New 2015 Mustang Dimensions

[MustangDizzle]

I understand the concern of visibility, but this is a performance car guys. The lower roofline and shorter side windows are not going to flat out make it impossible to see. It looks like about 2 inches have been shaved off. Go sit in your s197 and imagine the top 2 inches of your window now covered. Can you still see? Of course you can. It's not that bad.


I've driven a Camaro and it's not that bad. It really isn't, and I'm 6"2 so my head position is higher in the cabin than your average driver.

Sponsored

 

[Prodigy]

I understand the concern of visibility, but this is a performance car guys. The lower roofline and shorter side windows are not going to flat out make it impossible to see. It looks like about 2 inches have been shaved off. Go sit in your s197 and imagine the top 2 inches of your window now covered. Can you still see? Of course you can. It's not that bad.


I've driven a Camaro and it's not that bad. It really isn't, and I'm 6"2 so my head position is higher in the cabin than your average driver.

It's not just a 2 inch lower roofline you would have to worry about. If there's more rake in general your sightline out of the front will be impaired unless it's a bulging and bubble-like roof like others have suggested. This and the sill line would give you a cockpit feel. The camaro is not impossible to see out of but it isn't ideal. And IMOin some ways poor visibility in a performance vehicle is an even bigger problem than other types of cars.

 

[mitchell]

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)!

Roofline aside,

The wheelbase is the same as the S197. The track width is a little wider.

The front and rear overhangs are shorter.

I got to crawl under a S550 chassis a few months ago. Though it did not have the “pretty” bodywork on it.

 

[GTsquid]

Roofline aside,

The wheelbase is the same as the S197. The track width is a little wider.

The front and rear overhangs are shorter.

I got to crawl under a S550 chassis a few months ago. Though it did not have the “pretty” bodywork on it.

How do you know? Did you eyeball it or actually measure it?

 

[mitchell]

The overhangs were obvious by eye. For wheelbase, I had a visual zero S197 comparison there at the time.

The track looked wider but that may have had to do with the bodywork on the car. The wheels/tires, etc. So yes, you could say that part was eyeballed.

 

[Mriley]

There's gotta be more you can say if you've seen the underside, c'mon.

 

[mitchell]

I suspect most of the points people would like to hear about I will not be able to comment on. The design is top secret. I know people working on the suspension and drivetrain that don't get to see the styling. Ford is taking every precaution to keep it a secret until they are ready.

 

[OKCfan]

I suspect most of the points people would like to hear about I will not be able to comment on. The design is top secret. I know people working on the suspension and drivetrain that don't get to see the styling. Ford is taking every precaution to keep it a secret until they are ready.

Damn...they made you sign an NDA huh :frusty: :(

 

[mitchell]

I did not personally work on the car. It was on a lift and I got to see it briefly.

A few (not very exciting) details:

Coyote motor and MT82 were present. Front suspension is different but still uses struts. It has a double ball joint design.

I'll leave it at that.

 

[aardvark]

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")

You know, when I read this a few months back, I thought that your numbers had to be way off. No way could it be 175.5" long. Now I'm beginning to think that your estimates are pretty darned close.

Anyway, it's great if it's true. I'd love a Mustang in the 173"-177" range. No offense to those who love the size of the current car (and y'all can still get while the getting's good), but I think that the time has come for a leaner, meaner, sportier Mustang. For those who say that a car in this range will be ridiculously tiny, have zero backseat space, etc., I disagree. It can be done right. Look at the e46 M3. It was 176.8". That's a very nice size.

Sponsored