It seems a lot is riding on this for many people here.

 

[pacettr]

In that case, care to throw any info our way regarding weight... if you have heard any whispers about + or - LBS? It seems a lot is riding on this for many people here.

I haven't heard any info specific to the Mustang but that is Ford's general direction across all models so IMO it's a safe ASSumption.

 

[Dyno]

An updated Fox/SN-95 sized Mustang would be perfect.

The more I look at the S197s, the bigger and fatter they look. Especially when they color-matched the rocker panels on the 2013/4 and with that new nose.

They don't need to make it tiny, just buck the tradition of making the newer model longer, wider, taller, and heavier. EVERY other car does this. Put a modern Civic next to a 1980s Accord. They're the same size.

Manufacturers also keep making each successive model larger, then introduce a new, smaller car under the rest.

Reduce the overhang, slamming the wheels into the corners. Keep it the same width, keep it the same height/shorter and you would maintain most of the interior space and stance. It would actually probably look more aggressive.

We don't necessarily need the Mustang to be a muscle sedan. There's other options for that.

True but the Fox interior is also a lot more cramped and uncomfortable compared to the current Mustang. Americans have gotten even bigger since the 80's and luxury is in style right now. Making a car that is smaller, yet more comfortable, and has to fit larger people is no small feat.

I think with modern day features and safety regulations, a Fox sized Mustang would be one hell of an uncomfortable ride. There's not a whole lot of wiggle room for the interior as it is... it's a few inches away from being too cramped for the 2+2 set up IMO and the rear seat is nearing fairly useless size for adults.

The easiest thing they could do is to reduce some of the bloat. By which I mean the overhangs and excess design-created size that adds no functionality to the car while keeping interior space the same.

 

[SStormtrooPer]

True but the Fox interior is also a lot more cramped and uncomfortable compared to the current Mustang. Americans have gotten even bigger since the 80's and luxury is in style right now. Making a car that is smaller, yet more comfortable, and has to fit larger people is no small feat.

I think with modern day features and safety regulations, a Fox sized Mustang would be one hell of an uncomfortable ride. There's not a whole lot of wiggle room for the interior as it is... it's a few inches away from being too cramped for the 2+2 set up IMO and the rear seat is nearing fairly useless size for adults.

A Subaru BRZ is smaller than a Fox by a good amount, and has nearly the same amount of interior room for it passengers as a S197. It actually has more rear seat room. Ford can do it -- some just want you to think they can't.

 

[91z28350]

I drove a BRZ (Toyota GT86) on the Nurburgring last month, while I know it was beat up (it was a track rental for the Nordschleife after all) I can't really say I liked it all that much. Felt cheap, tinny and tiny all in one. Only cool thing was the 7500 rpm redline (I believe that is what it was).

While I do hope the S550 drops some weight (100-200 I hope) through use of high strength, lower weight materials, I really hope it doesn't get too much smaller. I like the size of my car. Plus, I am finding it much more rewarding to lose weight from ME!

 

[SStormtrooPer]

I drove a BRZ (Toyota GT86) on the Nurburgring last month, while I know it was beat up (it was a track rental for the Nordschleife after all) I can't really say I liked it all that much. Felt cheap, tinny and tiny all in one. Only cool thing was the 7500 rpm redline (I believe that is what it was).

I have heard that elsewhere too. Regardless, if they can get interior room comparable to S197 in that small of a car, Ford surely could do it in a Fox sized car.

 

[91z28350]

I guess my point is, I don't want a fox body sized car. Less weight, you bet, we all know the benefits, 4/5 the size? No thanks, I will end with a Z06/7 whatever they decide to call it. If I am going to have a less useful interior (to me the the GT86 interior was smaller than my GT500), might as well make it a true two seater. IMO of course.

 

[crysalis_01]

I also don't think we need to see a Fox sized car. But I fully expect to see a return to SN95 sized dimensions and though it may not happen if like to see it even shorter in overall length than SN95, via overhang chops.

FOX

overall length (inches): 179.6
overall width (inches): 68.3
Overall height (inches): 52.1
Wheelbase (inches): 100.5

SN95

Overall length (inches): 183.2
Overall width (inches): 73.1
Overall height (inches): 53.1
Wheelbase (inches): 101.3

S197

Overall length (inches): 188.1
Overall width (inches): 73.9
Overall height (inches): 55.6
Wheelbase (inches): 107.1

 

[Vickstang]

I drove a BRZ (Toyota GT86) on the Nurburgring last month, while I know it was beat up (it was a track rental for the Nordschleife after all) I can't really say I liked it all that much. Felt cheap, tinny and tiny all in one. Only cool thing was the 7500 rpm redline (I believe that is what it was).

While I do hope the S550 drops some weight (100-200 I hope) through use of high strength, lower weight materials, I really hope it doesn't get too much smaller. I like the size of my car. Plus, I am finding it much more rewarding to lose weight from ME!

Luckily we won't have to worry about the s550 having a cheap interior like the BRZ/FRS because the s197 interior is already a lot better, and the s550 is definitely going to be an upgrade over the s197.

But, I do wish that the s550 gets lighter and more nimble like the BRZ/FRS which has great steering and handling feel.

 

[GTsquid]

Its funny how accustomed we have all gotten to bigger cars that a SN95 pony car is relatively small now. I remember when it first came out I thought it was pretty big after seeing nothing but Fox stangs around for so many years.

When you look at the differences between overall length to wheelbase that crysalis posted, you'll see that the proportions have stayed basically the same. There's a 79" differential between the overall length to wheelbase in the Fox, 81.9" in the SN95 and 81" in the S197. The huge 6" wheelbase difference from SN95's to S197's is what really stands out.

It looks like they will keep wheelbase dimensions roughly the same so it doesn't impact interior space too much and just chop off some excess overhang I'm hoping. Although I'm just really not sure that alone will save a lot of weight unless they use lighter (and less) materials.

 

[Dirk McGurck]

Its funny how accustomed we have all gotten to bigger cars that a SN95 pony car is relatively small now. I remember when it first came out I thought it was pretty big after seeing nothing but Fox stangs around for so many years.

When you look at the differences between overall length to wheelbase that crysalis posted, you'll see that the proportions have stayed basically the same. There's a 79" differential between the overall length to wheelbase in the Fox, 81.9" in the SN95 and 81" in the S197. The huge 6" wheelbase difference from SN95's to S197's is what really stands out.

It looks like they will keep wheelbase dimensions roughly the same so it doesn't impact interior space too much and just chop off some excess overhang I'm hoping. Although I'm just really not sure that alone will save a lot of weight unless they use lighter (and less) materials.

They did it between the C5 to C6: just pushed the wheels to the corners of the body. The C6 looks incredible compared to the C5.

 

[motoroid65]

I've been reading this thread from guys who are real anxious about weight and felt compelled to join in.....

My two cents of pure opinion is it will not gain weight. For some perspective, the SN95 stang was riding on a chassis that dated back to the Ford Fairmont's from the late 70's. The 2005 Mustang got a 6 inch longer wheelbase than the 2004 for better stability and comfort, a much sturdier, more rigid chassis structure that was safer, had less vibration, less noise/better soundproofing, better materials, more technology, higher quality interior, superior suspension, brakes, you name it. Yet the 05 GT is only a little over 100lbs heavier than the 04 GT stock curb weight and it managed to do this without using any exotic materials besides the new V8's lighter weight aluminum block, if you can call it exotic. Thats the benefit of waiting 10 years to update a platform, it's enough to be evolutionary by using then-standard technology to keep costs down. Same reason Ford waited until now to bring back the IRS to the Mustang.

Since then, Ford has gotten so good at weight reduction that I bet they are more than capable of taking out 400lbs from the now outdated and large S197 chassis. They could add some of it back with some new technology, safety features and IRS, for a net weight loss still. But without increasing in size and getting the benefits from a decades worth of lowered costs for better materials and more advanced platform development, I can't see how they would not shed some weight here.

Sponsored