So I was thinking this morning about the Corvette and how the C6 trumps the C5 in Z06 guise. Though still appealing, the Z06, it's hard to argue for it since a better Vette exists...

As I sat in the parking lot staring at a GHG Boss, I thought, what if this holds true for the new Mustang? How would you feel if the new GT holds or trumps the Boss?

For me it's a simple answer. If the new Mustang looks good is lighter, has great visibility and equal or better performance I would take the new Stang hands down. But for some reason there still is a list for the Boss. Much like my infatuation with the Z06.

Thoughts?

 

I fully expect the 2015 to 1-Up the Boss 302.

If it doesn't, Ford didn't do their job and the new Camaro on the Alpha platform will spank it hands down. You can quote me on that.

With the lighter weight, IRS and hopefully Direct Injection, the 2015 should be a monster performer.

I really hope a 4.3 second 0-60 is their plan.

We have video at Sebring of the Mustang being benchmarked against world class cars. We don't know which trim that car was but we know by this that Ford isn't playing games.

I have a feeling that the 2015 really will be something special.

 

I agree. The new GT will be at least as good performance wise as the boss. Kind of like how ford released the Bullitt and then the 2010 GT got all of its enhancements.
And ford will definitely need to up the ante in order to keep up with the next gen Camaro.

 

::shrugs:: I'd call that progress, the current GT stock for stock would give a Terminator or 07-09 GT500 a run for its money so I don't see why Boss owners would get their knickers in a twist.

Frankly, I would want and expect Ford to use the Boss as a performance target for the next GT in some sort of summer tire and brake package fitment and the Boss replacement (which I suspect will be a GT350) to take naturally aspirated Mustang performance to the next level.

 

I would definitely expect the new GT to outperform the Boss, the lighter weight and more modern suspension alone should do it. Plus the advantages of all around better suspension performance off track in everyday driving as well. I dont see how it wouldn't. GT350??(boss replacement) and GT500 should see improvements as well. Though i would actually expect the biggest improvement in performance to go to the GT500 as the new chassis should be able to handle the big HP motor better than the current one does. It shouldn't offend anyone... its just progress.

 

For the performance, looks, and price the current 13 14 mustang is one of the best buys out there imo.. I think it will be tough for Ford to beat this all the while keeping the 15 priced reasonably..

 

I sure hope it does. It would cement the 2015 Mustang GT as my next new car purchase.

 

With the way cars are progressing I think it would. Remember the 08-09 Bul. Mustang set the mark for the 10. I would think Ford would do the same for the 15.

I am more interested to see how they are gonna improve the Boss and GT500.

 

Without a significant increase in price to cover more expensive materials, I SERIOUSLY doubt the 2015 will weigh much less, if any at all. The platform appears to be the same overall size as the S197, yet it has to deal with the increased rollover and impact requirements. More strength -> more mass and/or more cost.

 

I think we might see a slight weight decrease. They can't afford a weight gain with the next gen Camaro platform losing so much weight. Manufacturers seem to be pushing hard to put lightweight materials into mass production to hit mpg goals, so costs should be coming down. Although its probably too soon for most of these to make it into the 2015 mustang.

 

I wish Ford wouldbring some of the structural elements from the GT into the Mustang. The Camaro benefits greatly from vette tech trickling down to it and i believe that has much to do with the success of the model. If the Mustang hadthe same benefits, we might be looking at a truly world class pony car

 

The C7 completely redesigned the entire car including the chassis, used better materials, lost weight and maintained virtually the exact same base MSRP.

It can be done.

The Mustang, though lighter than the competition, is seriously overweight. A base V6 should weigh 3300 lbs. A turbo 4 might save another 50 lbs.

There's no reason the GT500 should weigh 3800 lbs, that's retarded when it costs $65,000 and it's a Ford muscle car.

Worse, a ZL1 Camaro weighs 300 more pounds than that. But we know the 2016 Camaro is losing 300+/- lbs. Ford knowing this should have a fire lit under their butts. The Z28 losing 300 lbs means Mustang gets put to shame if it doesn't lose that weight as well


Engineering technology is far enough advanced in cars that structural integrity can be increased while having significant reductions in weight without compromising cost. Again, look at the C7. The C7 had less room for weight reduction because it's already fairly light for its size. The Mustang is much bigger, which with a size reduction that we have been told is part of the new car, there is plenty of opportunity to reduce mass without breaking the bank. The C7 uses Carbon Fiber and kept costs in check.

If Ford didn't figure that out, they haven't hired the right people.

There's no reason for the cost of a GT500 which has grossly inflated since 2007, that carbon fiber front fenders and hood couldn't be included in the cost. Ford gouges a higher profit margin on specialty vehicles, especially if it's based on an existing design that is technically 10 years old now. That would reduce weight significantly, and increase the performance of the car in every way possible.

In mass production, stuff is cheap. It doesn't cost $800 (retail price) a piece for a carbon fiber hood if you buy 50,000 of them.


Other ways to reduce weight:

Material thicknesses.

An ECU box plastic housing is molded in a fairly thick plastic. Reducing the wall thickness of plastic injection molded parts when they serve no structural purposes not only reduces weight without compromising quality, but also reduces costs. There are probably 300 different plastic parts in my 2007 that could be redesigned using basic structural techniques to reduce mass without risking quality of the part.

Material choice. Some common materials are very heavy. Steel. Steel is heavy. Aluminum can be used in several different applications that do not increase cost, but do decrease weight.


I guarantee you I could nitpick the **** out of the current car piece by piece and drop 100 lbs off it while having no cost increase minimum, if not save money. Give me a $1000 per car budget, you'll lose another 150 lbs.

That's what engineers do and should be doing. Don't just design something and think it looks good without considering all the factors. In a car, it matters.

If Ford hasn't done anything like this for the new car, which they've had nearly 5 years to evaluate and develop, then they need a new development team, because that is just lazy work.

 

In the leaks about the 2015 car lighter weight seems to come up fairly often. It has been pretty consistent that ford is targeting ~200lbs tho we dont know if that is a loaded GT or base model savings. I think the above point about it being a 10 year old chassis that even if they keep the car the exact same size 10 years of engineering design improvement should be enough to account for some weight savings through better blends and manufacturing techniques, additionally some use of aluminium which is becoming more and more common on vehicles. I think we should expect a price increase commensurate with the % of the last few years but i doubt it will be substantial or due entirely to lighter materials. Would be nice too if they could take the weight off the front end to get closer to 50/50 distro on the GT.

 

What's funny is that BMW and Cadillac are using steel in the 3 and ATS' suspension as a lighter alternative to the aluminum. I thought they were crazy but the new 3 does weigh less than the old.

 

The properties of steel favor over aluminum in certain applications. Material yield points (talking about being under stress) are a determining factor in material choice where less material can be used to drop weight, even if 1 cubic inch of steel weighs more than that of aluminum.

Aluminum is not nearly as strong of a material, and has a much lower stress and strain yield than steel. It takes less force to push it past the limit where it can't return to normal form, so deformation is more likely. And that is a no no for suspension components.

It's also much less dense, so using it for body panels, firewalls, roofs, floor pan, etc are all obviously practical applications for aluminum to save weight.

 

The new Mazda 6 dropped nearly 300lbs and barely went up in price. It can be done.

 

I agree. My point was more that most manufacturers are using aluminum for suspension parts and BMW is no different. My 335i was all aluminum. But I don't mind the trend of steel. Probably a very good thing.

I just think we will see some jnnovative work going forward. I do believe that the Mustang can easily shrink and have just as much or more useable space. See 3 series coupe.

 

Fords milking that cow (no pun intended) for all its worth with 662hp on tap and a claimed 200+ mph for the top tier car a lot of people consider it a helluva bargain. IMO it should have been a bit cheaper seeing as how its on a seven year old chassis along with a few more things but value is in the eye of the beholder.

Anyways, there wasn't much Ford could do to lighten the GT500 up aside from doing crazy things like maybe CC brakes, extensive use of magnesium or aluminum/magnesium components like the trans and entire diff (yes, that's been done before - IIRC Dana did them for Dodge years ago) to the suspension components (uprights, control arms, dampers, et al) along with increased use of aluminum for body panels and deleting some things like the rear seat perhaps - all of which would add even more cost to the car.

The engine could have been made lighter but that would have entailed a clean sheet design for the heads at the very least if not the whole engine - which even in aluminum is still a heavy rascal - perhaps 150 pounds heavier than the coyote, a lot of it due to the S/C gear.

I doubt it would have saved significant weight going to turbos since OE reliability would have probably mandated heavier more complex exhaust manifolds plus the addition of two compressors with the exhaust side being most likely cast iron for durability to the added pipe to route it all to a heat exchanger of some sort (a bigger air to air setup which might save some weight over the air to water set-up or maybe a mass neutral affair or just end up heavier again).

Ultimately the GT500 is heavier because its a more powerful car requiring heavier duty components - one can always point out the litany of 800-1000 hp GT and Boss cars which are lighter and obviously more powerful than the GT500 but none of those cars have to go a minimum of 60k with absolutely no problems and neither do they have to 100k+ to keep the government watchdogs off of the owners back.

 

On size reduction, the initial mules have been widely reported to be using the S550 floorpan and suspension. unless there are modifications, the wheelbase is the same, and the track is wider in the rear. From what we've seen of the underhood front end structure, the nose doesn't look to be getting much shorter either. Still not seeing much of a size reduction.

CF in a Mustang?? Sure, if needed but that is getting FAR away from what the car has been. Maybe more pricier lighter bits for the GT500/SVT variant to increase performance. Not expecting much of that on the base models though.

Re plastics: I definitely could see Ford working to reduce the mass of those parts as much as they can. What I/we don't know about is how Ford's lifetime performance requirements end up adding mass to the parts. It's straightforward to make those parts lighter. Making them lighter while keeping the same performance may not be so easy.

 

I am a mechanical engineer, and having taken my interior apart a couple times and being under the hood a lot, I see some obvious room for improvement in the plastics department. I design using plastic injection molding every day. There are tons of tricks to reduce material use and maintain strength. When .02 per part is a deal breaker, decreasing material on a part is critical. I highly doubt Ford scrutinizes every part to that level, but they should because it reduces cost and reduces weight and they have a more than ample deadline to spend the time doing that. The biggest cost that they have to account for that has to get passed to the consumer in order to make a profit is the tooling costs. I imagine they spend many millions in tooling costs. The tool for a radio **** costs about $2000. A center console tool, I imagine, costs $20,000+. Add up the 100's of components and it's a very large number. And they have to retool because tools wear out, etc.

Maybe I should send in my resume