7th Generation Mustang (S650) Moved to 2022...

[jake_zx2]

Length is a wash, front track is a wash, width and rear track almost a wash, and the Camaro's shorter height is offset somewhat by the (lighter) greenhouse height being significantly shorter than the Mustang's.

Length is the same, but otherwise the Camaro is smaller in every single other aspect. So, as much as you say it's a wash, it really isn't

As good a definition of defensive as I could ever come up with . . .

So, pointing out differences is defensive now? Well, I guess that makes us both defensive

I've known from the get-go that my S197 is heavier than it could have been, and I'm not afraid to admit as much. Or that it has other shortcomings. I'm not afraid to complain that in a couple of respects even my '08 is more luxurious than I really need. I know you're going to flame me over noting that the S197 wheelbase being about 6" longer than the SN95's must have had something to do with that weight gain. But those are discussions for places like S197Forums or AllFordMustangs.

Would I have opted for a lightweighted S197 if it had been available? Absolutely. But not at S197 Shelby Mustang GT (not the GT500) pricing and ADM'ing.

But the S197 is heavier than the SN95, and your whole point is that any weight gain, regardless of the benefits it may hold, is worse... so, I guess by your logic, that makes you an idiot for buying an S197 over an S550

That's only what you want to think I'm saying. Not much I'm ever going to be able to do about that, I guess.

So, if it's not what you're thinking, then see above

The Challenger is kind of the poster-boy for the direction the Mustang should never, ever take. Though that might be a reasonable target for a reborn 1960's Mercury Cougar, heavier on the amenities, lighter on outright performance unless throwing more engine and still more weight at is a good enough answer for you.

Except the challenger wasn't necessarily heavier due to amenities, but moreso safety regulations on an outdated chassis. Also of mind, the Challenger is much bigger than both the Camaro and Mustang

Your definition of 'better' must be quite different from mine, and must have a lot of "more for the sake of more" in it. Any reason "enough" can't be enough?

My definition of better is, simply, better. I should be asking you the same, why can't "enough" be enough? Ford investing plenty in lightweighting for the S550 to keep weight close to the S197... why can't it be close enough? What makes it such an irreversible handicap?

No again. I'm not trying to "Miata-ize" the Mustang. Only keep it from becoming "Challenger-ized" (BTW, thanks for mentioning the Challenger).

Except you are, because apparently keeping weight within 100lbs of the previous generation while making it significantly better isn't enough for you. For you, it NEEDS to be lighter. That means sacrificing size, power, lateral grip, or all of the above, thus making it more miata-esque... so, if you want low power, low lateral Gs, and small size all in the name of saving a few pounds, why not buy the 1 car that's notorious for doing it best and leave us mustang guys to be happy with our mustangs?

I hope we both understand that it's nowhere near as simple as that. Not with everything electronically tied to everything else.

It should have been left easier by Ford not including as much even in base trim, or requiring unrelated items you don't want and wouldn't use just to get the thing or two that you really do want. PP2 requiring 301A is almost its own contradiction.

Except it is, you're just too scared to try. Lets look at this with your own example:
Sync3- literally NO weight gain over sync1
Leather seats- easy to be swapped out with cloth, or since you're so concerned about weight, racing seats

And that's literally all there is to 301a. So, what you're saying is that you don't want people who look for these luxuries to be able to have them, because you're too stubborn to do an hour worth of work to your race car or are too scared of about 30lbs at most?

I also must ask... the PP is SIGNIFICANTLY heavier than a base GT in the name of performance... so why are you so dead set that you would buy such a heavier package on a car if it didn't require a package that adds at most 25lbs?

First mention of Ferrari was from you, correct? I know I didn't drag it into this thread. Anyway, my intent hasn't changed, only the way I've phrased it so that you might understand the thought I'm trying to put across. Apparently without any success here either.

See; Definition- Rebuttal

Yes, I brought it into this thread. However, you have had 3 separate rebuttals making 3 separate points. Additionally, your first rebuttal was, very simply, "different strata"... Not necessarily sure there's a point to be made by you

You must have missed where I mentioned seeing a McLaren . . . it was running in my own run group, actually, and that white-ish thing at the left side above the wing in the picture below is a point-by being given.

. Within a few minutes walking distance of my house there's been a Lamborghini that gets fairly regular use about town, and Kerbeck/Palmyra is only a few minutes away by car, so it's not like I live in a depressed area.

Nope, didn't miss that part. I've also had a pass-by from a MP4, ironically enough in my old 3V. I never said you lived in a depressed area, but considering I live and do all my racing around Dallas, I'd be willing to bet we have quite a higher concentration of high end cars around here. That being said, and as I've already said, I don't recall ever going to a track day event that didn't include at least 1 Ferrari

Sponsored

 

[Noggles]

I think the argument about weight is getting quite a bit out of hand, both here and in the car community in general. First off, 99% of these cars will never be used on any sort of a track. They are marketed as such IMO solely because that's how the magazines test them and automakers still think those rags matter. My mustang from what I have read should weigh right around the same as my 2002 Trans Am yet it has a physically bigger and heavier engine, much bigger transmission, independent rear, bigger brakes, bigger wheels, more safety, more electronics, better interior and less fiberglass. It also performs better in every single category that you can measure.

The other aspect of this is the government. Regulations requiring all this extra crap like safety reinforcements, and mandatory driving aides. All that has to come from somewhere and be tied into the ecosystem somehow. GM and Ford both offer stripped down performance versions of their cars with 95% of the focus on performance and yet people still complained about them.

Then you get to cost. Who is going to spend $35-40k on a new mustang (my base + black accent and a10 GT was $38k sticker) and not get even the most basic of features like Bluetooth and a steering wheel controls? The answer is almost no one. Don't try to argue that less stuff costs less either. GM found out years ago when they tried to do stripped down vehicles that removing power windows in favor of crank windows cost MORE because of a variety of reasons. Then you get into adding lightweight materials which always cost extra so even if less options cost less money, the added materials to make other areas lighter would add that cost back plus more. According to the following thread not even 1000 people bought a GT350R which would get you your stripped down no frills mustang.

https://www.teamshelby.com/topic/94100-2017-gt350-production-numbers/

If they can't even sell a thousand units to collectors AND performance buffs, why would they be able to sell one in high volume? The car buying public wants options and features and extras. Not stripped down track toys that almost no one uses.

 

[Norm Peterson]

Length is the same, but otherwise the Camaro is smaller in every single other aspect. So, as much as you say it's a wash, it really isn't

Differences that are measured in fractions of an inch out of 50 or more are a wash . . .

But the S197 is heavier than the SN95, and your whole point is that any weight gain, regardless of the benefits it may hold, is worse... so, I guess by your logic, that makes you an idiot for buying an S197 over an S550

Personal insults are unnecessary. But I can handle it, so guess it'd be fair for me to come back with some degree of IRS-snobbishness being behind your trashing of any Mustang that isn't an S550. It has been pretty apparent . . .

Except the challenger wasn't necessarily heavier due to amenities, but moreso safety regulations on an outdated chassis. Also of mind, the Challenger is much bigger than both the Camaro and Mustang

We might be getting somewhere here, if you agree that the Mustang need not become a Challenger wanna-be in every respect.

My definition of better is, simply, better. I should be asking you the same, why can't "enough" be enough? Ford investing plenty in lightweighting for the S550 to keep weight close to the S197... why can't it be close enough?

Maybe because they didn't try hard enough (it was supposed to be lighter). Maybe too many resources were allocated to amenities that should have been dedicated to the basic car itself.

Except you are, because apparently keeping weight within 100lbs of the previous generation while making it significantly better isn't enough for you. For you, it NEEDS to be lighter. That means sacrificing size, power, lateral grip, or all of the above,

I'd settle for "no heavier". Lighter would have been better. We both know that the power and lateral grip targets can be achieved at a lighter weight.

Miata is a straw man; no way is a Mustang ever going to drop down anywhere near that weight class. Only down to the 500 lb heavier BRZ class is still well outside anything reasonably achievable. That'd take a clean sheet of paper and a car with a separate mission - and sure, such a car would almost certainly find its way onto my next short list for me, given a couple of prerequisites.

thus making it more miata-esque... so, if you want low power, low lateral Gs, and small size all in the name of saving a few pounds, why not buy the 1 car that's notorious for doing it best and leave us mustang guys to be happy with our mustangs?

It took 40 years for the Mustang to come back to being seen as more than just a cruiser or a dragstrip car. And now that it has become pretty damn good at the corner-carving part, it's not allowed to focus as closely on that aspect as it deserves?

Except it is, you're just too scared to try. Lets look at this with your own example:
Sync3- literally NO weight gain over sync1
Leather seats- easy to be swapped out with cloth, or since you're so concerned about weight, racing seats

Scared is your (misinformed, scornful) word. Since you have mentioned Sync, I have zero use for that feature. Any and all versions of it.

And that's literally all there is to 301a.

Isn't leather seating 400-level stuff? Be that as it may, there isn't anything in 301A that I even want, never mind having to spend some proportion of $2000 for it.

So, what you're saying is that you don't want people who look for these luxuries to be able to have them, because you're too stubborn to do an hour worth of work to your race car or are too scared of about 30lbs at most?

Let the PP2 be available with 300A, not that the 300A itself couldn't stand a little decontenting . . .


Norm

 

[jake_zx2]

Differences that are measured in fractions of an inch out of 50 or more are a wash . . .

I'll just reply to this, as this negates your WHOLE argument here...

The Camaro is 74.7" wide
The mustang is 75.4" wide

Therefore, the Mustang is about a 1% increase in size

The S197 is 3618lbs
The S550 is 3705lbs

Therefore, the S550 is about a 2% weight increase

By your logic ("an inch out of 50"), a 2% increase is a wash


So, that begs the question... why exactly are you so upset about a 2% weight gain in the S550?

 

[jake_zx2]

some degree of IRS-snobbishness being behind your trashing of any Mustang that isn't an S550. It has been pretty apparent . . .

Though, while I'm at it, I might as well say LMAO to this... I've owned 3 generations of Mustang, and plan on owning yet another soon. But you're right, I think any other mustang is pure garbage LMAO

 

[Norm Peterson]

So, that begs the question... why exactly are you so upset about a 2% weight gain in the S550?

Because it wasn't supposed to turn out that way.


Norm

 

[Twin Turbo]

Any chance we can get this back on topic?

 

[Coyote Red]

I owned 3 other mustangs than my current S550 base GT w/ 3.55:1 gear. It's very nice interior compared to my former is nice and the GT power makes my commutes more fun but "I can't turn it around in the street without backing up! Carry on.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

the GT power makes my commutes more fun but "I can't turn it around in the street without backing up!

Wait, based on Cars and Coffee videos, I assumed Mustangs were hard to keep from turning around in the street.

 

[Zinc03svt]

My 14 a6 GT/CS weighed 3680 and my 18 a10 pp1 was 3800 on the nose w/ tad more than half a tank. The 14 had base s197 suspension and brakes. Although it took me a while to like s550 non-retro mustang looks. Not saying newer is always better, but the 18 up is a step up in performance in both power to the ground and handling. The extra 120 pounds in irs, sways, bracing, bigger radiator, springs, brembo’s, wheels/tires, etc well worth the penalty in a STREET car... lol.

 

[Topnotch]

S650 helper
https://www.mubea.com/company/

Coil Springs
Stabilizer Bars

 

[edco]

My 14 a6 GT/CS weighed 3680 and my 18 a10 pp1 was 3800 on the nose w/ tad more than half a tank. The 14 had base s197 suspension and brakes. Although it took me a while to like s550 non-retro mustang looks. Not saying newer is always better, but the 18 up is a step up in performance in both power to the ground and handling. The extra 120 pounds in irs, sways, bracing, bigger radiator, springs, brembo’s, wheels/tires, etc well worth the penalty in a STREET car... lol.

I like your point a lot..."well worth the penalty in a street car", so important and overlooked. The '07 GT w/T3650 was
3352# at the rail head on the MSO and 3356# on specs. I have my down to about 3240# dry weight. It is a fun car to
drive and seems to hold it's own in road chases with big power.

My S550 looks heavier, is heavier, feels heavier, and I want every pound. The weight gain is not ballast. The weight is
in the refinements of road manners, handling, driver comfort, sound suppression, performance, and build quality.
The S550 is the better car. [street car] You can strip an S550 GT, apply Steeda chassis, suspension, drive-line, power,
tire/wheel mods and nothing is going to embarrass you in performance. What do you have?
Not as much street car as before modification.
What do you want? A Rolls that drives like a turbo Porsche. They have those. They are made in Italy.
Meanwhile, the S550 Mustang is the best car I can afford.

 

[LSchicago]

Anyone thought of the possibility that the 7th gen might be made out of aluminum?

 

[Norm Peterson]

I like your point a lot..."well worth the penalty in a street car", so important and overlooked.

It's also heavily dependent on individual preferences, even in terms of ride quality.


Norm

 

[Darkane]

Anyone thought of the possibility that the 7th gen might be made out of aluminum?

Yes, it’s been debated many times.

For most people, it seems logical Ford would go this route. For the mustang it’s highly unlikely. The unibody construction would be far too expensive.

If anything, more high strength steel use and some more aluminum in the suspension and body panels is what we’ll see. I estimate a 50-80lb weight loss for the 650 in a base-ish format.

The hi performance variants will increase again because of complexity and hybridization.

Sponsored