I've heard people say that it would be impossible to have a '65-sized Mustang again due to ever increasing crash standards . But here's some food for thought:

2012 Subaru BRZ/Toyota gt-86

length: 167 inches (4240 mm)
height: 50.6 inches (1285 mm)
width: 70 inches (1775 mm)
wheelbase: 101 inches
weight : 2689 lbs
197 hp (gt86) 200hp(brz)


1965 Ford Mustang

length: 181.6 inches
height: 51 inches
width : 68 inches
wheelbase: 108 inches
curb weight: 2556 - 2606lbs
101 - 271 hp

1987-93 Mustang

length: 179.6 inches
height: 52 inches
Width: 68.3 inches
Wheelbase: 100.5 inches
Curb-weight: 2754-3350 lbs
88 - 235 hp

 

Is the Subaru/Toyota a 2+2?

 

Yes sir, according to the press release:

 

To be fair (and to correlate to the Mustang) the engine bay of the new Toyota/Subaru may not be big enough (and probably wasn't designed) for a V8. But I like your thinking . . .

 

Wow, that's impressive packaging then......I'd assumed it was a 2 seater

 

This.

Ford could easily build a mustang that small if it only had a 200 hp 4 banger.

Let's see if the brz/gt-86 chassis can handle a 650hp 5.8L V8 w/o significant modification. The mustang truly does need to be a bigger car, however there is always room for improvement

 

What is the point of this thread? Not sure what the OP is trying to say here.

 

Thinking the same thing

 

Yes, being designed for a flat 4 engine probably has a lot to do with the brz/gt-86 being about 12 inches shorter than the original Mustang and the Fox Mustang.

But the height and width are within 1-2 inches of the '65 and fox body and the new Toyota/Subaru is also a 2+2.

A new Mustang design the same height/width as the brz with 12 inches of length added for v8 room and a 107" wheelbase would give us a car the same size as the '65 and Fox body and would probably shed a few hundred pounds from the current Mustang design. It would basically go back to its roots as a pony car.

 

In a previous thread on TMS the size of the 2015+ Mustang was discussed and the feeling by some was that because of crash regulations and safety requirements a 1st gen/Fox body sized Mustang would no longer be possiable. The OP is simply showing how the size of the new Subaru/Toyota compaires to those two generations of Mustangs and his feeling that in the future it may be possiable to build a smaller (read: lighter) Mustang.

 

Fox body size 2015 please!!!!!

 

Just for fun:

05-09 Mustang

Length: 187.6
Height: 54.4
Width: 73.9
Wheelbase: 107.1
Curb Weight: 3352
240-500+ hp


Overall the S197 platform is not much larger than the earlier cars, the issue is weight. Can they get the weight of the next gen down under 3k lbs? I doubt it when you are talking 600hp+ V-8's. Keeping in mind that even a 4cyl or 6cyl version would have the same chassis, as it would be two costly to build two different chassis for the same product name.

 

At least new edge size. But the bigger body is a lot more stable.

 

It's not far off as is...it's not like it's turned into a truck. It's getting heavier, but it's just gonna keep happening. You'll have to throw some money specifically at saving weight, if you wanna slim it down. But isn't that already the plan for the next remodel anyway??? Still not sure what you're trying to get at...

 

interesting comparison shot

Height really stands out here. The FT-86 (now known as BRZ/GT-86) is less than half an inch lower than a '65 Mustang (i.e. roughly the same height).

The Genesis is roughly the same length as a '65 Mustang

 

is that to scale?

 

In my opinion, the size of the current car is okay, but it shouldn't get any bigger than it is. A smaller, lighter, car would be great though.

I think you're right on not being able to get weight down under 3000lbs. But I figure 3300-3400 for a v8 could be done with a '65 /fox body sized car.

 

Looks like the scale is right.

 

Venom 2361lbs , 110" wheel base, 1200 horse power

 

Of course if it was smaller and 1000 lbs lighter, it wouldn't NEED a 650hp 5.8L V8 to get the performance we are now accustomed to