Wider Rear Track

[JGillis]

I posted this in the S197 vs S550 comparison thread but it might be a good subject on its own. Hopefully someone can help answer this burning question of mine....

This is a great comparison pic.

I noticed from the specs comparison that the S550 has a much wider rear track compared to its front. It's 2.6" wider than the front. Both the '14 Mustang and '14 Camaro have the similar front-to-rear track width ratio (the 2014 mustang's rear is actually 1/2 inch wider than the front, which really doesn't make sense to me in some ways).

Is this just for aesthetic reasons of wider hips or an engineering decision? I get that roll stability is most affected by the track at the heavy end of the car and wider track gives better grip for cornering. Could this suggest that maybe the IRS has actually shifted the weight distribution to the back end and the much wider rear track is to compensate for that?

Please correct me if I'm totally off base here.



Any guesses what the reason is? Is it purely aesthetic?

Sponsored

 

[Dirk McGurck]

I would think it would help shoulder and hip room in the rear seats, especially since they're much lower in the body than in the S197. Maybe wider tires, too? But goddamnit if it doesn't look great regardless.

 

[Fenderaddict2]

Wider track at the rear allows for larger rubber where power is put down.

 

[JGillis]

I get that it allows for larger wheels/tires in the rear but I'm more curious about the physics behind the much wider rear track compared to the front. As stated, both the 2014 Camaro and 2014 Mustang have close to 1:1 front to rear track ratio. Now, it's not just about a staggered wheel setup but the platform itself has been developed like this. Is it purely about putting more power down in the rear or are there weight distribution purposes reasons behind it or accommodating the IRS etc....

 

[DBCooper]

From listening to the designers, it was about "getting the stance" right. It sounded like they had to re-engineer things to accommodate it, so it may have started there.

From an engineering stand point, I would say all of the above reasons...

 

[scottpe]

I think it's a combination of a lot of things, both aesthetic and functional. Wider stance is more aggressive looking. It possibly allows for more interior room for rear passengers. It possibly allows for wider wheels/tires. It generally helps with handling as well. Basically not one thing, but a combination of what others have already said above.

 

[Husker]

Who cares...It's cool-->;)

 

[w3rkn]

I posted this in the S197 vs S550 comparison thread but it might be a good subject on its own. Hopefully someone can help answer this burning question of mine....

This is a great comparison pic.

I noticed from the specs comparison that the S550 has a much wider rear track compared to its front. It's 2.6" wider than the front. Both the '14 Mustang and '14 Camaro have the similar front-to-rear track width ratio (the 2014 mustang's rear is actually 1/2 inch wider than the front, which really doesn't make sense to me in some ways).

Is this just for aesthetic reasons of wider hips or an engineering decision? I get that roll stability is most affected by the track at the heavy end of the car and wider track gives better grip for cornering. Could this suggest that maybe the IRS has actually shifted the weight distribution to the back end and the much wider rear track is to compensate for that?

Please correct me if I'm totally off base here.



Any guesses what the reason is? Is it purely aesthetic?

~ wider stance = better stability = better handling ~​

 

[JGillis]

Thanks for the responses. Again, I understand the benefits of a wider stance for better grip, stability and better handling around corners. I just found it interesting that they kept the front track the same while increasing the rear significantly. The back is now a full 1.2" wider than the Camaro's while the back is still 1.5" narrower than the Camaro.

I've never driven a car whose front to rear track is that staggered. Considering the Mustang has been more front heavy and had issues such as brake dive etc. I would've figured Ford would have improved the roll stability of the narrow front end rather than the rear. Hence, why I think the IRS is playing a big part in this. Hopefully that means they addressed the front bias. It would also help them save on costs when developing the SVT/halo car for always having to offset even more weight being shifted to the nose with a bigger engine.

 

[w3rkn]

Thanks for the responses. Again, I understand the benefits of a wider stance for better grip, stability and better handling around corners. I just found it interesting that they kept the front track the same while increasing the rear significantly. The back is now a full 1.2" wider than the Camaro's while the back is still 1.5" narrower than the Camaro.

I've never driven a car whose front to rear track is that staggered. Considering the Mustang has been more front heavy and had issues such as brake dive etc. I would've figured Ford would have improved the roll stability of the narrow front end rather than the rear. Hence, why I think the IRS is playing a big part in this. Hopefully that means they addressed the front bias. It would also help them save on costs when developing the SVT/halo car for always having to offset even more weight being shifted to the nose with a bigger engine.

You are assuming this is the exact same car as last year, just diff widths?

Anything the previous Mustang did, or didn't do, means zero... this is a brand new vehicle. Can't compare old balance & weight, to the new balance & weight.


Lower ride height, lower over-all height and IRS... means any of your observation about an old Mustang, is irrelevant here.

 

[Stuntman]

More front weight distribution = understeer. Wider rear track = under steer. BMW touts their 50/50 distribution for a reason. Sure you can adjust the balance with tire sizing and roll resistance to overcome inherent issues. It'll be interesting to see what the weight and distribution of the car ends up being.

There's still no official proof of a lower ride height. Just interpretations of the car being lower and wider (which could easily be descriptive of the lower roof and hood).

 

[w3rkn]

More front weight distribution = understeer. Wider rear track = under steer. BMW touts their 50/50 distribution for a reason. Sure you can adjust the balance with tire sizing and roll resistance to overcome inherent issues. It'll be interesting to see what the weight and distribution of the car ends up being.

There's still no official proof of a lower ride height. Just interpretations of the car being lower and wider (which could easily be descriptive of the lower roof and hood).

Yes, in one of the videos, an Official says both the Mustang's ride height & over-all height are reduced.

 

[Stuntman]

Link?

 

[w3rkn]

Link?

Here are the specs, but there is a clip of them mentioning the lower ride height of the car, just not the passengers.

 

[Stuntman]

Here are the specs, but there is a clip of them mentioning the lower ride height of the car, just not the passengers.

It still looks really high:


http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2975 - vs 197

http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php?t=992 -All S550 "official" pics.

Sponsored