You're absolutely right...but it looks like they were good for several lbs of rotating/usprung mass...which as you know is incredibly impactful on all aspects of performance and ride quality to boot. Saving that weight is really valuable.
CF wheels would cost $10k+-. Its not really feasible for a Mustang in any package besides a GT350 or GT500.
No, the car isn't too big. In fact, IMHO, it's precisely the right size. I don't see how you can decrease a car's size and increase interior room. You *might* be able to take some of the nose down a bit. There's some room in the engine bay even with the Coyote. I don't see any other place you could shrink the car down and maintain its current interior volume, seating, and trunk space. The new Camaro is an exercise in what happens when you screw with that too much.
Power bump would be nice, and easy to achieve given the possibility of DI, or applying one of the Power Packs from the factory, or just raiding the GT350 parts bin a bit. Compared to the competition we're down what... 20hp and 55/lb-ft? Hard to make up the torque difference with a smaller motor, but easy to meet and *exceed* the horsepower with a little trickery. A 475/420 Coyote would do the trick well enough.
Not always, and not in all respects. If Ford shrinks this car any smaller than the S197 dimensions, they would lose my business. IMHO the Challenger is too big, and the Camaro too small... the Mustang is just right.
Increasing the deck height by .3 in would allow for a displacement of over 5.4L using the standard 3.63in coyote bore for a total engine height differential of .15 inches. That would still fit under the lower GT350 hood profile. Using Voodoo bores and an 1/8th of an inch more deck height, 5.8L would be attainable and it would still fit the current body.
Agreed on the nose I think you could shave about about 4 inches off the front by redesigning the fascia/splitter/lights, etc. I also think you could improve visibility by doing what they did with the 350 which is lower the hood by 1" and lower/get rid of the bulge.
The thing to remember is that Ford has to meet impact standards for a crash and having a smaller crush space will hurt crash protection both on the sides and the front. I doubt that they could make the doors thinner and still meet the 5 star protection that they have now.
Sounds like you did your homework. I was way off. So, .71" at 45-degrees makes for a .5" taller block casting. Would anything else need to be up-sized or would I be right to assume that the engine would grow 1" wider and .5" taller at the highest point of the coil pack cover? ...and if my assumption is correct, would it fit in the current engine bay including clearance for headers and whatnot?
I'm all for shrinking the back seat (hell I'd happily ditch it all together), but shrinking any front seat dimension is a no go. The cockpit feel in the S550 is great. The only thing I would change would be turning the center controls towards the driver a bit more. (Similar to a Stingray or Mk4 Supra cockpit feel.)
Re #5: The 10r80 is brand new (and pretty solid on paper), why would they put anything other than this in future Mustangs?
I don't think people are as afraid of the styling changing as they are the proportions. The S550 will go down in automotive history as one of the greatest GTs of it's era. In 40 years, a remake of gone is sixty seconds will spur a massive market blitz for S550 shelby look-alikes. Eleanor was a 67 fastback, and was an instant classic. The 69 fastback had some major styling changes that made it an instant classic as well. The car was remarkably similar is proportion, but very different in presence. The S650 should follow a similar formula.
