I'd be happy if the Mustang was trimmed down to the SN-95 dimensions and weight.

 

I would like the see the Mustang's wheelbase remain roughly the same as it is now, possibly even growing an inch or so, with a decrease in overall length and section height. IMO target curb weight for the 2012 Mustang GT (V8) should be about 3250lb with the target curb weight for the V6 model being a couple hundred pounds below that. Worth mentioning here is that Ford claims they want every model to lose at least 250lb during their next major redesign, which would yield a Mustang in the neighborhood of those numbers should the target be met.

A 3250lb Mustang GT with IRS, 50/50 balance or something very close to it, a six speed manual, and 400+hp/385+lb=ft of torque from a 5.0L V8 would represent the performance deal of the century if Ford could keep the price of entry below 28k in today's dollars. Even better, I have little doubt that such a package would chime in with a highway rating of 30mpg or very close to it under the old ratings system.

 

No offense John, but why in the world would you want the Mustang to be even wider than the current S-197 ?

IMO the current S-197, is already too porky looking, and wide as is.

If anything the 2014/15 re-design, needs to be lighter, smaller, and slimmer. Much in the same way as the 1st generation Mustangs were from 65-68.

As the Mustang begins to reach closer to it's 50th anniversary, it also needs to return further back to it's original pony car heritage, as a sporty car, and not as some oversized barge !

 

Hmmm.... if the clack is close to being right the MCE will weigh around 3600 lbs with the 4v 5.0 and M6, figure another 25-50 lbs if an IRS was added on and if Ford can get that 250 lbs weight loss in there then your looking at around 3400 lbs. Wouldn't be bad deal, lose 100 pounds get another 100hp and improve comfort. Now throw in the virtual pivot front end from the Falcon (which is said to handle better than the zeta based AU cars) and make a few trips to the ring to futher refine this hypothetical Mustang and and keep the price below the F5 and it would blow some socks off (although I'd admittedly still want that 3350 pound stick axle Mustang myself).

 

It'd take a pretty intense approach to get the car back to those dimensions and still offer decent safety ratings without blowing the design heritage of the 2+2 concept. No problem as a pure sports car, but thats not a Mustang.

The Mustangs dimensions encompass more than trying to appeal to grotesquely fat people and invovle creating added space to reduce injury in an accident much like nascrap has done by moving the driver away from the sides and more toward the middle.

 

I didn't say anything about the Mustang being a pure sports car. I clearly stated that it should return back to it's original pony car roots, as a (sporty car/2+2 fastback) In other words, I was referring to similar size dimensions only !

 

They'll also make it look smaller by making the grille pony bigger!

 

Didn't mean to infer that you did, bad posting on my part. However I did mean to say that the days of a 1st gen sized Mustang are all but gone unless Ford were to go with something packaged like the Fox cars and even then I still doubt we'd see something in those dimensions.

Increasing the size of the passenger cell really has a positive effect on overall safety since there's more space before you bounce a body part off of something. The downside is trying to get the look right without having to slap a Mustang emblem on a V8 Sentra clone.

 

First, would like to thank everyone for the information they have provided on the '10 Stang(s) so far! I have enjoyed reading the forums and decided to join, even though I've been waiting wayyy to long to finally own my own pony car.


More importantly though, any thoughts on the car that is behind his head in the pic?? Doesn't look like a Mustang... or is it?

 

That's a Flex, photographed from a weird angle.

 

My apologies for the misinterpretation Bob, as I do agree that increasing passenger size, does have a positive effect on overall safety. However IMO, Ford just went slightly overboard with the S-197 size dimensions.

On the other hand, if they had stuck with the overall dimensions of the 99-04 SN-95. The current S-197 would still address passenger safety concerns, while at the same time keeping the look of the car sleek and less porky looking with far less front, and rear overhang

 

+1. Why is there so much overhange? I understand trunk space, but I can't hawl four golfers in my mustang, so why would I need to be able to pack four golf bags?

The front wouldn't be too bad if they would just reduce the size of the bumper. Many modern styled vehicles are doing away with the extended bumper and integrating the front. while i dont think this would look good on the mustang they could surely reduce how far it projects.

 

I dunno Bob. To my eyes the way Ford has presented their future weight loss mandate gives the impression that Ford expects every car in their lineup to be 250 or more pounds lighter than they are as of right now by 2012. And if that does indeed prove to be the standard the benchmark will be the current car and that means were looking at a program goal of 3250-3300lb for the Mustang GT by 2012 even with the addition of IRS. I know what you're thinking because I'm thinking it too, that sounds amazingly if not impossibly light for a modern car of this size in this segment. But, I gotta say that in this instance I hope that I'm right and you're not.

Of course, even if I am correct the other looming issue is that, while targets are great, the real trick is hitting those targets. Also, while I wouldn't be surprised to see a 'Control Blade' multi-link IRS I would be extremely surprised to see anything but a Mac strut IFS up front. Low cost, great packaging, superb steering feel and the capacity for great handling in it's own right makes the Mac strut a shoe in for the Mustang and I would be surprised if Ford doesn't think so as well.

It'd take a pretty intense approach to get the car back to those dimensions and still offer decent safety ratings without blowing the design heritage of the 2+2 concept. No problem as a pure sports car, but thats not a Mustang.

Absolutely on the money, width will never return to the narrower days of yore for reasons of safety, comfort, and handling. As for the rest of the Mustang, the car seems to be pretty close to 67-68 dimensions, the rather thick cross section of the current model excepted of course.

.....................overall length......wheelbase
S197...................187.6in............107.1in
67-68..................183.6in............108.0in

As I mentioned above I would be more than happy with the next, GRWD based Mustang if it retained a wheelbase similar to the current model or 67-68, say 107-108 inches, retained an overall length in the ballpark of the 67-68 and preferably a bit shorter than the S197
, say 182-184 inches, while reducing cross section at least a little for the sake of a sleeker, lighter car.

 

The current Mustang is the porkiest of all Mustangs and has exceeded the 1971-73 in terms of weight... Everyone thinks the 1973 was overgrown... But just look at the specs... I think the 1971-73 had more preceived visual mass because of the body design. It had a longer hood but the windshield was more upright where the new windshields are massive and more raked. The sportroof was high in the back and the quarter windows were smaller adding to a vast expanse of sheetmetal in the rear quarter area.

1971-1973 2907-3216 lbs.
2005-2008 3373-4040 lbs.

It's almost closer in dimensions too! Before 1973 bumper standards they were almost the same length. 1973 bumpers added 2 1/2". Wheelbase less than an inch within each other, just a little over one inch difference in width. We are talking dimensions less than the length of my pinky.

1971-73 L= 187.5-190.00 W=75.0 WB= 108.0
2005-08 L= 187.6 W=73.9 WB=107.1

The 2005 was 4.4 inches longer than the 2004.. the width of my hand. Curb weight was similar. The 2004 looked much smaller because of the short nose diving hood, tapered in nose and front wheels pulled in closer to the doors.

The newer cars just have more mass in the body structure for quality, safety and expected modern features standard and/or optional on cars nowdays.

To make a significant impact in weight savings, a modern Mustang would have to shrink as small as a Mustang II and it would still be heavier than a Mustang II.

As far as visual mass goes, I am sure Ford can trick people into believing a design is lighter by changing a few lines here and there.

 

And it's also 4,137 pounds?!?! Also, it is, Aaaaaaaay-caraaaaaaamba!

 

If Ford can somehow make the new 'Stangs lighter and dimensionally closer to the Fox/SN95-era without killing the looks, I'm all for it.

 

Your weights on the 1971 - 1973 Mustang are too low.

The 3216 lbs you list is the Ford specified curb weight of a 1972 Mach 1 Sports Roof, with 302 2V engine & 3 speed manual trannie.

That's
WITHOUT power steering
WITHOUT Power disk brakes
WITHOUT air conditioning,
WITHOUT power windows,
WITHOUT a radio
WITHOUT Traction Lock
WITHOUT console
WITHOUT rear window defroster
WITHOUT folding rear seat
With only 1 rear view mirror
With tiny E70 - 14" bias ply belted tires

A reasonably equiped 72 Mach 1 with 351 Cleveland, with Auto or 4 speed manual is around 3,700 lbs

A 1971 Mustang convertable, fully loaded, with 429 V8 is over 4,000 lbs.

Given all the standard equipment and safety equipment, the weight of the S197 is not out of line.

 

I don't know...referring to two different Mustang books, the first says the 71-73's weighed between 2907-3216 and the other which breaks down by model shows the heaviest of the era being a 71 Boss 351 fastback at 3281. Maybe it doesn't include some things as you say but theres no way they are 800lbs off as you say.

I'm going to take those numbers as being more representative of the average weights, and I also think the S197 is a pig. It needs to be brought back to the Fox era weights and proportions.

 

You can design it to be wider, without it looking so fat. Plus, we don't know what the dimensions are going to be like on the new GRWD platform.

 

I agree with you. But, I saw a video on the net where they were interviewing a guy from Chrysler and he was pointing out how they were making the car look slimmer.
Using dark colors in certain areas of the car does give the illusion that the car isn't "as" massive.