S650 Mustang Opinions/Predictions

Stuntman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Posts
1,451
Reaction score
484
Location
SoCal
Vehicle(s)
many
I'm for lowering the whole top of the car (hood, roof, maybe leave decklid alone) as well as the side window sill (so it doesn't shrink to Camaro proportions) but the hood needs rake again!!! (like the S197, the Aston, and somewhat of the GT350. The flat aircraft carrier hood has to go!

I'd be for increasing the wheelbase a little by moving the front wheels forward, reducing overhang and getting more of the engine behind the front wheel centerline.
 

thet33

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2015
Posts
665
Reaction score
116
Location
Dallas, TX
Vehicle(s)
2016 Magnetic GT/6MT/3.55
Without being too nitpicky, here is my scaled down list

1. Improved throttle response. (Might be better with premium modes but it's atrocious on my base even with 3.55's)

2. Anything but the MT82. I know some don't mind it, but it seriously has me considering going 10 spd auto if the non-PP's get stuck with this, or similar, gearbox again.

3. Paint. I would like to daily drive my car without constantly cringing and praying for no chips. I see more in 6 months with this car than 7 years with my previous.
 

Norm Peterson

corner barstool sitter
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Posts
7,248
Reaction score
3,113
Location
On a corner barstool not too far from I-95
First Name
Norm
Vehicle(s)
'08 GT #85, '19 WRX, '01 20AE
I'm for lowering the whole top of the car (hood, roof, maybe leave decklid alone) as well as the side window sill (so it doesn't shrink to Camaro proportions) but the hood needs rake again!!! (like the S197, the Aston, and somewhat of the GT350. The flat aircraft carrier hood has to go!
I'd take an inch or a tiny bit more out of the beltline height and leave the height of the greenhouse alone, for a 53"-ish overall height. And yes, a little more slope to the hood, please.

That would work a lot better with a big bore/short-stroke engine configuration (if the deck height was made a little shorter, then you could gain a little more from a shorter-height intake manifold without compromising the runner inclinations at the head surfaces).


I'd be for increasing the wheelbase a little by moving the front wheels forward, reducing overhang and getting more of the engine behind the front wheel centerline.
I'd rather not see the wheelbase get any longer than it is, and certainly no more than the 108" of the 1965 originals. One of the contributing factors to the 5th Gen Camaros starting out with heavier understeer and less nimble behavior was their 112-ish wheelbase. And while a longer wheelbase tends to increase the static rear weight percent, it works against dynamic rearward load transfer on acceleration. IOW, any gains won't be as big as the change in weight distribution, which is going to be a small enough gain as it is (maybe 1% for a 2" forward relocation of the front axle line).


Norm
 

cgreen5150

cgreen5150
Joined
Jul 20, 2016
Posts
594
Reaction score
224
Location
Loomis, CA
First Name
Chris
Vehicle(s)
2015 GT, Premium, PP, Recaros
Thanks for that but what the hell, from 197 to 550. They haul those engineers in on the short bus.
Now for the 650. The op asked what we would like. I don't like what the car looks like on the drawings.
What I want is, the car looking like what I have now, they can take the back window and trunk lid and make a hatch, a rear full time camera to get the rear view mirror out of my sight, a telescopic steering column to get the wheel close to me, side leg supports, a nice seat with hip and side bolsters and a harness seat belt system to keep me 'in' the seat, a 600 hp 6.8 v-10 with a four speed manual trans, NO NANNIES, NOT ONE.
You do know your steering wheel column is telescopic on your 16 GT, right?
 

thePill

Camaro5's Most Wanted
Joined
Aug 13, 2012
Posts
6,559
Reaction score
694
Location
Pittsburgh
Vehicle(s)
S550
I'd take an inch or a tiny bit more out of the beltline height and leave the height of the greenhouse alone, for a 53"-ish overall height. And yes, a little more slope to the hood, please.

That would work a lot better with a big bore/short-stroke engine configuration (if the deck height was made a little shorter, then you could gain a little more from a shorter-height intake manifold without compromising the runner inclinations at the head surfaces).



I'd rather not see the wheelbase get any longer than it is, and certainly no more than the 108" of the 1965 originals. One of the contributing factors to the 5th Gen Camaros starting out with heavier understeer and less nimble behavior was their 112-ish wheelbase. And while a longer wheelbase tends to increase the static rear weight percent, it works against dynamic rearward load transfer on acceleration. IOW, any gains won't be as big as the change in weight distribution, which is going to be a small enough gain as it is (maybe 1% for a 2" forward relocation of the front axle line).


Norm
They won't stray from 107 inches but the track could increase up front to 63+ inches.

The 5th Gen's 112 inch wheelbase was embarrassing. The 6th Gen's 111 inch wheelbase is slightly better...
 

Stuntman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Posts
1,451
Reaction score
484
Location
SoCal
Vehicle(s)
many
I'd take an inch or a tiny bit more out of the beltline height and leave the height of the greenhouse alone, for a 53"-ish overall height. And yes, a little more slope to the hood, please.

That would work a lot better with a big bore/short-stroke engine configuration (if the deck height was made a little shorter, then you could gain a little more from a shorter-height intake manifold without compromising the runner inclinations at the head surfaces).
If you took out 1" from the greenhouse height, you can offset that by a 1" lower seat. I'm not sure who is designing the seats but it's ridiculous that they raise high enough for a 4' 0" to see out of, but a 6' person struggles with a helmet. I'd like to see the statistics of how many owners drive with the seat 100% raised vs 100% lowered.

I'd rather see a shorter and wider oil pan, which may be an easier solution than redesigning the whole block.


I'd rather not see the wheelbase get any longer than it is, and certainly no more than the 108" of the 1965 originals. One of the contributing factors to the 5th Gen Camaros starting out with heavier understeer and less nimble behavior was their 112-ish wheelbase. And while a longer wheelbase tends to increase the static rear weight percent, it works against dynamic rearward load transfer on acceleration. IOW, any gains won't be as big as the change in weight distribution, which is going to be a small enough gain as it is (maybe 1% for a 2" forward relocation of the front axle line).

Norm
I disagree. I'd rather see the wheelbase increase 1-2" with the engine (relatively) further rearward with a lower PMI and weight distribution which will likely result in a net reduction of understeer and increase nimbleness.

The WRX STI, B7 Audi S4, and B8 Audi S4 all have short 104.3-104.5" wheelbases and they are all far from nimble with horrible understeer because of huge PMI due to their entire engines stick out in front of the wheel centerline. While this is an extreme example, it shows that wheelbase alone does not solely determine how nimble a car is going to be.

The 5th gen Camaro had a long wheelbase AND the engine placement and PMI was worse than the Mustang.

I'd take the wheelbase increase to get the engine further rearward of the front wheel centerline any day.
 

thePill

Camaro5's Most Wanted
Joined
Aug 13, 2012
Posts
6,559
Reaction score
694
Location
Pittsburgh
Vehicle(s)
S550
If you took out 1" from the greenhouse height, you can offset that by a 1" lower seat. I'm not sure who is designing the seats but it's ridiculous that they raise high enough for a 4' 0" to see out of, but a 6' person struggles with a helmet. I'd like to see the statistics of how many owners drive with the seat 100% raised vs 100% lowered.

I'd rather see a shorter and wider oil pan, which may be an easier solution than redesigning the whole block.



I disagree. I'd rather see the wheelbase increase 1-2" with the engine (relatively) further rearward with a lower PMI and weight distribution which will likely result in a net reduction of understeer and increase nimbleness.

The WRX STI, B7 Audi S4, and B8 Audi S4 all have short 104.3-104.5" wheelbases and they are all far from nimble with horrible understeer because of huge PMI due to their entire engines stick out in front of the wheel centerline. While this is an extreme example, it shows that wheelbase alone does not solely determine how nimble a car is going to be.

The 5th gen Camaro had a long wheelbase AND the engine placement and PMI was worse than the Mustang.

I'd take the wheelbase increase to get the engine further rearward of the front wheel centerline any day.
Or you could keep the fabulous visibility, drop the ride height by an inch and it would be fine.

Any performance vehicle over 108 inches better have AWD or R Rubber. 107 is about as long as you want to get...


The camaro and M4 suffer due to this.
 

thePill

Camaro5's Most Wanted
Joined
Aug 13, 2012
Posts
6,559
Reaction score
694
Location
Pittsburgh
Vehicle(s)
S550
The Mustang is using a Sports Car wheelbase so I doubt they will abandon that. Why use a Sedan's wheelbase? So you can settle for a mediocre track width?

If the wheelbase grows, the track needs to grow to accommodate. STAY at 107 or lower.

The track width will improve up front to 63.5 and the rear will stay around 64.9. The major changes will be STRUCTURE material and the A-Pillar up will be GT350-ish.

If an M4 can weigh 3550lbs at 110 inches, a 107 inch structure, using the same lightweight techniques, could possibly match that with less $$$. The Coyote is about the same weight as a TT V6.

Lighter materials and a new A-Pillar up design. The S650 is all the weight loss the S550 didn't get but the ATS-V, M4 and camaro did.

The S650 will assume it's weight advantage again and likely add more track to handle the new power. The S550 has a bad ass footprint... they know it because Mathematics says so. The C7 almost shares the Mustang's footprint... they are near optimal, don't change them.
 

millhouse

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2016
Posts
2,648
Reaction score
1,202
Location
Simpsonville SC
Vehicle(s)
2016 Ruby Red GT PP
Dear lord, I hope Ford isn't listening in on this....or the next thing you know we'll have a 2 seat coupe with no trunk and a seating position that you have to fall into with a base MSRP of $50k.

Nearly everything right now is perfect...except for the toggle switches. Why I can't flick them up or down to change settings is beyond me (they only work up).

A little more horsepower, some subtle styling changes and a small diet...enough to not drastically increase price is all it needs.
 
OP

Petroleum Jesus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2016
Posts
430
Reaction score
165
Location
Houston, TX
Vehicle(s)
2016 Mustang GT Premium
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #85
What would be nice is:
1. 2-piece rotors on the PP or track pack cars - GT350 has them and the extra cost is feasible $1000+-
2. Some lightweight forged 19" wheels with PP or track pack. Probably would only cost Ford $500+-
3. Aluminum 1-piece drive shafts $500+-

+$2,000 for an "advanced PP or Track Pack"

The 3 above items together would save about 80 lbs. -10+ lbs per wheels & -4+ lbs per rotor & -20 lbs for the driveshaft. AND all of it is rotation mass, and 60 lbs of it is unsprung weight.

Those items alone should make the stock GT beat the comparable Camaro in all facets.
So, I did some research on your conjecture and here is what I came up with:


A few of your specs were off, but the law of large numbers cures all :headbang:

In any case, I would make a +20% allowance for mass-manufacturing, lack of precision, bean counting etc. Even so, that's over 80lbs of unsprung mass saved and ~45lbs of parasitic mass trimmed from the drivetrain. My best guess is that ford could produce these parts for a ~$2k cost differential. I would gladly pay for such an option! :cheers:

Sources:
OEM Ford PP 19x9 Wheels Source
https://performanceparts.ford.com/part/M-1007-M199S
OEM Ford PP 19x9.5 Wheels Source
https://performanceparts.ford.com/part/M-1007-M1995S
MRR M350 19x9 F-Wheel (adjusted*) SourceMRR M350 19x9.5 R-Wheel (adjusted*) Source
http://mrrwheels.com/wheel-collection/m350/
OEM Ford PP F-Rotor Source
http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15864
Baer Eradispeed-Plus 2-Piece F-Rotor Source
http://www.cjponyparts.com/baer-bra...15-pair-performance-pack-gt-2015-2017/p/BR91/
Baer Eradispeed-Plus 2-Piece R-Rotor Mass Differential Source
http://www.cjponyparts.com/baer-bra...erformance-pack-ecoboost-gt-2015-2017/p/BR92/
OEM Ford PP GT Manual 2 Piece Driveshaft Source
http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15864
ShaftMasters 3.5" Aluminum Driveshaft GT Manual Source
http://shaftmasters.com/3aldrfomu20v13.html
 
Last edited:

c-rizzle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2016
Posts
680
Reaction score
208
Location
NOLA
Vehicle(s)
2017 Explorer Sport
So, I did some research on your conjecture and here is what I came up with:


A few of your specs were off, but the law of large numbers cures all :headbang:
And I thought all of the weight would be taken off rotational mass. (ie: x 4 net effect)
driveshaft = rotational mass
wheels = rotatational mass
rotors = rotational mass (they rotate with the wheels, unlike the calipers)

I did those upgrades to my '14 GT Convertible. The performance was improved dramatically. I used Brembo 2-piece rotors for my front & Girodisc for the rear. (neither were drilled so slightly heavier, but less chance of cracks from high heat)

I raced a GT coupe with a cat-delete Lund tune vs. my ProCal tune and I was way faster several times in a row. So my weight loss made the cars about even in actual curb weight, but b/c I lost weight in rotational mass I was faster.
 

Grimace427

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2013
Posts
6,477
Reaction score
1,679
Location
NoVA
Vehicle(s)
2011 Mustang 5.0
I'm for lowering the whole top of the car (hood, roof, maybe leave decklid alone) as well as the side window sill (so it doesn't shrink to Camaro proportions) but the hood needs rake again!!! (like the S197, the Aston, and somewhat of the GT350. The flat aircraft carrier hood has to go!


One of the biggest reasons I'm keeping my 2011, I hate the view of the hood from the driver's seat in the S550.
 

Stuntman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Posts
1,451
Reaction score
484
Location
SoCal
Vehicle(s)
many
And I thought all of the weight would be taken off rotational mass. (ie: x 4 net effect)
driveshaft = rotational mass
wheels = rotatational mass
rotors = rotational mass (they rotate with the wheels, unlike the calipers)
Due to the diameter of the driveshaft, even a modest weight reduction will not do much for improving the response compared to rotors, wheels, or tires.

One of the biggest reasons I'm keeping my 2011, I hate the view of the hood from the driver's seat in the S550.
Just get a GT350 ;)
 

lemers

Globetrotter
Joined
Aug 30, 2015
Posts
3,625
Reaction score
1,106
Location
Carlisle, PA
First Name
Mike
Vehicle(s)
2016 GT350
Vehicle Showcase
1
AWD
 
 
125 - Nemesis UK - 1
Top