V10

The front wheels on the 05 are pushed forward relative to the old Stang. So effectively the engine sits farther back. This was done to improve the F/R weight balance. This is one of the key reasons why the 05 Stang rides and handles much better than the Fox & SN95 Stangs.

This is the way the original Stangs from the 60s were and this is what BMW does to get great F/R weight balance. Look at a BMW 3 series and see how short the front overhang is. Same with the 05 vs 04 Stang, the 05 has less of an overhang infront of the front wheels.

It may be somewhat of an illusion, but look at an 04 Stang parked next to an 05 Stang. The 05 looks HUGE compared to the 04. The 05+ Stang is just not all that space efficient. I could care less about the rear seat. Normal sized adults can't comfortably fit back there nor get in and out of the rear seat easily so to me the rear seat is pretty much uselss except for more luggage space anyway.

m05fastbackGT

Although, in theory
you're suggestions, would save quite a bit of weight, no doubt..However, if using composite plastic or even aluminum, on the front fenders and doors, it would never pass, any of the federal crash safety regulations..Therefore, you also need to take that, into consideration as well...

Knight Rider

If only they made a rear seat delete like in Fox body hatchbacs xcept as extended trunk space

1 COBRA

I finally found someone my wife can go shopping with.

I guess to those who view a split of a second as important, weight is an issue but to the majority it is not.

jarradasay

No offense, but that is incorrect. Many composits handle impact and crashes to fenders and doors better then the thin sheet metal that is over it.(the sheet metal is only cosmetic and provide very little reiforcment. The problem you run into is fit and finish. Composites expand at a different rate then metal. Consequently you have to leave more gap. (Saturn main reason for switching). Any way there is a whole list of cars that have used and many that continue to use composites in the fendors and doors.

mudshuvel319

The main argument against lighter materials is the R&D costs. I'm sure most of the Mustang's engineers would love to work on getting the weight down, but there is a good deal of money that has to be invested to do that, and there are too many higher-ups in the company that don't want to make the initial investment in the car as long as it's selling and making as much money as it is.
Look at the 2004 GTO. When it came out, it didnt sell at all, in part because it's 5.7 engine didnt provide enough power for customers to justify it's high price. When sales bombed, the very next year they stuck the 400 hp motor in it, and sales picked up a little (although it still didnt sell very well). It the GTO would have sold well it's first year, I can't believe they would have even considered the 6.0 engine.

jarradasay

That I understand, but if you look at the 3 series coupe the w/b is 107.3 almost identical to the 05 stang's 107.1, but the 3 is only 176.7" long that is about a foot shorter then the stang' it has nearly 12" less overall (f/r) overhange. The 3 also has 42" front legroom and 33" rear legroom. So from an interior length standpoint it is longer, but overall it is much, much shorter. So where is the wasted space on the mustang. Shortening it by 12" of overhange would greatly improve performance, handling, power, weight, etc.
(Granted the 3 series is a poor example, since it is in a totally separate price category).

jarradasay

Your killin' me!

Vermillion06

On the Mustang, a lot of the length comes from the front bumper;look at the flat portion of the front bumper where it sticks out about 6 inches from the grille. it looks like it could be trimmed about 2-3 inches and not disturb the styling. I noticed on bmw 3 series, the bumpers don't stick out as much and are closer to the grille. 188 - 3 inches off the front bumper = 185. Another inch off the rear bumper would put the Mustang at about 184 inches in length.

But the bumper fascia really doesn't add that much weight since it's thin urethane with rigid foam (stryrofoam?) underneath to help keep its shape.
The metal bumper reinforcement bearm underneath it all could be done in aluminum instead of steel to shed some weight though.

Vermillion06

I agree, Corvettes & Saturns never had any problems with failing crash tests that I know of.

I read somewhere that the SMC (composite) bed on the Sport Trac saves 20% of the weight over the same part in in steel. Imagine if they could save about 20% of the weight of the Mustang's doors, fenders, and trunklid... basically, all the bolt on, non-structural body parts out of SMC or other plastics on the existing steel bodyshell.

m05fastbackGT

No offense taken, I just didn't realize that other car manufacturers, used composites in both their doors and front fenders, and you do bring up a good point, concerning sheet metal providing, very little reinforcment..Perhaps carbon fiber, could possibly be the answer, in solving both fit and finish, along with manufacturing costs, as well... Anyway, just a thought..

Knight

carbon fiber to solve manufacturing costs? Carbon fiber is uber expensive!!

m05fastbackGT

So much for that idea.. Suppose the only other alternative, would be finding a way of using composite plastic, while at the same time, addressing the fit and finish issue, due to the different expansion rate...

Vermillion06

I found an interesting article on the '99-up Mustang's trunklid being made from SMC. I didn't know this; my '98 has a metal trunklid and an SMC hood.

http://composite.about.com/library/PR/1999/blford1.htm

In the article, Art Hyde says:
.

He also talks about lower tooling costs, flexibilty of design, etc.

jarradasay

anyone know the weight diff of Aluminum and SMC. I was wondering why they changed for 05.

Also does anyone know if Ford has looked into using Aluminum for the roof panel? Mitsubishi did this for their EVO and actually lowered the center of gravity significantly, while reducing weight. Since most if the roof panel is mainly bonded on with sealant instead of welding I do not see too much of a problem with this. I think it may be a great move for the Mustang.

srothfuss

I don't have any information on SMC, but if they could use it on the roof panel, it would seem like the Mustang has been brought into the 21st century...

m05fastbackGT

I also found the article, very interesting and it would seem that SMC would be the perfect solution, in reducing the Mustang's overall weight problem..Even, the expansion rate is the same, as steel..So why just stop at the roof panel?, when it can also be used for the deck lid, hood, doors, front fenders and perhaps even the rear quarter panels, as well ?? If it can be done, just imagine how much of a weight difference, that could mean ?? Now let's just hope, Ford may also be reading these posts.. Originally Posted by Art Hyde
"The SMC panels are durable," he says. "SMC's coefficient of thermal expansion (the rate at which the composite expands and contracts) is the same as steel, which creates tight tolerances between the decklid and its surrounding architecture."

max2000jp

Audi removed 200lbs of weight off the new TT by using the "Aluminum Space Frame". I bet Ford could find similar results in the S197s. It would be pretty easy to get the GT down 200-250 lbs without losing content, but my concern would be that cost would rise a few grand.

Galaxie

While I support any initiative to save weight, since the '09 will probably be a structural carryover from the current model, I don't think much, if any ground can be made in weight savings.

An aluminum panel for the roof would be a great idea. Keep in mind that aluminum is much more difficult to stamp than steel. A roof panel would be an easy one.

As for the composites, while the co-effiecient of thermal expansion may be similar, I don't know how much dimensional variance there is in the manufacturing process.

max2000jp

Here are areas where I think it's feasible to use aluminum without too much added cost:

-Driveshaft (roughly 30 lbs proven weight reduction)
-Suspension peices(front/rear control arms)
-Aluminum Bumper Beam (Steel ones are bulky)
-K-Member and Radiator Support (Engine Cradle)

That should get the GT down near or under 3300 lbs. The Shelby needs a diet bad!