Less is More on Future Stang?
4/23/10, 09:00 AM
#21
Cobra Member
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Location: Tulsa OK
Posts: 1,465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how about something the size of a foxbody (or close to it) and still retain the 3.7, 5.0, and 5.4...if the 5.4 can still wedge in there and if it'll still have Mustang/SVT duty by then.
4/23/10, 09:20 AM
#22
Legacy TMS Member
The Fox was a great car from a packaging standpoint, but terrible for reproducing the classic Mstang look. I doubt we'll see something along those lines for a long time, nor see a Mustang that light again without the use of some very exotic materials (simply because safety regs wouldn't allow it using conventional materials. The fox body's light weight comes with a hefty price tag in that regard).
4/23/10, 01:02 PM
#24
4/25/10, 09:05 PM
#25
GT Member
Join Date: April 2, 2010
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its nice to hear they want to reduce the weight on the next Mustang. I hope they make the Mustang more aerodynamic, this would help increase MPH. It doesn't have to be retro IMO.
I can see the engines being the 3.7 V6 DI, 5.0 V8 DI, SC 5.0 V8 DI. My guess is it will retain a strut front suspension do to cost and weight, but a double A arm would be better for handling. I hope for a multi link rear set up. If the next Mustang chassis is going to be a global one, it will need the more advanced suspension set up to deal with the rough European back roads. Some others have mentioned high strength steel and I agree that will be a key to reducing weight if they want to maintain the Mustangs current size and/or chassis.
I can see the engines being the 3.7 V6 DI, 5.0 V8 DI, SC 5.0 V8 DI. My guess is it will retain a strut front suspension do to cost and weight, but a double A arm would be better for handling. I hope for a multi link rear set up. If the next Mustang chassis is going to be a global one, it will need the more advanced suspension set up to deal with the rough European back roads. Some others have mentioned high strength steel and I agree that will be a key to reducing weight if they want to maintain the Mustangs current size and/or chassis.
4/26/10, 06:20 AM
#26
Team Mustang Source
Join Date: October 1, 2004
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=FivePointO;5853373]Its nice to hear they want to reduce the weight on the next Mustang. I hope they make the Mustang more aerodynamic, this would help increase MPH. It doesn't have to be retro IMO.
Agree on it not being retro. Ford hit a home run with the design, timing, etc with the 5th generation - but I think it will be a fairly significant change at least as it applies to Mustang changes.
Agree on it not being retro. Ford hit a home run with the design, timing, etc with the 5th generation - but I think it will be a fairly significant change at least as it applies to Mustang changes.
4/26/10, 04:48 PM
#27
Founding MOTM
Committee Member
Committee Member
Ford could also go with aftermarket brands to make their wheels, just like Nissan did with the 370Z and have Rays wheels. Not only is the aftermarket plenty capable of making good looking wheels for these vehicles, but they will also be much lighter than what they are now. Wheel weight can make a huge difference. As some have said making the car a bit smaller can also make a difference. The problem is we want more things in our cars such as navigation, heated seats, more airbags, and these things all add weight. Maybe Ford could make a "Racer" package or something that would just keep it to a single disk, small radio, limited airbags, no navigation/heated/power seats even with a nice wheel package. By slimming down the options that should cut costs, while Ford could charge more for the nice, strong wheels and keep a light weight Mustang at a nice GT price.
4/27/10, 12:32 AM
#28
Cobra Member
Join Date: July 11, 2007
Posts: 1,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still think it could (and should?) at least be retro-inspired, if not "retro" in the strictest sense. There are some retro design cues that I think Ford should maintain on all future Mustangs to showcase a common design heritage...
4/27/10, 09:00 AM
#29
Cobra Member
Join Date: June 25, 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Majority of the wheels are under 25lbs and are either cast or forged aluminum. So I wouldn't worry about the weight of the rims.
Ford needs to reduce weight in other areas!
Ford needs to reduce weight in other areas!
4/27/10, 02:59 PM
#30
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: February 17, 2004
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I totally agree that cannot be the extent of the weight reduction. Materials such as High tension steel can be used to save weight. Size reduction may not reduce weight at all. I know that sounds insane, but depending on what ford puts into the 14 we may see a size reduction and a weight increase. Hopefully not of course, but it is all too possible.
There are plenty of areas they can trim, but not if demand is for additional content. Adding options adds to the base's infrastructure, so we will have to see what they do.
4/27/10, 04:20 PM
#31
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: April 11, 2006
Location: Ohio
Posts: 911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 19's are approaching (or exceeding) 30 lbs now. The 17x8 wheels that came stock on my 2001 and 2008 Mustangs were 21.5-22 lbs each. Heck, the 17x9 Enkeis that are on my Bullitt are just under 16 lbs each. IIRC Ford said the biggest factor in the weight increase from the 2009 to 2010 Mustangs was the increase in size of the wheels.
4/28/10, 07:25 AM
#32
legacy Tms Member MEMORIAL Rest In Peace 10/06/2021
Join Date: September 16, 2009
Location: Clinton Tennessee
Posts: 3,377
Received 124 Likes
on
100 Posts
I hope the next Mustang weighs 250-300 pounds less. Retro a little, but not using the Mustang II as a starting point. I had a (new) 1976 Mustang II, it was really a Pinto with a different body. At the time the Mustang II was ok but now when i look back at it............Ford, please don't do a retro off of a Mustang II LOL!!!
4/28/10, 07:42 AM
#33
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: February 17, 2004
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The 19's are approaching (or exceeding) 30 lbs now. The 17x8 wheels that came stock on my 2001 and 2008 Mustangs were 21.5-22 lbs each. Heck, the 17x9 Enkeis that are on my Bullitt are just under 16 lbs each. IIRC Ford said the biggest factor in the weight increase from the 2009 to 2010 Mustangs was the increase in size of the wheels.
Of course to many buyers bigger is better, so if the camaro offers 20's then the mustang must as well
we can all have our carbon fiber panels and aluminum space frames...so wheels won't matter much!
4/28/10, 08:43 AM
#35
Cobra Member
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Location: Tulsa OK
Posts: 1,465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Fox was a great car from a packaging standpoint, but terrible for reproducing the classic Mstang look. I doubt we'll see something along those lines for a long time, nor see a Mustang that light again without the use of some very exotic materials (simply because safety regs wouldn't allow it using conventional materials. The fox body's light weight comes with a hefty price tag in that regard).
4/29/10, 01:54 PM
#37
Cobra Member
Join Date: June 25, 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 19's are approaching (or exceeding) 30 lbs now. The 17x8 wheels that came stock on my 2001 and 2008 Mustangs were 21.5-22 lbs each. Heck, the 17x9 Enkeis that are on my Bullitt are just under 16 lbs each. IIRC Ford said the biggest factor in the weight increase from the 2009 to 2010 Mustangs was the increase in size of the wheels.
2.) If its Forged or Cast Aluminum. Cast wheels are usually heavier.
I'm a Quality Manager in the OEM Wheel Business. I've seen 17 inch wheels weigh more than 20 inch wheels.
Some wheels are fully machined, while others have a large quantity of asforged material still left on them. A fully machined wheel is lighter, and more expensive.
4/30/10, 07:28 AM
#38
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: February 17, 2004
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
1.) Depends on the design.
2.) If its Forged or Cast Aluminum. Cast wheels are usually heavier.
I'm a Quality Manager in the OEM Wheel Business. I've seen 17 inch wheels weigh more than 20 inch wheels.
Some wheels are fully machined, while others have a large quantity of asforged material still left on them. A fully machined wheel is lighter, and more expensive.
2.) If its Forged or Cast Aluminum. Cast wheels are usually heavier.
I'm a Quality Manager in the OEM Wheel Business. I've seen 17 inch wheels weigh more than 20 inch wheels.
Some wheels are fully machined, while others have a large quantity of asforged material still left on them. A fully machined wheel is lighter, and more expensive.
5/1/10, 06:37 AM
#39
V6 Member
Join Date: April 17, 2010
Location: Fairborn Ohio
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Guys! Let's be careful what you wish for!!!
5/1/10, 03:03 PM
#40
Cobra R Member
Join Date: September 11, 2009
Posts: 1,774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not necessarily the downsizing of the wheel I was thinking about, just using the material more efficiently without jeopardizing the engineering. (so like we're talking millimeters worth of shavings in different areas but that can really add up). Take OZ Rally or BBS... some of their 19"-20" rims weight 20-21lbs. Granted they're expensive... So there would need to be a way to work around it... but a Saving 7-10lbs per wheel is a good gain.
This Car&Driver article is pretty good read on effects of tire/rim size...
http://www.caranddriver.com/features...sted-tech_dept
This Car&Driver article is pretty good read on effects of tire/rim size...
http://www.caranddriver.com/features...sted-tech_dept
Last edited by 2010MustangGT; 5/1/10 at 03:05 PM. Reason: Link