MustangDizzle
Well-Known Member
You can get pretty dang close. That analysis has to be fairly accurate.
Sponsored
Sponsored
MPACT
Guest
The only measurement here that would worry me is the roof line. It's the only one that I believe I can see with my naked eye and it definitely looks more sloped. I hope Ford did not go overboard with this sleekness of redesign so that we get much worse visibility. Following the camaro down this path would be a big mistake.
crysalis_01
Well-Known Member
The current GT500 with its SC5.8 is also cost prohibitive "on so many levels". There are plenty of people who like that aspect. It keeps them "exclusive" and just like the current gen if they are made, they WILL be bought.
Melino
Guest
For the 5.0 coyote? What I would pay for one of those...
Sponsored
shelby1k
Guest
Some good points here and some others that I think is too much of a leap at this point.... especially the overall length measurements. Just too much camo on the overhangs to tell that with any degree of accuracy.
Exact measurements will have to wait until I get to my drafting table... but here are the measurements of the 2015 as I see them (while sitting in an airport and with a large printout and a borrowed ruler).
Wheelbase 107.1" (2013" 107.1) (this is just an evolved S197, after all)
front rotors: 14: (2013: 14")
rear rotors: 12.4" (2013: 11.8")
wheel diameter: 20" (2013: 19")
length: 175.5" (2013: 188.1")
And the worst measurement of all, confirming my fears that this is indeed the new Camaro: the height from the window sill to the point where the curve of the window stops: 11.25" (2013: 13.75"). Meaning awful visibility (as you can see with the driver above). Wearing a helmet is going to be awful in this car, same as it is in the current miserable Camaro (for anybody past 14 years of age). It's the Camaro concept-car looks that grabbed so many buyers; Ford is just copying that "look" here.
Assumptions: I worked with the brake rotors first, and working from there every other measurement fell exactly into place. Also, this image is slightly askew, so there are additional inaccuracies introduced there. And the camo confuses the length a bit.
Note the ATS 4-door is 182" in length, wheelbase 109.3, so a 2-door version of that aka 2016 Camaro would be a bit shorter. I think the competition is coming into sync.
The tire height would be tough but I would believe it's all but the same as the 2013 19" because that's what we saw on the mules and getting the height right would be critical for testing the new suspension. But, generally, I think these measurements are pretty close. Remember that massive wheels and tires don't make for a handling car, they increase weight and mass and reduce suspension travel. Suspension geometry is what counts, and at least in the back we finally have that with the IRS.
This can be shot full of holes... but it's simple method and no doubt the engineers over at Camaro land and Charger land have already done it exactly.
So we have a shorter car, as predicted. Weight should drop proportionately. Interestingly, we have bigger wheels (heavier, more mass = really dumb) but the same size rotors (less mass = better). Apparently the 14" front rotors are good enough. Good to see the back rotors increase in size - that suggests there is a better weight balance than the current car (the engine is in the same exact place up front, so the weight balance must have balanced out a tiny bit better with the new suspension in back). I remain disappointed that there aren't more serious brakes in back - with in-drum parking brakes and 4-piston calipers. Ford has cheapened out the rear brakes on these for years.
I expect there will be holes in my quick measurements. But in six months and three weeks, at the earliest, we'll know for sure IF Ford brings a prototype or production-based showcar to the Detroit show. As opposed to the Thunderbird (DEW-98)-based "Mustang GT" showcars for the 2005s (showing a far better car than we got in the end)!
The windows definitely looks to be narrower and possibly worse visibility. The greenhouse overall looks more Aston Martin than Camaro to me though. There are some visibility issues in the AM's and they design it with quarter panels with mirrors mounted on horizontal brackets from the frame to make up for this but truth is doesnt do much for blind spot visibility.
I think this could explain what looks like different placement and design change of the side & blind spot mirrors in the prototype shots. Seems to me to extend slightly farther out and angle more inward compared to the current one, suggesting more blind spot coverage.
Prodigy
Guest
I hadn't noticed that but I think you may be right.I think this could explain what looks like different placement and design change of the side & blind spot mirrors in the prototype shots. Seems to me to extend slightly farther out and angle more inward compared to the current one, suggesting more blind spot coverage.
Not sure what you mean. Doesn't the hood already wrap around the grille?
J.Darcy
Guest
Hoping the next Mustang and Camaros have more differing looks than now since a lot of people (non enthusiasts) even confuse the two cars :doh:
Sponsored
Prodigy
Guest
I know. And im saying doesnt the hood already wrap around the grille (on the mustang)?
MustangDizzle
Well-Known Member
They look nothing alike. Pffft to their ignorance.
StangFX
Guest
As far as a lower roofline I dont think we can rule out the possibility of a double bubble hood until we see that camo come off. That would make helmets less of an issue and basically how the viper solves this problem.
There is way too much padding on top to make that call yet but the contours of it sure look possible.
Falc'man
Well-Known Member
There's every possibility that they wanted to match the existing platform's wheelbase - for practically it may already serve as a good balance between acceptable interior room and on-road foot print?
Do they want to go bigger, smaller, if so, for what reason? It looks as though they've gotten rid of some front overhang but if the wheelbase is about the same size then at least the basic size of Mustang hasn't changed so much that space isn't compromised.
Would current Mustang owners want something shorter, longer, or the same, when it comes to interior space?
Do they want to go bigger, smaller, if so, for what reason? It looks as though they've gotten rid of some front overhang but if the wheelbase is about the same size then at least the basic size of Mustang hasn't changed so much that space isn't compromised.
Would current Mustang owners want something shorter, longer, or the same, when it comes to interior space?
I'd want it slight smaller on the outside (so, losing some of the overhang would be good) but I want it slightly lager on the inside.....with a little more legroom in the back for my kids.
I have a feeling that's what we're going to get
Sponsored
