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

[Norm Peterson]

D2C is based off the DEW platform, which was under the 4 door Lincoln LS and was intended on being shared with the Taurus before the decision was made to make it FWD-based. Therefore, it was built on a sedan-based platform

Based on, yes. But that's not a direct sedan to coupe transfer like the BMW examples mentioned in this thread, and in no way makes the D2C platform a full sedan platform in its own right.

But it’s funny that you’re still stuck on this whole idiotic “utilitarian” bullshit, but then the only short overhang vehicle you can think of off-hand is a BMW Z

That was in response to your claim of short overhangs also being indicative of sportiness (which I don't entirely disagree with, depending on details). Maybe so, but the Z still ends up looking stubby. And stubby is a better look for trucks, SUVs, and such, where 'graceful' would be the wrong look entirely.

So how about instead of continuing to reply to me, you tell us. How would you design a Mustang, Norm?

Already did. See post #10. Do some math if you have to. But keep in mind that they're only first-thought numbers just like everybody else's suggestions here.


Norm

Sponsored

 

[Idaho2018GTPremium]

I think the thought that a sports car has to have a short front overhang stems from front engine sports cars. The overhang is short out of necessity because the front wheels have to be moved so far forward to improve the weight distribution so the car can be a front-mid engine setup. So, I agree somewhat, that a front engine sports car generally needs to have a short overhang to improve weight distribution, with a bit longer rear overhang (moving the rear wheels forward further helps improve weight distribution). However, a short front overhang isn't ideal for aerodynamics. There is also a direct correlation between short overhang and truck and off road vehicles out of necessity (short overhang less likely to hit a steep incline during off roading). So short overhangs have their places in both sports cars (front engine) and SUVs/trucks (for off-roading purposes). However, a long front overhang isn't omitted from sports cars: mid engine supercars have long front overhangs; it allows for a shorter hood height, increasing aerodynamics. They do have a short rear overhang due to engine placement.

That said, I agree that moving the front axles too far forward on the Mustang might lead to a bit of a stubby front end look, especially combined with the long hood/short deck. I'd be fine with a slight move forward like I suggested in my earlier post (about 1/2" +/-, combined with moving the engine back 1/2" +/-). However, moving the rear wheels back without changing anything else would hurt weight distribution.

Cars like the AMG GT have a short front overhang, but it doesn't look that good. The overhang appears too short from an aesthetics perspective, and makes the front look blocky and stubby IMO. I don't like the profile of the AMG GT very much compared to most sports cars. I think the C7 Corvette and latest iteration of the Viper do it very well in comparison. A nice compromise.

Some extremely sporty long overhang examples: McLaren Senna (probably the most serious handler out there right now), Lamborghini Huracan, Ford GT

 

[jake_zx2]

Based on, yes. But that's not a direct sedan to coupe transfer like the BMW examples mentioned in this thread, and in no way makes the D2C platform a full sedan platform in its own right.

And again, it has 0 relevance. The fact of the matter is that they’re both sedan-based platforms, and despite what you think, it IS possible to give a Mustang shorter overhangs

That was in response to your claim of short overhangs also being indicative of sportiness (which I don't entirely disagree with, depending on details). Maybe so, but the Z still ends up looking stubby. And stubby is a better look for trucks, SUVs, and such, where 'graceful' would be the wrong look entirely.

So again, we’re back to YOUR subjective opinion. I don’t give a flying fuck what YOU think looks good, I care about facts. And facts are that the Mustang would benefit from shortened overhangs in terms of performance

But, you know, we’ll share some more cars that, despite public opinion, are ugly and CUV-like all because Norm seems them so

Already did. See post #10. Do some math if you have to. But keep in mind that they're only first-thought numbers just like everybody else's suggestions here.

Cool, so how about you leave your shitty opinion there instead of using it to keep people from sharing their (better) opinions

 

[jake_zx2]

mid engine supercars have long front overhangs; it allows for a shorter hood height, increasing aerodynamics. They do have a short rear overhang due to engine placement.

The important part of this is that they have SHORT rear overhangs. They don’t have long front overhangs due to the overhangs themselves being beneficial to performance, but rather due to necessity to maintain an aerodynamic profile and because the weight distribution of the vehicle makes the downfalls of the long overhang negligible against the benefits they receive in the aerodynamics department. But, if there were a way to maintain the aerodynamic benefits of the long overhang while shortening the length of the overhang and keeping within the regulations of a street car, you could easily bet that manufacturers would take that step... because no matter what, the more weight you can place between the wheels instead of outside of them, the better

 

[Fly2High]

let's not stifle anyone's opinion. All we want to do is here what you would like and why.

All responses, regardless of if plausible, mathematical or trend are valid.

Sometimes, a completely different design can take you places.

Maybe for another thread, but what if Ford did make the Probe a Mustang. Where would we be today? Besides cancelled. Pretend it sold and eventually the change was accepted.

 

[Blue Moon]

lol...

It really isn't.

 

[Idaho2018GTPremium]

The important part of this is that they have SHORT rear overhangs. They don’t have long front overhangs due to the overhangs themselves being beneficial to performance, but rather due to necessity to maintain an aerodynamic profile and because the weight distribution of the vehicle makes the downfalls of the long overhang negligible against the benefits they receive in the aerodynamics department. But, if there were a way to maintain the aerodynamic benefits of the long overhang while shortening the length of the overhang and keeping within the regulations of a street car, you could easily bet that manufacturers would take that step... because no matter what, the more weight you can place between the wheels instead of outside of them, the better

Shorter wheelbases make for better handling/more responsive cars than long wheel base vehicles assuming proper weight distribution. So, I don't think McLaren would necessarily want to increase the wheelbase on the Senna, for example - I think they likely set it right where they want it. The long front overhang is a) for aerodynamics (we both agree on that) and leveraging front downforce with the splitter, and b) mostly lightweight/empty weight and moving the wheels forward wouldn't gain much, and would probably make the car too rear heavy (too much rear bias) if the front wheels were moved forward in an exaggerated way on a mid engine supercar. There's not much mass in front of the wheels (maybe some HEXs for cooling on some of them, I'm not sure exactly) so additional wheelbase probably wouldn't benefit the Senna and other supercars very much, if any. The wheelbase is likely set, and then the designers likely extend the front overhang beyond that for proper aero/design.

That said, moving the front wheels forward on a front engine car would help weight distribution, given the limitations of how far back the engine can go relative to the firewall and driver compartment. For example, AMG GT: 47/53 front/rear weight distribution. Very good weight distribution for a front mid-engine setup, and yes, short front overhang and fairly long rear overhang. The Mustang GT at 54/46 has some work to do in that department, but some of the changes would likely compromise style and cost (i.e., transaxle vs. transmission) so those need to be weighed against the benefits of a better weight distribution. I think my suggested incremental changes (wheel 1/2" forward, engine/trans 1/2" toward the rear) would improve the Mustang GT to 53/47, give or take, without sacrificing the look and style of the car. Moving the transmission to a transaxle would probably bring it to 50/50. I haven't calculated those so they are just estimates.

 

[IrishStallion]

It really isn't.

Your right, it’s Par for the course... ;).

 

[IrishStallion]

But it’s less...”that is a crazy F’in idea Bob, appreciate the input“. More I’m RIGHT, your wrong... Lol.

 

[jake_zx2]

Shorter wheelbases make for better handling/more responsive cars than long wheel base vehicles assuming proper weight distribution.

This isn’t COMPLETELY true. Shortening the wheelbase can lead to instability. More squared proportions will give a car that has a high likelyhood of oversteering, which is fine in a low horsepower car. But as you add power, you want to also add length in the wheelbase to stabilize the car, thus why F1 cars are so damn long

But otherwise, I agree with pretty much everything else you said. The Mustang needs A LOT of work to get close to a 50/50 distribution (or better, a rear weight bias), and while I would love if Ford switched to a transaxle, I just don’t see them doing it. I think the first step is to lengthen the wheelbase relative to the overall size (in other words, cut down on overhangs) and shrink the whole car altogether to cut down on overall weight. It’s 100% doable while keeping a Mustang-like appearance, though we may lose some trunk space, but I imagine the biggest hurdle will be the Coyote. Seems the only viable way to make this happen would probably be to switch to a dry sump system so we could drop the engine a bit lower, allowing us to pull it back further, but once again cost comes into play.

So in my ideal world, a Mustang would be slightly smaller with less overhangs and a better weight distribution, but that would mean at least a $50k base price... something I’m okay with, but most certainly will not (which is why we’ll most likely get a more challenger-esque S650 or 750 :gag: )

 

[DarthMalice]

I think Ford nailed it with the S550...I honestly hope S650 is an evolution of it in the way Porsche does the 911 - tweaks but generally keeping the design intact. I intend to get a 2021...most likely ordering a Mach 1 unless I can find a cheap 2020 exactly how I want it.

 

[ravenofpoe]

It’s funny to read those measurements. I’ve personally owned an 04, 13, and 17. Been around all the others. But rarely seen more than one model lined up together. To my mind the classic 60’s models were too small and I’ve never wanted to own one because of it. The 70’s Mach 1 was a boat of a car that I nine the less loved the styling of. I always figured ford wanted something more the size and scope of a muscle car. The sn95 cars seemed to small to me, especially after I bought the 13 which felt humongous to me after the 04. The 17 I have now feels slightly larger than the 13. Felt size wise I’d say the 13 and 17 have felt perfect to me. But all in all they were all very similar in size.

 

[ravenofpoe]

I think Ford nailed it with the S550...I honestly hope S650 is an evolution of it in the way Porsche does the 911 - tweaks but generally keeping the design intact. I intend to get a 2021...most likely ordering a Mach 1 unless I can find a cheap 2020 exactly how I want it.

I really agree with you. The platform is fantastic. If I were to make changes none of them would be to the platform or drive train. I’d want the hood up just a bit higher compared to my eye level, (to my mind it gives an impression of a bigger more powerful car) reduce the curve downward at the nose (I still have trouble parking my car because of the lack of spatial awareness in the front, probably my own problem) and finally I’d use better materials for the interior.

 

[Norm Peterson]

And again, it has 0 relevance.

Solely because you said so. Am I right?

But maybe you can find me a 4-door version of the D2C that isn't a DEW. I'd honestly be interested.

So again, we’re back to YOUR subjective opinion. I don’t give a flying fuck what YOU think looks good, I care about facts. And facts are that the Mustang would benefit from shortened overhangs in terms of performance

You're so stuck on flaming me that you can't be bothered to see where I actually agreed with you.

Cool, so how about you leave your shitty opinion there instead of using it to keep people from sharing their (better) opinions

Going to the gutter isn't helping your case. And aerodynamics is an important part of performance as well as fuel economy.


Norm

 

[jake_zx2]

Solely because you said so. Am I right?

No, because it actually has NO relevance. The Camaro is also built on a platform that’s shared with a 4 door sedan... according to you, that would mean that it’s more roomy and utilitarian than the Mustang, thus having shorter overhangs. But that’s not the case, is it?

But maybe you can find me a 4-door version of the D2C that isn't a DEW. I'd honestly be interested.

Here ya go. This concept was built on D2C and was slated to be the new Taurus (also to be built on D2C) until leadership changes and the recession caused the idea of sharing the RWD sedan platform to be scrapped

You're so stuck on flaming me that you can't be bothered to see where I actually agreed with you.

Oh, you mean the part where you “don’t completely disagree” and then went on to explain how short overhangs look too stubby to you, as if your opinion of how cars look is all that matters?

And aerodynamics is an important part of performance as well as fuel economy

Aerodynamics are important, but sure aren’t a priority of the Mustang (in other words, Ford doesn’t make the best use of the Mustang’s long overhangs, so why even have them in the first place?). Fuel economy certainly is NOT an important factor of a performance car

Sponsored