Sponsored
OP
OP
thePill
Camaro5's Most Wanted
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2012
- Threads
- 37
- Messages
- 6,561
- Reaction score
- 699
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Vehicle(s)
- S550
- Thread starter
- #17
That is already figured into the 200-220lbs, we could give it 50lbs, we are still well over 100lbs. B-Pillar construction is really heavy in 4 door cars, doors as well. Side impacts are B-Pillar reliant, 30-40lbs per side with the Hydro-Formed method. The A pillars are similar...
Equipment alone, maybe 80lbs the Mustang has the Fusion don't. I see 110-140lbs of doors, 40-60lbs of floor, 10-20lbs of roof and 60-80lbs of B-Pillar the Fusion has the Mustang don't. The rocker area of a sedan is massively heavy compared to a clean sheet 2 door. Maybe 10lbs per side, most of that weight is B Pillar related and I wouldn't count it again. That's about all I can think of, the front suspension is a wash, engines are a wash, the transmissions should be close, the average might be lighter. Rear seats are most likely heavier in the Fusion, glass area is larger, it is longer overall... I think it has a larger gas tank, both should be weighed on full. The automatic is heavier than a Getrag, even for a FWD.
Brakes, wheels, tires, driveshaft and rear end... The first 3 gains are rather small.
Yeah, logic tells me otherwise... Lots of room for extra airbags now. There is a lot of sheet metal absent on the Mustang that the Fusion has. Model for model, the EB Mustang will be about 50-100lbs lighter than a Fusion.
The Camaro is a very heavy 2 door, yet it is still lighter than most of GM's mid size 4 door sedans. Come on guys...
WestRace
Well-Known Member
Cool! I don't mean to give you a hard time. 
Very good read so far and learned quite a bit.
I guess everyone is hoping for EB ~ 3350lbs, GT ~ 3550lbs. Any more weight loss will just be an added bonus.
Very good read so far and learned quite a bit.
I guess everyone is hoping for EB ~ 3350lbs, GT ~ 3550lbs. Any more weight loss will just be an added bonus.
WestRace
Well-Known Member
Another question. With the S brace, there will be less weight distribution upfront right? which then will give the car a closer 50/50? The overall weight might be the same but with the S brace most of weight will be more further away back with respect to the front wheels?
Having a "torque box" which will have more weight upfront relatively?
I might be wrong but I believe the M3 may have similar design as the S brace?
Having a "torque box" which will have more weight upfront relatively?
I might be wrong but I believe the M3 may have similar design as the S brace?
OP
OP
thePill
Camaro5's Most Wanted
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2012
- Threads
- 37
- Messages
- 6,561
- Reaction score
- 699
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Vehicle(s)
- S550
- Thread starter
- #20
I think that as well. Audi, BMW, Aston Martin... All have a "shape" they are trying to achieve. These 3 cars have a consistent design.
What you will see here in a few days is another big step in chassis rigidity up front. The Mustang now uses a Triangular strut tower brace that is also connected at the firewall. Underneath, there should be two S-Brace type supports, they should be attached by a cross member. Those S Braces connect to two Y Braces, this traditionally is where the Torque Box is located. There are multiple hinge points in a Torque Box configuration, until recently, the actual parts were difficult to make. There were attempts to try this with a Torque Box type Unibody before, however, they used large structural boxed beams. The angle was made by using a Miter cut. That, in reality, just caused more hinge points in the chassis. Most platforms that under pin our current Pony cars were made in this fashion. It was strong, as in, it could sustain a large load. The platforms can handle, there are measures needed to be taken, unfortunately, weight gain became an issue.
This Silloutte Innovation is no more than an exercise in efficiency of design. It's tasking specific areas and supports for a specific purpose, usually based on intellegent use of load resistance shapes. It's eliminated the natural weak spots that traditional construction methods forced designers and engineers to use.
To be completely honest, there is just less metal on the design altogether. GM is using a Monocoque Chassis technique, placing holes in some of the structural areas. If design correctly, a hole (with a rim support) will strengthen the metal around the area. The only issue is, it acts as a full body crumple zone. The whole car kinda sponges, it is also known for chassis flex, as well as the traditional Unibody. Throughout the years, additional supports were added to vehicles, this brough on this massive weight gain over the last 20 years. The same box shape has been used for ever, since the 60's, some car makers have began to develope a new, more effiecent Unibody, not just by using Aluminum either... I'm sure they can go back and do that eventually but, this is a better way to start.
Let's think about what the Mustang is now. Up front, a Triangular Strut Tower to Firewall Brace. Under that, two S-Braces connected by a cross member.. This area may or may not be Aluminum. In the back, the new ILIRS' cradle has eliminated a HUGE issue associated with traditional IRS...
Upon cornering, a Unibody car "Diamonds". Imagine the 4 wheels on a car making a square... Now imagine those tires trying to bend into a diamond when it corners. Remember the Boss's X Brace? That was a huge help... Most times, the Spring and shock are mounted between a lower control are and an upper control arm. Control Blade IRS was previously set up like this. Under cornering loads, while the chassis flexes, binding can occur between the lower and upper arms, as well as binding between the upper arm/Spring and the body itself. ILIRS eliminates the middle man here, the suspension cradle is part of the structure, it works to some degree as the Boss's X Brace, only it's a sub frame connector in a way. This ILIRS sub frame has additional support on the inside on the trunk floor, remember, it's called the LIONS FOOT. This Lions Foot will join the B/C Pillar to the ILIRS sub frame.
The entire structure FLOWS together like that from start to finish, I know there are primitive types of ideas like this BUT, Ford has the geometric shape down to an almost Science. The ILIRS doesn't bind as much, in fact, it has eliminated the troublesome spring dependent upper arm usually found on heavy IRS systems (see Camaro and Terminator). Those traditional SLA (Short Long Arm) IRS systems were garbage, the sub frames were bolted up and usually large. It attempted to stiffen the chassis but ended up creating and additional failure point between the shell and the tire.
The ILIRS cradle is actually reinforcing the shell, as well as contributing to the systems lower weight. It also further reduces unsprung weight as well... Lots of good things happening on both ends... I see lighter, smaller, more compact and hunkered down than before. I see a lot of efficiency here, everything flows together and is connected. Everything reinforces each other, it's pretty slick...
To answer your question, the S brace is much leaner in design than the old school closed box battering rams of old. They would traditionally mount a bit higher in relation to the engine bay if I come to think about it but, it may change car to car. The amount of steel in the structure/torque box and firewall area has shrank DRAMATICALLY. The Firewall/cowl area is lower and overall that is made possible by being smaller. This allowed Ford to lower the hood, meet EU Pedestrian crash standards, and squeeze out that Mustang look. This look will eventually evolve I'm sure, but I myself am happy with the smooth '14-'15 change over.
Sorry, rambling... Yeah, the S550 should give up a nice chuck up front, 20-40lbs in structure savings would be nice. The ILIRS could be 20-50lbs heavier than the SRA, that helps as well. Look at the overall Silloutte Fastback design from the side, a lot of the cabin weight has been shifted over to the rear. It may be closer to 50/50 than many might be comfortable with.
What you will see here in a few days is another big step in chassis rigidity up front. The Mustang now uses a Triangular strut tower brace that is also connected at the firewall. Underneath, there should be two S-Brace type supports, they should be attached by a cross member. Those S Braces connect to two Y Braces, this traditionally is where the Torque Box is located. There are multiple hinge points in a Torque Box configuration, until recently, the actual parts were difficult to make. There were attempts to try this with a Torque Box type Unibody before, however, they used large structural boxed beams. The angle was made by using a Miter cut. That, in reality, just caused more hinge points in the chassis. Most platforms that under pin our current Pony cars were made in this fashion. It was strong, as in, it could sustain a large load. The platforms can handle, there are measures needed to be taken, unfortunately, weight gain became an issue.
This Silloutte Innovation is no more than an exercise in efficiency of design. It's tasking specific areas and supports for a specific purpose, usually based on intellegent use of load resistance shapes. It's eliminated the natural weak spots that traditional construction methods forced designers and engineers to use.
To be completely honest, there is just less metal on the design altogether. GM is using a Monocoque Chassis technique, placing holes in some of the structural areas. If design correctly, a hole (with a rim support) will strengthen the metal around the area. The only issue is, it acts as a full body crumple zone. The whole car kinda sponges, it is also known for chassis flex, as well as the traditional Unibody. Throughout the years, additional supports were added to vehicles, this brough on this massive weight gain over the last 20 years. The same box shape has been used for ever, since the 60's, some car makers have began to develope a new, more effiecent Unibody, not just by using Aluminum either... I'm sure they can go back and do that eventually but, this is a better way to start.
Let's think about what the Mustang is now. Up front, a Triangular Strut Tower to Firewall Brace. Under that, two S-Braces connected by a cross member.. This area may or may not be Aluminum. In the back, the new ILIRS' cradle has eliminated a HUGE issue associated with traditional IRS...
Upon cornering, a Unibody car "Diamonds". Imagine the 4 wheels on a car making a square... Now imagine those tires trying to bend into a diamond when it corners. Remember the Boss's X Brace? That was a huge help... Most times, the Spring and shock are mounted between a lower control are and an upper control arm. Control Blade IRS was previously set up like this. Under cornering loads, while the chassis flexes, binding can occur between the lower and upper arms, as well as binding between the upper arm/Spring and the body itself. ILIRS eliminates the middle man here, the suspension cradle is part of the structure, it works to some degree as the Boss's X Brace, only it's a sub frame connector in a way. This ILIRS sub frame has additional support on the inside on the trunk floor, remember, it's called the LIONS FOOT. This Lions Foot will join the B/C Pillar to the ILIRS sub frame.
The entire structure FLOWS together like that from start to finish, I know there are primitive types of ideas like this BUT, Ford has the geometric shape down to an almost Science. The ILIRS doesn't bind as much, in fact, it has eliminated the troublesome spring dependent upper arm usually found on heavy IRS systems (see Camaro and Terminator). Those traditional SLA (Short Long Arm) IRS systems were garbage, the sub frames were bolted up and usually large. It attempted to stiffen the chassis but ended up creating and additional failure point between the shell and the tire.
The ILIRS cradle is actually reinforcing the shell, as well as contributing to the systems lower weight. It also further reduces unsprung weight as well... Lots of good things happening on both ends... I see lighter, smaller, more compact and hunkered down than before. I see a lot of efficiency here, everything flows together and is connected. Everything reinforces each other, it's pretty slick...
To answer your question, the S brace is much leaner in design than the old school closed box battering rams of old. They would traditionally mount a bit higher in relation to the engine bay if I come to think about it but, it may change car to car. The amount of steel in the structure/torque box and firewall area has shrank DRAMATICALLY. The Firewall/cowl area is lower and overall that is made possible by being smaller. This allowed Ford to lower the hood, meet EU Pedestrian crash standards, and squeeze out that Mustang look. This look will eventually evolve I'm sure, but I myself am happy with the smooth '14-'15 change over.
Sorry, rambling... Yeah, the S550 should give up a nice chuck up front, 20-40lbs in structure savings would be nice. The ILIRS could be 20-50lbs heavier than the SRA, that helps as well. Look at the overall Silloutte Fastback design from the side, a lot of the cabin weight has been shifted over to the rear. It may be closer to 50/50 than many might be comfortable with.
Sponsored
WestRace
Well-Known Member
Mr. Pill,
You mention that you have driven the Fusion? How's the body structure compared to other cars in its class such as the Accord, Camry, .... I've never driven the Fusion but have driven the Fiesta and that was a fantastic little car. I personally don't like small car, and I didn't know I could enjoy driving a small car that much.
Anyway, I think there is something to be said about the body rigid structure and how it translate into the driving experience. A lot of people I know said that somehow German cars tend to feel more "solid", more "substantial", and more "button downed" on the freeway compared to Japanese cars. Non-technical people think Germans have exclusive rights to this "technology" or whatever it is because they don't understand the technical behind it.
I personally think it all comes down to a few things: overall body rigidity, low unsprung mass, and the ratio of the mass that goes into making the body rigid vs. the total mass of the car. The last item can be confusing. What I mean is that there are a lot of mass in a car that has nothing to do with body ridigity such as for example the dash board, the A/C, the windows, the door handles .... So you add up all that non-essential mass and take that ratio over the overall mass of the car. The smaller the ratio is the better.
I've done maintenance works on the M3 and the old Infiniti G35. On the M3, I could see every piece of something was engineered specifically to save weight down to the little screws. Each screw is engineer to be only strong enough for its specific task and not bigger or heavier. Whereas on the Infiniti G35, each screw is "big" regardless of its job. I mean the screws that hold the airbox are the same as the screw that is used to tie down the transmission oil cap. When I change the oil on G35, I had to remove like 12 heavy screws just to remove the plastic cover under the engine and those screws are heavy. On the other hand, on the M3, the plastic under the engine was held to the chassis by about 7 clip-ons that are very light I guess because they don't have to be strong or heavy.
So you can see how the ratio of the non-essential component vs. the total mass of the vehicle are important.
When I drive the M3, I could feel the substantial and strength of the structure of the car. On the Infiniti, it does feel a bit flimsy compared to the M3 although both car weigh about the same. And the G35 oversize suspension hence unsprung mass does not help either. I remember the current Camaro chassis was so heavy because they had to add extra weight to make the car more rigid. But I think what is important is that #3 item I mention above. What's important is not the overall mass but more like the ratio as said above.
I've driven current V6 Mustang and it does feel strong and seems a little more rigid vs. the G35, although not in the same league as the BMW 328i but of course it's not a fair comparison because of the price.
A friend of mine told me that nothing can beat the BMW for its solidness. They really engineer their cars down to the last screw.
You mention that you have driven the Fusion? How's the body structure compared to other cars in its class such as the Accord, Camry, .... I've never driven the Fusion but have driven the Fiesta and that was a fantastic little car. I personally don't like small car, and I didn't know I could enjoy driving a small car that much.
Anyway, I think there is something to be said about the body rigid structure and how it translate into the driving experience. A lot of people I know said that somehow German cars tend to feel more "solid", more "substantial", and more "button downed" on the freeway compared to Japanese cars. Non-technical people think Germans have exclusive rights to this "technology" or whatever it is because they don't understand the technical behind it.
I personally think it all comes down to a few things: overall body rigidity, low unsprung mass, and the ratio of the mass that goes into making the body rigid vs. the total mass of the car. The last item can be confusing. What I mean is that there are a lot of mass in a car that has nothing to do with body ridigity such as for example the dash board, the A/C, the windows, the door handles .... So you add up all that non-essential mass and take that ratio over the overall mass of the car. The smaller the ratio is the better.
I've done maintenance works on the M3 and the old Infiniti G35. On the M3, I could see every piece of something was engineered specifically to save weight down to the little screws. Each screw is engineer to be only strong enough for its specific task and not bigger or heavier. Whereas on the Infiniti G35, each screw is "big" regardless of its job. I mean the screws that hold the airbox are the same as the screw that is used to tie down the transmission oil cap. When I change the oil on G35, I had to remove like 12 heavy screws just to remove the plastic cover under the engine and those screws are heavy. On the other hand, on the M3, the plastic under the engine was held to the chassis by about 7 clip-ons that are very light I guess because they don't have to be strong or heavy.
So you can see how the ratio of the non-essential component vs. the total mass of the vehicle are important.
When I drive the M3, I could feel the substantial and strength of the structure of the car. On the Infiniti, it does feel a bit flimsy compared to the M3 although both car weigh about the same. And the G35 oversize suspension hence unsprung mass does not help either. I remember the current Camaro chassis was so heavy because they had to add extra weight to make the car more rigid. But I think what is important is that #3 item I mention above. What's important is not the overall mass but more like the ratio as said above.
I've driven current V6 Mustang and it does feel strong and seems a little more rigid vs. the G35, although not in the same league as the BMW 328i but of course it's not a fair comparison because of the price.
A friend of mine told me that nothing can beat the BMW for its solidness. They really engineer their cars down to the last screw.
- Banned
- #22
Why does anyone listen to Thepill? He never has a clue what he is talking about.
Here are the correct weights for the Fusion:
2.5L I-4 3431
1.5L EcoBoost FWD 3438
1.6L EcoBoost FWD 3333
2.0L EcoBoost FWD 3526
2.0L EcoBoost AWD 3681
Hybrid 3615
Energi 3913
Please stop posting garbage pill. :doh:
Here are the correct weights for the Fusion:
2.5L I-4 3431
1.5L EcoBoost FWD 3438
1.6L EcoBoost FWD 3333
2.0L EcoBoost FWD 3526
2.0L EcoBoost AWD 3681
Hybrid 3615
Energi 3913
Please stop posting garbage pill. :doh:
BLITZM
Well-Known Member
Car of a similar size and configuration, BMW M4 with a manual box is 3300lb. The weight of the 15 GT is something I'll be more interested then even the power output of the Coyote. C'mon Ford, give us a great surprise.
Keep up the thread going Pill, it's a good read.
Keep up the thread going Pill, it's a good read.
mc lane
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2013
- Threads
- 5
- Messages
- 1,045
- Reaction score
- 123
- Location
- Northern Germany
- Vehicle(s)
- '16 GT PP AT, '05 Chrysler 300 C, '18 Navara Twin Turbo
- Vehicle Showcase
- 6
Sponsored
OP
OP
thePill
Camaro5's Most Wanted
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2012
- Threads
- 37
- Messages
- 6,561
- Reaction score
- 699
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Vehicle(s)
- S550
- Thread starter
- #26
...and the Fusions 2.0 is almost exactly the same as the Mustang's 2.3.
What Cookie doesn't understand is my attempt to keep equipment weights as level as I can. I don't want to throw another unknown variable like AWD or a 1.X liter engine in the mix. If I just took that 200-300lbs out of the 3425, I would have said 3100-3200lbs, he couldn't see some of the things I added to get a 3325-3350lbs. These Camaro guys have such a pathetic hard on for me, it kinda gives me the same vibe as someone standing behind me at the pisser. I mentioned the Alpha already being dated and needing more structural support and these guys get all sandy.
Let me apologize right now on my error... The EB Fusion is not 3425lbs, it is 3526lbs. I hope that makes him feel better.
@West,
I have driven all three but I haven't driven any of them even near the limits. They all three felt very similar in Town and Country. Fuel economy was incredible on all three, given the size of these new cars interior room.
OP
OP
thePill
Camaro5's Most Wanted
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2012
- Threads
- 37
- Messages
- 6,561
- Reaction score
- 699
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Vehicle(s)
- S550
- Thread starter
- #27
I found a fully loaded Fusion, auto, EB 2.0 with 19 inch wheels/235 tires. A Fusion cannot get any heavier than this. It weighs 3637lbs... Can we expect a loaded EB Mustang to be 3500lbs? That is still around the same weight as a bare V6 S197. I think that's another good indicator of weight loss.
I'm being generous on the weight differance between a 2 door coupe and a 4 door sedan. I see 100lbs in door, 50lbs in floor, another 50lbs in B pillar. I can't say how much weight differance in total length, or the rocker/sled length... Larger fuel capacity, larger roof, the CD4 has a transmission tunnel type area for some reason (Edit: AWD)... The Fusion is a very large car compared to the Mustang. With wheels, tires and larger brakes, I do t see a weight gain at all. The 3637lbs loaded Fusion is far better to work back from, it has all the Mustang's standard equipment like 19s and larger brakes. It still gives us an awesome number... Anyone know how much a FWD Automatic weighs in comparison to the awesome Getrag? It weighs 109lbs wet, one of the lightest transmissions in the world. That Auto is closer to 150-180lbs, with converter. Honestly, we are looking at a 250-350lbs weight differance between a clean slate 2 door coupe and a 4 door sedan. If we start adding in the S550 stuff like driveshaft (40-50lbs), the rear end diff (40-50lbs), additional performance and convertible support (100lbs) and differences in standard equipment (wheels, tires, brakes, suspension: I'll be worst case, 100lbs... As you can see, I'm stretching the Mustangs weight gains to try and meet a loaded Fusion.... That is a good sign, I know what 100lbs of metal looks like... The Camaro gained 80lbs in 2012 when the convertible was engineered into it. It was done with additional layers of sheet metal, not sub frame connectors... 80lbs is a lot to put on into an existing chassis, I doubt the Mustang was so extensive in steel usage. It is a more compact design, maybe 40-50lbs.
What is the weight differance between a 255/19 and a 235/19? Maybe 5lbs a piece, 20 total. Brakes? Another 20 all around... I said 100lbs, we struggle to see 40lbs in wheels/tires and brakes. There is literally a 5 x 60 inch section of work hardened floor that is missing. This includes rockers, sled runners, floor pans, the Fusions AWD tunnel (no need to count a tranny tunnel now), the roof ring is smaller as well as the roof, the B pillars in the. Fusion are heavy duty... They are multi layered, complex pieces... They are not super heavy, they saved 6kgs from the Fusions by HF panels, these things were 40lbs easy, more if the airbag system is in there and not the seat. Still, it's nearing 300lbs at a glance. That doesn't surprise me, this is a 2 door coupe vs. A 4 door Fusion. There are two additional Boron side impact beams in the doors the Mustang doesn't have... That's 20lbs in the door combined... What about the rear seat construction? The Mustangs seats are basically just cushion while the Fusion has a full bench seat with springs. It's huge in comparison. I think the seat back has springs in it as well. Are they 20lbs heavier? 40? Up to 60lbs? I think 20-30lbs is a safe guess, although, if the Fusions bench has a full spring/cushion set up, it will be 50lbs heavier than the Mustang's simple 50/50 rear bench buckets. The Fusions overhangs are a little longer, 191 inches total... There is more weight differance there.
I am still sticking with my previous weights, most of my weights had guess work for those wheels, tires and brakes which is already figured into the loaded Fusion.
I don't see a weight gain... In fact, a loaded EB Mustang looks like it could be slightly lighter than a base S197, near 3500lbs. A loaded S197 picks up 100lbs, I can see the S550 gaining similar weight when loaded. The Electronic package is 30lbs alone, 401a was a 30lbs option and the Shaker system was 20 or so pounds... I can see a GT being 3480lbs loaded up to the old GT's 3620lbs easy... Another thing, the Fusion is an AWD chassis, believe me, it has had some additional reinforcement added to its bones. Maybe not as extensive as say convertible prep BUT, it meets that weight gain half way at least.
I just don't see Ford somehow making a fresh 2 door coupe heavier than a large 4 door sedan, trim for trim. No happening, even with the convertible reinforcements, those are a wash from the AWD compatible platform. The two major missing components, driveshaft and differential are not going to gain more than 80lbs back, 255/19's are a 20lbs gain, larger brakes, another 20lbs, suspension? I'm talking just Spring/strut... 20 maybe, and that's pushing it.
I see 140lbs coming back in equipment, may another 40-50 for reinforcements. If anyone can think of any additional areas of weight gain, throw it out there... We are just running out of big weight gain areas. I'm guessing a loaded EB Mustang could be under 3500lbs, maybe as low as 3425-3475lbs, about 150lbs lighter than a loaded Fusion. A base EB Mustang should be 3325-3375lbs, about 250lbs lighter than a loaded Fusion.
Edit: The S550 and CD4 are hundreds of pounds apart, the support required for a 4 door side impact is large. It goes from roof to the AWD drive tunnel. The rocker and sled runners (remember how big they were) are just massive and complex, they are just not needed (nor would they fit) on the coupe. Structure for structure, they could be 400-500lbs apart...
I'm being generous on the weight differance between a 2 door coupe and a 4 door sedan. I see 100lbs in door, 50lbs in floor, another 50lbs in B pillar. I can't say how much weight differance in total length, or the rocker/sled length... Larger fuel capacity, larger roof, the CD4 has a transmission tunnel type area for some reason (Edit: AWD)... The Fusion is a very large car compared to the Mustang. With wheels, tires and larger brakes, I do t see a weight gain at all. The 3637lbs loaded Fusion is far better to work back from, it has all the Mustang's standard equipment like 19s and larger brakes. It still gives us an awesome number... Anyone know how much a FWD Automatic weighs in comparison to the awesome Getrag? It weighs 109lbs wet, one of the lightest transmissions in the world. That Auto is closer to 150-180lbs, with converter. Honestly, we are looking at a 250-350lbs weight differance between a clean slate 2 door coupe and a 4 door sedan. If we start adding in the S550 stuff like driveshaft (40-50lbs), the rear end diff (40-50lbs), additional performance and convertible support (100lbs) and differences in standard equipment (wheels, tires, brakes, suspension: I'll be worst case, 100lbs... As you can see, I'm stretching the Mustangs weight gains to try and meet a loaded Fusion.... That is a good sign, I know what 100lbs of metal looks like... The Camaro gained 80lbs in 2012 when the convertible was engineered into it. It was done with additional layers of sheet metal, not sub frame connectors... 80lbs is a lot to put on into an existing chassis, I doubt the Mustang was so extensive in steel usage. It is a more compact design, maybe 40-50lbs.
What is the weight differance between a 255/19 and a 235/19? Maybe 5lbs a piece, 20 total. Brakes? Another 20 all around... I said 100lbs, we struggle to see 40lbs in wheels/tires and brakes. There is literally a 5 x 60 inch section of work hardened floor that is missing. This includes rockers, sled runners, floor pans, the Fusions AWD tunnel (no need to count a tranny tunnel now), the roof ring is smaller as well as the roof, the B pillars in the. Fusion are heavy duty... They are multi layered, complex pieces... They are not super heavy, they saved 6kgs from the Fusions by HF panels, these things were 40lbs easy, more if the airbag system is in there and not the seat. Still, it's nearing 300lbs at a glance. That doesn't surprise me, this is a 2 door coupe vs. A 4 door Fusion. There are two additional Boron side impact beams in the doors the Mustang doesn't have... That's 20lbs in the door combined... What about the rear seat construction? The Mustangs seats are basically just cushion while the Fusion has a full bench seat with springs. It's huge in comparison. I think the seat back has springs in it as well. Are they 20lbs heavier? 40? Up to 60lbs? I think 20-30lbs is a safe guess, although, if the Fusions bench has a full spring/cushion set up, it will be 50lbs heavier than the Mustang's simple 50/50 rear bench buckets. The Fusions overhangs are a little longer, 191 inches total... There is more weight differance there.
I am still sticking with my previous weights, most of my weights had guess work for those wheels, tires and brakes which is already figured into the loaded Fusion.
I don't see a weight gain... In fact, a loaded EB Mustang looks like it could be slightly lighter than a base S197, near 3500lbs. A loaded S197 picks up 100lbs, I can see the S550 gaining similar weight when loaded. The Electronic package is 30lbs alone, 401a was a 30lbs option and the Shaker system was 20 or so pounds... I can see a GT being 3480lbs loaded up to the old GT's 3620lbs easy... Another thing, the Fusion is an AWD chassis, believe me, it has had some additional reinforcement added to its bones. Maybe not as extensive as say convertible prep BUT, it meets that weight gain half way at least.
I just don't see Ford somehow making a fresh 2 door coupe heavier than a large 4 door sedan, trim for trim. No happening, even with the convertible reinforcements, those are a wash from the AWD compatible platform. The two major missing components, driveshaft and differential are not going to gain more than 80lbs back, 255/19's are a 20lbs gain, larger brakes, another 20lbs, suspension? I'm talking just Spring/strut... 20 maybe, and that's pushing it.
I see 140lbs coming back in equipment, may another 40-50 for reinforcements. If anyone can think of any additional areas of weight gain, throw it out there... We are just running out of big weight gain areas. I'm guessing a loaded EB Mustang could be under 3500lbs, maybe as low as 3425-3475lbs, about 150lbs lighter than a loaded Fusion. A base EB Mustang should be 3325-3375lbs, about 250lbs lighter than a loaded Fusion.
Edit: The S550 and CD4 are hundreds of pounds apart, the support required for a 4 door side impact is large. It goes from roof to the AWD drive tunnel. The rocker and sled runners (remember how big they were) are just massive and complex, they are just not needed (nor would they fit) on the coupe. Structure for structure, they could be 400-500lbs apart...
WestRace
Well-Known Member
Everything I've heard of the new Mustang has been very positive - from suspension design, weight saving technique, handling, engine, transmission... I just hope Ford was not just BSing. I hope they can put their money where their mouths are. Hopefully they are not too into weight saving, cost saving but then compromise on the integrity of the car such as reliability.
OP
OP
thePill
Camaro5's Most Wanted
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2012
- Threads
- 37
- Messages
- 6,561
- Reaction score
- 699
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Vehicle(s)
- S550
- Thread starter
- #29
Ford themselves have been pretty hush hush on most everything. The only real comment I heard about level of performance was that the Mustang GTR is faster than a Boss 302 Laguna Seca. That is a sub 1:40 lap at Laguna for less than $40k.
Another thing to look at is the equipment, Ford has built to the rulebooks limit on the MGTR (track/performance pack). The SCCA rotor limit is 380mm, that is exactly what they used. It looks like 255's up to 275's maybe, I think you can waiver up to a 285 in the front, maybe 295 now. Still some room there but remember, they are a 220 tread wear rating, those probably need to go anyway.
Shredicus
Well-Known Member
Don't be pedantic. This thread consolidated a lot of great info that I would otherwise have to scavenge the net for.
@thePill: Thanks for making this thread. It's been a good read and confidence-inspiring that Ford is really going all in on chassis design.
Sponsored