2015 Ford Mustang - General Discussion

[Dennisch]

The Mustang right now isn't a bad car, but with a proper suspension, less weight and better engine choices it will be a competitive sports car.

Maybe Ford should keep the Mustang as it is now, roughly the same size. And build a brand new blast from the past sporty car with smaller engines.

Hint:

 

[YSSMAN]

It could happen sooner than you think.

I don't remember if I was reading Car and Driver or something else, but they were suddenly under the impression that the Chevelle would become the top-dog, rear-drive model over at Chevrolet, and the Code concept would become the next-generation Camaro.


If that's the case, then, good god... They may as well do the Capri and make the big one the Falcon.

 

[CodeRedR51]

http://www.autoblog.com/2013/06/10/2015-ford-mustang-prototype-spotted-on-the-street/

 

[carracerptp]

http://www.autoblog.com/2013/06/10/2015-ford-mustang-prototype-spotted-on-the-street/

Beat me to it.

 

[homeforsummer]

I do know that Ford solidifies it's designs for new cars several years in advance

I'm intrigued as to why this post got so much ire.

Pretty much all manufacturers sign off their designs several years before the production car hits the streets - with such a huge project as designing and engineering a car, it's very hard to do anything but sign the styling off quite a long time before you unveil it.

With an average 6-8 year model cycle most development work for the next generation of a car starts as soon as a current model debuts. By the time a mid-life facelift is drafted in on an existing model a great deal of design and engineering work has already been done for the next-gen car, and by the time you see a car running around in trash bags like the spy pics above, the basic car is essentially at the chassis tweaking, calibrating and fault-fixing stage.

This:

The production design was set in stone by the time you even saw it. In fact, they work backwards. Production design first, then they make a concept from that. It's quite fascinating.

...is also basically true.

It's so amazing the Lexus IS looks just like the LF-CC concept! And the Juke looks like the Qazana! And the Evoque looks like the LRX! Or it would be amazing, were the LF-CC, Qazana and LRX not all basically production-feasible vehicles conveniently shown within the six-or-so year development period of a new car.

A little more wild perhaps (like the Ford Evos) and a little more spangly for the benefit of wowing auto show crowds, but otherwise loosely based on a car already in development.

 

[Joey D]

I'm a little disappointing in hearing that the turbo 4 won't be coming to the states right away if at all. That's going to suck because I really wanted to consider a Mustang next year, but without a turbo 4 I don't really see the point for me.

 

[RACECAR]

http://www.autoblog.com/2013/06/10/2015-ford-mustang-prototype-spotted-on-the-street/

Interesting. Nothing hugely sticking out so far, but at least we see something in motion.

 

[mustangfan663]

http://www.autoblog.com/2013/06/10/2015-ford-mustang-prototype-spotted-on-the-street/

is it just me or do those brakes look huge?!?

 

[Slash]

The general shape is slightly interesting, especially when looking from the back.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

It looks really big, again, in general. Why Ford?

 

[Slash]

It looks really big, again, in general. Why Ford?

They need to slim that car down a LOT. Like lose 800+lbs. That alone with the same HP ratings it has now would make that car much, much faster.

 

[Zenith]

They need to slim that car down a LOT. Like lose 800+lbs. That alone with the same HP ratings it has now would make that car much, much faster.

Where do you expect them to find 800 lbs to lose in a street car?

 

[Slash]

Where do you expect them to find 800 lbs to lose in a street car?

If the redesign is significant as everyone is really saying it is, it shouldn't be that hard.

Lets look at it's 2014 specs. The current model has a curb weight of 3,618lbs. That is more and/or equal to a lot of the big American boats that came out of the '70s and '80s. Considering that previous generations had have as much as 1,000lbs less in weight, there is no reason why they should not find some place that's able to reduce the weight, and if it takes make the car very small, then that's what it takes. It would be more nimble, and faster and bring back what it meant to be a pony car.

As much as I like the modern Mustang it's a fat boat on the road. The same applies to the Challenger and the Camaro.

 

[Joey D]

It looks really big, again, in general. Why Ford?

It has to do with safety standards more than anything, that's why modern cars are huge.

As for the weight, trimming 800lbs off the car would make it weigh 2,700lbs-ish. In order to get that the car could not in any way have a 5.0L V8, back seats or really be any larger than a current MX-5. Trim the car down to about 3,300lbs and they'll be set.

 

[Zenith]

If the redesign is significant as everyone is really saying it is, it shouldn't be that hard.

I disagree.

Lets look at it's 2014 specs. The current model has a curb weight of 3,618lbs. That is more and/or equal to a lot of the big American boats that came out of the '70s and '80s. Considering that previous generations had have as much as 1,000lbs less in weight, there is no reason why they should not find some place that's able to reduce the weight, and if it takes make the car very small, then that's what it takes. It would be more nimble, and faster and bring back what it meant to be a pony car.

3,600-800 = 2,800. You want a Ford Mustang with a 5.0L V8 to weigh as much as a Subaru BRZ or Honda S2000 while abiding by the same legal safety standards. In order to do this Ford would have to make choices in the design of the car that would alienate 90% of potential customers.

The cars from the 60's-80's didn't have anywhere near the same safety regulations. The car needs airbags, the car needs a strong structure with crumple zones, customers demand air conditioning as standard rather than have it be an option that adds weight, the customer demands a soft ride with lots of interior space.

In order to house a 5.0L V8, crumple zones, air bags, radios, air conditioning, comfortable seats, and sound deadening the chassis needs to be made big. A big chassis that isn't made of expensive exotic materials is a heavy chassis.

In order to satisfy the consumer demand for the Mustang, the car cannot try to be as small and light as a BRZ. If they tried to make the standard car 800 lbs lighter by stripping it out or making it smaller, less people would want to buy it.

The overwhelming majority of Mustang buyers want the weight and comfort. People who want a Mustang to weigh as much as a BRZ represent an extremely small portion of the market.

Why would they listen to the "I want the new Mustang to be a 'true' pony car!" crowd? The money is elsewhere.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I would be thoroughly happy with an FR-S sized, 5.0 liter V8 powered, 3,100lbs Mustang.

 

[Dennisch]

Why would they want to sell the 4 pot Turbo only here in Europe?? I have seen plenty of new age Mustangs here, and only 1 of them didn't have the V8. Just 1. We buy the car for that rumbling 8.

I just don't get it.

 

[Slash]

I would be thoroughly happy with an FR-S sized, 5.0 liter V8 powered, 3,100lbs Mustang.

As would I. The car was designed originally to be a small, sporty car with some get up and go, not to be a monstrous, big beefy car.

You can argue the point of the safety stuff as much as you want, but if other cars that are smaller can do it, and do it well and even sometimes better, then there is no reason why the same knowledge cannot be applied to the Mustang.

And to help for starters, lose a lot of the weight from the engine. All engines should contain lightweight, aluminum parts such as the block, heads etc.

 

[Keef]

If the redesign is significant as everyone is really saying it is, it shouldn't be that hard.

I disagree.

Eight-hundred pounds would be pretty difficult unless the car was significantly smaller. Plus, a weight-optimized design that meets standards isn't cheap.

Then there's the fact that the neither the company nor the idea of "Mustang" facilitate efficient design. Mazda is a brand which does focus on that. The new Mazda 6 is a whole 100 pounds lighter than a comparable Accord despite being the exact same size. Their prices are almost the same. If Mazda really wanted to spend more money on development they could've gotten fancy but they didn't, all they did was get clever. There's no reason to slap carbon fiber on everything when you've got smart engineers on your side. You think the carbon fiber spoiler on that M3 really makes it any lighter? No, it just lets them charge more to people who think it's cool.

 

[Slash]

Ok, lets forget the fact I said 800lbs and bring it up around 400-500lbs. More likely?




EDIT:

SVT Cobra might make a return and drop the Shelby name. 4cyl Mustang may be called SVO and you should expect about 350hp. The car looks considerably smaller than the current model.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/go/future-cars/spy-shots-2015-ford-mustang-news-and-hot-rumors

Also, judging by the pictures, the roofline seems to extend a big back farther than the current model and extended to the taillights, in a fashion almost identical to the 1969 and 1970 model Mustangs.

I went over the body lines very roughly.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Why would they want to sell the 4 pot Turbo only here in Europe?? I have seen plenty of new age Mustangs here, and only 1 of them didn't have the V8. Just 1. We buy the car for that rumbling 8.

I just don't get it.

Emissions?

 

[Dennisch]

Emissions?

No, you guys have tougher emission laws than we do.

The only reason I can think of is that the 4 and 6 are less thirsty. But that makes no sense when buying an American car in Europe. Unless one buys a Deawoo-Chevy.

 

[Zenith]

As would I. The car was designed originally to be a small, sporty car with some get up and go, not to be a monstrous, big beefy car.

Once again, not relevant to Ford. Sticking to the original design would mean less sales.

You can argue the point of the safety stuff as much as you want, but if other cars that are smaller can do it, and do it well and even sometimes better, then there is no reason why the same knowledge cannot be applied to the Mustang.

I brought up safety in response to you comparing a 2010's car to a 1970's car.

Smaller cars like the BRZ meet safety standards, but they don't have nearly as much room in the back as the Mustang needs (in order to sell) and doesn't have one of these up front.

And to help for starters, lose a lot of the weight from the engine. All engines should contain lightweight, aluminum parts such as the block, heads etc.

Once again, this is a car that is on sale to the masses who will never ever feel the advantages of aluminum engine parts. It's not worth it to Ford.

It sounds like you would be better served by a Cobra remake.

 

[Tornado]

Ford just introduced a new V8 engine design with aluminum everything that is at least a hundred pounds lighter than the aluminum version of the old Modular engine (nevermind the iron version they used for almost all forced induction versions) and much smaller in external dimensions.

How are they going to make it any lighter than that?

 

[m8h3r]

Why would they want to sell the 4 pot Turbo only here in Europe?? I have seen plenty of new age Mustangs here, and only 1 of them didn't have the V8. Just 1. We buy the car for that rumbling 8.

I just don't get it.

I don't know. Maybe cause Petrol is so damn expensive at the moment and doesn't seem to be going down any time soon. A car guzzling petrol wouldn't do great in sales I'd imagine. You'd be presenting yourself to people with more money than sense and shutting out average joes that the mustang was about.

 

[Slash]

The Mustang doesn't need a whole lot of back room, what the FR-S has would be plenty. And I'm sure you could stuff a modern 5.0 in one as well.

As far as the engine stuff goes, lighter parts = less weight = better performance and in turn could probably rope in a few more customers. This is all pure speculation though.

Considering the test prototype is much smaller than the current car anyways, I wouldn't say these things would be too far off.

Sticking with the original design wouldn't necessarily mean less sales. It needs to stick to the queues that made it recognizable, ex; short rear deck, long hood, front grill/taillights etc.

And maybe they decide to make a modern coupe version and a fastback version as an option. Could help weight there too.

 

[Dennisch]

As far as the engine stuff goes, lighter parts = less weight = better performance

= a more expensive Mustang.

I don't know. Maybe cause Petrol is so damn expensive at the moment and doesn't seem to be going down any time soon. A car guzzling petrol wouldn't do great in sales I'd imagine. You'd be presenting yourself to people with more money than sense and shutting out average joes that the mustang was about.

You, well, we Europeans, buy a Mustang for the V8. I don't see that sentiment changing any time soon.

 

[Slash]

= a more expensive Mustang.

Not necessarily. And if it gets more expensive, it won't be a lot more. Enough that the added cost would be worth the extra performance.

 

[Zenith]

The Mustang doesn't need a whole lot of back room, what the FR-S has would be plenty. And I'm sure you could stuff a modern 5.0 in one as well.

With seats in the rear positions, the BRZFRS has literally zero leg room. The seatbacks are against the front of the rears. The rear seats in the BRZFRS aren't really meant for passengers except for short trips. The Mustang would suffer if it were to adopt this philosophy.

As far as the engine stuff goes, lighter parts = less weight = better performance and in turn could probably rope in a few more customers. This is all pure speculation though.

And more expensive. The price of the Mustang is critical to its success.

Considering the test prototype is much smaller than the current car anyways, I wouldn't say these things would be too far off.

According to the guy who spy photographed it, which isn't much to go by. Even then, the Mustang would need to be much smaller to hit the weights that you're proposing.

Sticking with the original design wouldn't necessarily mean less sales. It needs to stick to the queues that made it recognizable, ex; short rear deck, long hood, front grill/taillights etc.

And it's doing that right now. It's worth remembering that modern cars are just bigger than cars from the 60's. It's also worth noting that lightness isn't really something most Mustang buyers care much about. It was a characteristic of the Foxes and 64-68's, but buyers don't have the same image of the Mustang that you do.

And maybe they decide to make a modern coupe version and a fastback version as an option. Could help weight there too.

I imagine that this would only confuse buyers and drive up sales. Mass production is very different than it was 50 years ago.

Not necessarily. And if it gets more expensive, it won't be a lot more. Enough that the added cost would be worth the extra performance.

Abso-frickin-lutely necessarily. Time = money. Ford would need to invest time to research the new parts, let alone produce them.

And to you, a fan of the car it would be "worth it", but not to the people who actually buy the car.

 

[Pupik]

The overwhelming majority of Mustang buyers want the weight and comfort.

Comfort? It has none...at least for my expectations and dimensions; I feel like I'm riding in a bathtub, located on the second story of a building perched on a fault line.