If you designed a Mustang, what dimensions (l x w x h) you would have?

[Fly2High]

If you were to design a Mustang, what would be the smallest exterior length, width and height you would want and what would be the maximum length, width and height of your car?

What do you feel are the ideal dimensions for a Mustang? Let's leave how the engineers would accomplish this to them. I am just looking at a starting point you may have.

What do you think of the size over the years?

As a point of reference

1965 fastback
Length : 181.6 in
Width : 68.2 in
Height : 51.0 in
Wheelbase : 108.0 in

1973 Mach 1
length : 193.8 in
width : 74.1 in
height : 50.7 in
wheelbase: 109.1 in

1990 Fox body
length : 179.6 in
width : 69.1 in
height : 52.1 in
wheelbase : 100.5 in


2002 SN95
length : 183.2 in
width : 73.1 in
height : 53.2 in
wheelbase : 101.3 in


2013 S197
length : 188.5 in
width : 73.9 in
height : 55.8 in
wheelbase : 107.1 in


2019 S550
length : 188.3 in
width : 75.4 in
height : 54.4 in
wheelbase : 107.1 in


I have never put any of these Mustangs side by side so I found it interesting to see how they all compare.

Also, as small looking that the SN95 was to me, it was still quite big when compared to a S550.

I also was a little shocked that the first two generations had such long wheelbases.

I did not know that the 70's Mach 1 was also the shortest height Mustang while the Fox was the shortest in length.



Looking at all of this, I would like the car to have a lower height and a shorter length.

My range would look like:
length : under 182 inches but more than 175
Width : 70 -73 inches
height: 48- 51 inches. even if that means someone above average height might not fit. They can make the seat sit a little lower to help which I would also like done.

Wheelbase is hard. I understand that a ratio of length to wheel track of 1.6 is desired but i have not driven enough Mustangs not other shorter wheelbase cars to say if I want the wheel base to me more Fox or more old school in length. I will say that improvements in handling would be the direction I would want but I also do not want a car that cannot be driven by the masses.

Sponsored

 

[Brian@BMVK]

Basic dimensions wise, I'd do very similar to what the 1990 Fox was, though maybe just a tad longer wheelbase.
length : 180-182 in
width : 70 in
height : 52-53 in
wheelbase : 102 in

 

[tom_sprecher]

Fine for me just the way it is.

 

[Sigma6]

Weight is the objection not necessarily length. Unfortunately government regulations prevent it from being lighter from the factory than it should be. I bring this up as it needs to be included per portioned to your question of LxHxW.

 

[Fly2High]

Weight is the objection not necessarily length. Unfortunately government regulations prevent it from being lighter from the factory than it should be. I bring this up as it needs to be included per portioned to your question of LxHxW.

I think of it the other way around. If I am building a car, it needs to have a certain strength to withstand impact. A small car can use less material to get the same strength. weight would be determined once dimensions are selected.

 

[Jimmy]

Sometimes when parking it I wish it was slightly narrower, not because it's hard to park but because the closer it is to another car the more likely you are to get dinged. Also I wish it was slightly shorter just so I could have more room in my garage.

 

[Balr14]

I have always thought the Fox body was just about perfect size.

 

[Idaho2018GTPremium]

I think it's great the way it is currently, but I would make the following incremental "practical" updates: making it slightly smaller for the sake of reducing overall weight, improving weight distribution, assuming the engineers could make it work relatively easy, and the designers could make it as good looking as the current Mustang design:
1) Reduce overall length about 1" to ~187.3" by reducing the rear overhang
2) Reduce height by ~3/4" to 53.6", lower seat by 3/8" or so, to keep similar head room (might have to lower beltline and cowl slightly in order to prevent Camaro-like visibility issues)
3) Reduce width by 1/4" (very minimal - as I think wide cars look better)
4) Stretch wheel base ~1/2" by moving the front wheels forward, keeping the rear in the same spot (improves weight distribution)
5) Move the engine toward the rear ~1/2" (further improvement in weight distribution)
6) Keep the long hood ratio and short deck (obviously)
7) Lower front hood to grille transition ~1/4" +/- (similar to how Ford lowered the hood line on the '18+ for improved aerodynamics)
8) Attempt to remove ~125 lbs from the vehicle
9) Move transmission to the rear and use a rear mounted transaxle

 

[Sigma6]

I think of it the other way around. If I am building a car, it needs to have a certain strength to withstand impact. A small car can use less material to get the same strength. weight would be determined once dimensions are selected.

During the past 20 years car have ballooned to weigh x amount more. Why? Well people wanted more content in their cars, whether it was design luxury such as thicker seats or smart-tech technology. All adds weights.


Well adding on these features, car manufacturers discovered “faults” as such when testing certain models with add-ons that some of their models with more features didn’t scored particularly high in crash tests, so they started designing them specifically to pass these tests. Not taking into account government regulations or EAP standards.


So now you have your tricked out car but do to the two things above it’s rather heavy aka slow. Slow cars don’t sell either. So you can a) r&d weight reduction b) add more power. B) is cheaper to do. So you add power to a car that’s already heavy. The extra power comes at a price, it’s heavier (bigger engine). To support this you’ll have to get upgraded suspension, wheels, tyres and brakes. And this is vicious never ending circle that the car manufacturers live in. You can design any length or height of car you want. Look at rat rods for example. The length height weight ratio on paper might not be right but once it’s done... it swelled. In a highly evolving industry, one thing that isn’t changing anytime too so is getting a shortcut to reduce weight. The process costs $$$$ which is hard to justify to an end user and something manufacturers would have to eat as most are creating daily drivers not race cars or toys. Dodge has proven (for example) it’s very easy to sell the value of an additional 100hp, just look at what they do to a Dodge Challenger which really besides the engine hasn’t changed in over 10 years... it’s very hard to sell the subtraction of 100kg.


Whose someone who understands weight reduction? It’s none other than Lotus founder Collin Chapman. His stance was ‘Simplify, then add lightness’ and ‘Adding power makes you faster on the straights; subtracting weight makes you faster everywhere’ .... few quotes pulled. He didn’t just use fewer and thinner materials, nor did he try to build a lower frame or longer base. Rather he understood how single components could be made to multi-task, such as using driveshafts as suspension links.

 

[Norm Peterson]

For height, I'd start with no less than 4.5" ground clearance with two aboard. Add an inch to get to the heel point, say 7" from the heel point to the hip point, 37.5" of headroom and another inch for the roof . . . I get 51", good enough as a starting point.

Width needs to be determined by things like track and wheel width, so 63" + two 305-wide tires @ +25 offset gives about 73".

Track at 60% of wheelbase would put wheelbase at 105" . . . which might be a bit short as far as achieving a good weight distribution target is concerned. The Fox at 101" or so is a good size physically, but the resulting 58/42-ish weight distribution with a V8 - not so good. Maybe 106" here.

Mustang length . . . let's stick closer to the original 1965 proportions, adjust for a couple less inches in the wheelbase and use something in the 180" - 182" range.

So summing up,
Length : 181 in
Width : 73 in
Height : 51 in (2 aboard)
Wheelbase : 106 in


Norm

 

[Brian@BMVK]

For height, I'd start with no less than 4.5" ground clearance with two aboard. Add an inch to get to the heel point, say 7" from the heel point to the hip point, 37.5" of headroom and another inch for the roof . . . I get 51", good enough as a starting point.

Width needs to be determined by things like track and wheel width, so 63" + two 305-wide tires @ +25 offset gives about 73".

Track at 60% of wheelbase would put wheelbase at 105" . . . which might be a bit short as far as achieving a good weight distribution target is concerned. The Fox at 101" or so is a good size physically, but the resulting 58/42-ish weight distribution with a V8 - not so good. Maybe 106" here.

Mustang length . . . let's stick closer to the original 1965 proportions, adjust for a couple less inches in the wheelbase and use something in the 180" - 182" range.

So summing up,
Length : 181 in
Width : 73 in
Height : 51 in (2 aboard)
Wheelbase : 106 in


Norm

Just need to get that engine further back...maybe with a transaxle. Oh wait, I realized I want a Ford version of a Vette

 

[Idaho2018GTPremium]

Just need to get that engine further back...maybe with a transaxle. Oh wait, I realized I want a Ford version of a Vette

I also thought about moving the trans to the rear to help weight distribution - I wasn't sure how feasible it was with rear seats...but I would add that to my list if it was feasible.

 

[Norm Peterson]

Not sure I would want a front engine/rear transaxle unless a lot of weight could be taken out of everything else. PMOI goes up (less nimble) when you split up all of the heavy bits to opposite ends of the car. Good for straight line stability I guess, but a bit harder to catch once the tail decides it really does want to lead the parade. I know this has been discussed . . . somewhere or other.


Norm

 

[Matti777]

I was thinking that getting a little closer to the BMW M240 size would be nice Interestingly enough they weight the same (EB) so it makes me wonder if any weight reduction is realistic without going all club sport.

 

[Norm Peterson]

I was thinking that getting a little closer to the BMW M240 size would be nice Interestingly enough they weight the same (EB) so it makes me wonder if any weight reduction is realistic without going all club sport.

And those M240 dimensions are . . .


Norm

Sponsored