bob

I wouldn't hold my breath any time soon. The New Edge Mach 1 was 3480 lbs or there abouts depending on tranmission (slightly lighter with the M5) and that was with a wet noodle chassis designed by Moses and an SRA. The even more wet noodlely foxbody in GT/Cobra trim had a curb weight around 3255 lbs.

An IRS can be designed to be pretty light, but like every other manufacturer on the planet currently, its going to be set in a steel subframe and that will add weight.

If anybody here wants a sub 3400-3450 lbs next gen Mustang with IRS and 5.0 and an M6 trans with 18"+ wheels and brakes that barely fit in said wheels with enhanced safety and options over the current car (including 2010+ levels of interior fit and finish with just as solid a chassis as the 2011+ cars), you had better get used to the idea of riding around in something the size of a 350Z.

Even then I think when Ford is talking saving 300+ lbs of weight in the next gen car, they are talking mass neutral or there abouts compared to the S-197.

Moosetang

Oh, well, I wouldn't say that.
http://www.autoblog.com/2011/01/31/s...t-of-our-cars/

conv_stang

back on the 1989 and 1990 model foxes....both model years had cars produced with the 25th annivesary badges on the dash. So im sure if Ford wanted too they would make the Anniversary model whenever they want. but a 2014 should be it, where itis the new bodystyle or not.

Itravelalot

Now that was interesting.


If it were up to me, I would change the body style and set the 50th right at 2014 1/2MY just to be funny. I would even label it as the 2014 1/2. That would mean in the same model year, you could make both old and new switching the model at job 2. You could even use that model year for 1 1/2 to 2 years just to delay the 2016 MY CAFE requirements. You could then have 1/2 to 3/4 of a year doing old style 2014, 3/4 to 1 year doing redesigned 2014 1/2, and even keep the 50th anniversary going for one more model year for the 2015 models. Since it would be only 1 1/2 model years, both really honestly could be called 50th, and you could have 2 full years of the 50th in the redesign after already producing half a years worth of 2014s. If they want a big 50th, that certainly would qualify. Maybe that is all too crazy to actually do, but I like crazy and I would seriously think about that if it were all up to me.

tom_vilsack

my vote is for 2014..as the 2004 mustang was the 40th



would love to see some tweaks to 2003 rear end

Boomer

My vote is for 2015MY
:P

Overboost

It'd be nice to see a gray color come back. Silver is nice, but the metallic gray colors really seem to work well on the Mustang.

bob

That is pretty sweet Moose, but I still feel even with solutions like that, we will see something only incrementally lighter. Kudos to Ford if they pull off a sub 3400 lbs car though (however skeptical I am about it).

I wonder what thier steel nanotech is? If I had to guess, they are dabbling in amorphous metals of some sort?

hi5.0

this "nanotech steel" better not be some kind of marketing gimmick like "forged composite"

Itravelalot

I know that there are people who will not agree with me on this, but the logic is sound.

The curb weight of the current GT, from what I have seen, is 3605 pounds. So, we would need a weight reduction of 300 pounds to get it down to the 3300 range. This is still slightly less than the 10-15% that I have heard some talk about, but this is a decent goal nonetheless.

Improved technology like that nanotech steel, along with some other lightweight materials will surely lead to some weight reduction, but I do not think it will account for all that is needed.

We all know that they are planning a smaller Mustang, but the question is how much smaller. Lets face it any reduction in size will be somewhat painful. The current GT is pretty well laid out. But size does mean more weight. What part of the GT would you give up to save weight? I feel that we should all be prepared for a Mustang that is a good bit smaller than we might like. The benefits of a small Mustang are great. It would have amazing handling potential, great MPG for CAFE, and every bit of the horsepower would do even more.

I have said it before and I will say it again, but I think this 50th anniversary edition will be not be well recieved by all. As annoying as some 2005-2009 Mustang owners are with not liking the diaper butt, I would put money that there will be far worse comments about the redesign, despite the sure to come amazing design. It certainly will be very well designed, but the small size might be much smaller than what many like, and going towards 2020, we might very well see a thinning out of the v8s. I think that just a 300 pound weight drop will be a very realistic target though. With the new tech, hopefullt we will not have to make it all that much smaller.

As for the 2013 refresh, I really would have to see it. I like the one that is there now, but am always open to change.

rhumb

I think some reduction in both girth and tonnage are both necessary and desirable for the NextStang, particularly for the wide availability of V8 power options.

I would surmise that a 200lb. trip to the fat farm would be a minimum but 300lbs or more would best assure future performance. Some of this would be the gradual incorporation of higher tech materials while some of this would be simply reducing the size, and resultant mass, of the NextStang. Of course, a big question would be, "how much smaller?" especially given that the average American is casting an ever larger shadow. I would be content with an overall "box" the size of the first gen Stang, if perhaps an inch or two wider.

Clever packaging, excellent ergonomics and seats, and generous glass area can do much to eliminate any "cramped" impressions and indeed, the tidier size can greatly enhance the driving experience, especially in tighter urban quarters or narrow back roads. What a NextStang might loose in size and mass, it might gain in speed and fun, not a bad trade off in my mind.

While many/most might be fixated on ever increasing HP levels, a better measure for straight line performance is the power to weight ratio and perhaps it is time to address the other side of that equation now. That side of the equation is a rich mine to dig into as while more power will make a car faster in the straights, less weight will make a car faster everywhere.

Overboost

Well this got derailed too quick...refresh does not equal redesign folks.

burningman

yay for butt fix!
now if they could only get the front of the GT RAM 500 sorted

Twin Turbo

Indeed, just what I was thinking

Folks, we're talking NEXT YEAR'S nip n tuck.......no weight reduction expected, just some sexy bodywork mods

Moosetang

The weight reduction discussion is good, could an almighty Mod move those posts into one of the Next-Gen Mustang posts?

Twin Turbo

Sorry Moosetang....didn't mean to sound like an ***. The weight reduction discussion is very interesting and certainly relevant to the next-gen car, so hopefully a mod can move the posts.....or leave them where they are and post the link you found in the 2014 section

LagunaBeach

So if the next gen is all-wheel drive, do you think it will have selectable modes like the WRX? Which tires would work best if I lived where it snowed 2 1/2 times a year.

Overboost

LOL. Gotta impress the tuner crowd.

Itravelalot

All wheel drive is a great idea for a discussion. Maybe we should make a poll thread. Think of it, a 3300 pound all wheel drive mustang vs a wrx and and and evo. Mustang could take on all cars from camaros to STIs to BMWs to GTRs to Porsches. It would be great to see how mad people would get to see the Mustang constantly mentioned in the same sentences as the STI and the Evo. Actually why do I not just make a photoshop mix between a WRX and a Mustang.

Oh wait, noooooo I have to wash my mouth and my eyes out... Is it possible to wash my brain out??

Actually an all wheel drive might not be that bad, maybe

Ministang

Personally I'd give up about 4 gallons of fuel tank capacity, that should be good for 25-30 lbs of weight reduction, and if fuel economy is improved (in part to a lower curb weight), range shouldn't be affected too much. Lighter wheels and tires, like moving back to lighter 17" wheels and smaller diameter tires could easily bring another 25+ lbs reduction in weight. I'd give up a few inches off the back and accept a smaller trunk as well.

The curb weight on my '08 Premium GT was only 3490 lbs, and the earlier base GT's were even lighter. The 120-150 lbs or so the Mustang GT has gained since 2005 wouldn't be that hard to remove, and with a clean sheet redesign coming, I'm really hoping for a GT curb weight under 3400 and V6 under 3300 lbs, even lighter would be better.