2015 mustang weight?

[Icy]

I keep hearing around 200 pounds is the goal for the next Mustang. Anyone know if they are talking about the base model or the GT and what are the calculations behind this?

Is it going to come mostly from a smaller engine? Because from everything I've seen it looks like the actual chassis is about the same size.... might even be slightly wider track? And I can't imagine them using any carbon fiber or anything like that if they want this thing to be affordable. So then where is the weight savings going to come from?

Sponsored

 

[stangray11]

There are other ways of shedding weight than to a smaller wheelbase. The car can and should have a lower beltline and hoodline and be slightly shorter. As has been mentioned it can do this without compromising interior room just by taking off some of the overhangs.

It's difficult to tell with all that camo but from the spy shots it sure seems like the s197 body sits pretty comfortably on the S550 frame so who knows how much smaller the chassis is if at all.

I definitely wouldnt expect any exotic materials but the use of more alumnium and magnesium in place of steel.

 

[S550Boss]

Nothing is announced of course... but if the goal is 200 pounds then part of it will come from measuring the 4 cylinder model, and part of it will come from a part-by-part examination. Mazda calls this a "gram strategy". Each part is looked at for it's function - can it be made lighter while maintaining it's function and improving structural strength. Sheetmetal has holes punched where strength is not needed. High tensile steel supports this as well. And everything means just that - even bolt sizes are chosen for the minimal size to do the job. You save a gram here, a gram there, and over the course of the entire car it adds up.

The benefits here are all over the board: better fuel economy, better acceleration, and a stronger chassis to improve handling.

The Mazda2 (a diminutive car, granted, but at least it's a Ford Fiesta underneath) design team saved 220 pounds with this methodology. The Mazda CX-5, compared to the old CX-7, saved 288 to 575 pounds depending on the model.
Read more about the "gram strategy" here: http://www.mazda.co.uk/stories/pbc-gram-strategy/

And who was CEO of Mazda when this approach was institutionalized in the company? Mark Fields. So you can bet this smart approach is now embedded inside Ford.

But, going back many many years, the first time I heard this philosophy was with the introduction of the Fox platform, which was the 1978 Fairmont, in the summer of 1977 (a car they would have started to work on in '72). Engineers talking about it even quoted a figure they had saved. That platform went on to be used under the '79 Mustang and several other cars, and with very slight modifications became the SN95 (so slight that suspension parts - and event he dashboard - interchange - will the S550 be the same? I wonder...).

If you ever get a chance to see a Cadillac ATS shell, you'll notice weight saving holes punched all over it. This approach is inherent in the platform, so the CTS benefits from being an Alpha too, as well the Camaro (which could easily go into the 3200 pound range because of it's move to Alpha). Here is one of the pics from the press intro. Look carefully at the small details:

This approach is easier if you are going to an all-new platform where you can look at the problem as a whole, and it's harder with an existing legacy platform where you are extremely limited in what types of changes you can make. The S550 is the latter case.

Using the "new" (in reality slightly reworked) Holden VF Commodore as an example (the previous model of which was the Pontiac G8 here), the rework of the existing car yielded an average weight savings of 43kg (94.6 pounds). The entry level there became a 3 liter DOHC V-6 instead of a 3.6, but that's not at all where the weight savings came from. Having to work on an existing platform, with a bare-bones budget (and retaining the roofline of some models), the main contributors were more increased of high-strength steel as well as aluminum for the hood and trunk lids. Even more weight could have been saved, but extra soundproofing was added (much needed, because the previous car and the Pontiac G8 were loud and tiny). If there is a critique of this car, it's that it's lipstick on a pig. And (especially the Chev. SS) the "feminization" of the styling. But setting that aside, it's an example of updating an existing car.

The S550 will be just a bit better than this, because while it's an evolution of the existing chassis, at least it won't be stuck with the existing bodyshell (as laughably many of the amateur renderings did) - although all the hard points will be essentially the same. While Ford will hawk the S550 as "all new", remember that it's not. Just like the '69 model was not all-new compared to the '68.

 

[KZStang]

Good read.

I have heard about the mazda gram strategy and their promo video below gives a glimpse of how the project took form with the mazda2. It's interesting stuff.



What they've managed to do with the Mazda 2, they also did an amazing job with the '14 Mazda 6. Able to lose over 300lbs over the '13 model. They shed almost 4 inches with the combined overhangs and it uses 20% more high/ultra strength steel and also using rigid injection molded foam in place of parts of the structure where it can be used to save weight. This is one area Ford can really learn from. This minute optimization of parts & components like a smaller HVAC unit, making the windshield lighter and even shortening the titanium bolts so long as it doesnt compromise safety will have to be the strategy for a platform that doesnt benefit from being totally ground up.

Since the s550 will have a new body shell, and this would be the major area of improved weight... the mazda 2 was able to save ~80lbs on the shell alone. The use of high tensile steel for the chassis would really help here and have the added effect of improving the rigidity of the chassis.

As good as Ford managed to do with the Fusion, the Mazda 6 manages to be almost 200 lbs lighter than it and blows it away in real world fuel economy by almost 5mpg.

This shows you what weight savings can achieve without making any improvements to the engine. It's goign to have to be the way forward for Ford with the 2015 Mustang. As I've said, the HP and brute force engine race is over... its the weight and efficiency one now.

 

[Mriley]

The issue will always be with cost. There's going to be so much R&D and new technology/engineering costs passed down to buyers already. The base price cant increase by $2k with camaro prices remaining where they are. Although the C7 did manage to use new materials, carbon fiber and an all aluminum frame with no sigifnicant price increase so it can be done.

 

[S550Boss]

The economics here is sharing the platform with other cars. The ATS/CTS/Camaro saves costs all across the board. It's so good that there can be individual; variances in length and width.As for engines, the truck line pays for the LT1, and rich uncle Cadillac pays for the expensive to development TT V-6, as well as the excellent DOHC V-6 and turbo 2 liter 4. Everybody wins.

The most successful example of this to date for enthusiasts is the Nissan/Infiniti FM platform, which serves under the 370Z, G, the new Q50/60, the FX, the M, and the EX. It's a phenomenal platform, strong, purposefully light, aluminum intensive. And all those products split the bill.

Another example is the Focus, which serves up several other products including the C-Max and Escape.

In all the different manufacturer platforms, any and all of the cars that share the platform can be built on the same assembly lines - saving even more money and gaining even more flexibility.

So GM has made a very smart move here, and they started from a clean-sheet design. Can Ford use the worked-over S550 for a new Lincoln 2 and 4-door range, as well as (big maybe) a Falcon? The S550 is not a clean-sheet design at all, it would be a hack of a platform that was never designed for any other purpose than the Mustang), so flexibility is minimized.

In fact the S197 (and therefore the S550) is itself a dumbed-down version (sophisticated suspension ditched, but most of floorpan and gas tank as well as hard points kept) of the platform from Ford that was supposed to do exactly what Alpha has in fact pulled off: the DEW98. It was under the Lincoln LS, Thunderbird, and Jag S-Type (where it still resides today under the successor to that car). It was fully intended to be under the Mustang, too, and several concepts from Lincoln also used it. In the end, it was little Billy Ford who killed it off, thinking he could run an entire car company. That was the end of Ford's Alpha or FM... which is exactly what is needed right now for premium products (and trickle down economics to the Mustang).

 

[pistolpete]

I keep hearing around 200 pounds is the goal for the next Mustang. Anyone know if they are talking about the base model or the GT and what are the calculations behind this?

Is it going to come mostly from a smaller engine? Because from everything I've seen it looks like the actual chassis is about the same size.... might even be slightly wider track? And I can't imagine them using any carbon fiber or anything like that if they want this thing to be affordable. So then where is the weight savings going to come from?

200 pounds goal has to be for the v4 not the GT otherwise were looking at like 300 pounds for the base model. Not happening.

 

[S550Boss]

It'd be hard to imagine loosing 300 pounds for this rework... unless they spent some big money somewhere we can't see yet.
Like dropping the middle of the frame out of the car like ye olde SN95/Fox. That would take some weight out of the middle of the car.. with the added benefit of putting the subframe market back into business again ;-)

 

[StaalOut]

It'd be hard to imagine loosing 300 pounds for this rework... unless they spent some big money somewhere we can't see yet.
Like dropping the middle of the frame out of the car like ye olde SN95/Fox. That would take some weight out of the middle of the car.. with the added benefit of putting the subframe market back into business again ;-)

Read in another thread where you speculate on possible s197 chassis update midlife. Let's say this did happen, you think any weight savings could come from that?

 

[MustangDizzle]

200 pounds goal has to be for the v4 not the GT otherwise were looking at like 300 pounds for the base model. Not happening.

What's a v4?

 

[NRMStand]

200 pounds goal has to be for the I4 not the GT otherwise were looking at like 300 pounds for the base model. Not happening.

Read in another thread where you speculate on possible s550 chassis update midlife. Let's say this did happen, you think any weight savings could come from that?

Fixed

BTW, a v4 exists. Ford itself made a few. Look it up.

The issue will always be with cost. There's going to be so much R&D and new technology/engineering costs passed down to buyers already. The base price cant increase by $2k with camaro prices remaining where they are. Although the C7 did manage to use new materials, carbon fiber and an all aluminum frame with no sigifnicant price increase so it can be done.

Sure the vette was able to do this while maintaining the same price, but question is will you see it trickle down to the camaro without a big price increase? Hell no. At least camaro owners can hope for some trickle down from the vette. You definitely won't be seeing CF or any exotic materials on a Mustang either. Even the Shelby 1000 had a fake CF overlay and it costs over 150k.

 

[KINGCOBRA]

Weight savings? That's all about the 4 banger. You won't see much elsewhere. When you're working with an evolution of the current chassis, weight savings are tougher to come by.

So you look at the engine. For comparison, the Focus saved 100 pounds with an EcoBoost version over the standard. The 2.0L EB 4-cyl weighs 50 pounds less than the 3L 6-cyl. That's huge. How many other parts can you take out without putting back in?

That weight savings also translates into less need for the rest of the car to have to carry the burden of that weight... i.e. the springs and the overall package it needs to be in for crash testing.

 

[S550Boss]

This, BTW, is a King Cobra.

Be real scared, because this is what happened last time Ford took significant weight out of the Mustang, and also abandoned the competition against the Camaro (and it didn't even do well against the Monza).
I test drove one of these in the spring of 1978... I didn't want a 1978 Mustang, but the dealer (a friend of mine) asked me to test drive it. It wasn't too bad for that time (solid, quiet, flat handling at low speeds), but it was also ostentatious. When I got home that afternoon from the test drive, the latest issue of Car and Driver was in my mailbox - with a picture of the all-new 1979 Mustang and all the details. It's a damned good thing I didn't buy a '78 Mustang since the '79 was literally about 1000% better. Jeez!

 

[KZStang]

No one should be afraid of another Mustang II. Was simply an overzealous reaction to the oil crisis and some very poor decisions. But all of the manufacturers at this time lost their minds. Since there's zero chance the Mustang shares a subcompact platform again, they'll be lucky to shed even 200 pounds for the '15. Another reason not to fear... there is no Pinto in its lineup. Ford's entire line of vehicles is excellent. Any "trickle up" of parts would not do the kind of damage as did the sharing of Pinto parts (not least of which was the infamous exploding fuel tank).

Also, I think we're safe from a 88hp base engine. Ah, that still gets me every time

 

[S550Boss]

Read in another thread where you speculate on possible s197 chassis update midlife. Let's say this did happen, you think any weight savings could come from that?

The update is of engines and transmissions... so no weight savings there. Unless the Nano replaces the 3.7... and that would be minimal.

Sponsored