2015 Mustang to Shed 400lbs (Edmunds)

[kevint]

Originally Posted by 72MachOne99GT

I got "increased fatalities directly linked to vehicular weight loss" from it...what did you take from it?

It definitely didn't seem to say that increased travel means more accidents and more fatalities on our streets.

This logic is infallible because cars have been getting heavier and heavier until the first three months of this year when they got lighter and people started dying.

(The 7,xxx number did shock me though...thats a LOT of people)

Besides the fact that it was written LAST YEAR, it showed that fatalities went up during one quarter after a consistent 60-year decreasing trend.

"An NHTSA spokesman said, "It's too soon to speculate on the contributing factors or potential implications of any increase in deaths on our roadways." The increase follows a downward trend for the past several years."

Nowhere in the article was vehicle weight even mentioned.

[Fenderaddict2]

Originally Posted by GroundPilot

OK am I the only one NOT caught up in "drag this", "track that", HP, weight, etc. and instead sitting with a WTF look going "Smaller than it is today?".

Why the hell would I want a smaller car, almost 370Z size? Damn what is it with the Euro mindset lately...I do not WANT a smaller "muscle" car. Big, bad, beefy....please GM do not turn the Camaro into a Euro-wannabe to compete if that is the direction Ford is going.

Mustang was always Euro-inspired and never really a Muscle car. Just saying.

[Fenderaddict2]

Originally Posted by camaro-dreamer

A set of golf clubs routinely fits into the trunk of my mustang. I am not sure why you are having a problem.

The trunk is fine. I routinely pack for a family of 4, a weeks vacation worth of crap. I can also get my Fender guitars cases in there easier than I can in my friends Camaro. Bigger trunk? Nah just give us better access on both cars.

[Fenderaddict2]

Originally Posted by Number 3

...if it's 15 inches shorter and 6.5 inches narrower....................that's a tiny car. Seems more 1 series size now not 3 series.

Have to wait til January now, but I'm guessing that a 400 pound weight reduction comes from going down in size more than real light weight materials. And I would guess this includes going from a V6 base car to a 4 cylinder base car as well.

We shall see, but I think the Mustang is already small and has no trunk compared to the Camaro.

All GM has to do now is make an outstanding and usable Gen 6 and they destroy this rumored Mustang.

JMO

Wheel base is unchanged, so interior space shouldn't suffer. They dropped at least 6 inches off the front...I've seen the camo'd car up close. And if the rear is a hatch?!?!?

[72MachOne99GT]

Originally Posted by kevint

Besides the fact that it was written LAST YEAR, it showed that fatalities went up during one quarter after a consistent 60-year decreasing trend.

"An NHTSA spokesman said, "It's too soon to speculate on the contributing factors or potential implications of any increase in deaths on our roadways." The increase follows a downward trend for the past several years."

Nowhere in the article was vehicle weight even mentioned.

I thought the sarcasm was pretty clear... apparently not...

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Fenderaddict2

Wheel base is unchanged, so interior space shouldn't suffer. They dropped at least 6 inches off the front...I've seen the camo'd car up close. And if the rear is a hatch?!?!?

Is this a reported number or just your observation from having seen it?

It is really hard to get 6 inches off the front of a car. It seems easy but there are a lot of factors from packaging to managing crash energy that need every inch.

But that also means they took 10" off the back end. That will at the very least get you a much smaller trunk. Will be interesting to see if they can offer a spare tire and a decent size fuel tank.

If they've done all this and maintained all the current powertrain offerings and not impacted interior space they've done a hell of a job.

[kevint]

Originally Posted by 72MachOne99GT

I thought the sarcasm was pretty clear... apparently not...

nope, not at all

[big hammer]

Originally Posted by Stew

You may need to research. Depending on the models compared the Mustang is the better handler in V6 vs V6 and GT vs SS, where the Camaro arguably has Boss vs 1LE and GT500 vs ZL1. The non MRC 1LE handles arguably as well as the ZL1 and the non MRC Z28 will detroy it. MRC helps, bu it is not a magic bullet. It's real benefit is it's ability to offer stellar handling AND ride in the same package. And remember the Mustang is getting an independant rear and all the handling prowess it currently has is on an SRA. if you think they cannot challenge GM in handling, when they already are with a handling handicap, you may wan to rethink you Chevy colored views on the automotive world.........

doesn't the fe4 SS out handle the the gt? this isn't 2010 anymore.

[72MachOne99GT]

Originally Posted by kevint

nope, not at all

Oh, I see the sarcasm there though.

[AWSME SS]

I'd buy that for a dollar!

[Fenderaddict2]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Is this a reported number or just your observation from having seen it?

It is really hard to get 6 inches off the front of a car. It seems easy but there are a lot of factors from packaging to managing crash energy that need every inch.

But that also means they took 10" off the back end. That will at the very least get you a much smaller trunk. Will be interesting to see if they can offer a spare tire and a decent size fuel tank.

If they've done all this and maintained all the current powertrain offerings and not impacted interior space they've done a hell of a job.

Wheel base was from observation, as was the fact that the camo'd car had 6" of fake in front of the real headlights. Short her than current car but I can't say for sure the front is 6" shorter than the current car.

[Fenderaddict2]

Originally Posted by NVmyZL1

Didn't that car win the "Car of the Year" award when it was introduced? Sure, it gets a bad rap today, but it was pretty good when compared to other cars produced at the time.

And all the hot girls drove 'em. Works for me.

[2012 Mustang GT]

Originally Posted by GroundPilot

OK am I the only one NOT caught up in "drag this", "track that", HP, weight, etc. and instead sitting with a WTF look going "Smaller than it is today?".

Why the hell would I want a smaller car, almost 370Z size? Damn what is it with the Euro mindset lately...I do not WANT a smaller "muscle" car. Big, bad, beefy....please GM do not turn the Camaro into a Euro-wannabe to compete if that is the direction Ford is going.

It will put it around the size of the 94-98 car. Not that much smaller. 370Z size mustang has always had 4 seats. So it wont be that small. The GT will come in 3200-3300 lbs. The mules riding around look to be considerably shorter. And the GT is already 12.6-12.8 now. So 200lbs lighter and 30 more HP should get it close to the 12.2-12.4.
And all cars are going to have to do something to meet the looming EPA averages. Lighter weight and DI should up the MPG atleast 2-3 across the GT range.

[2012 Mustang GT]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Is this a reported number or just your observation from having seen it?

It is really hard to get 6 inches off the front of a car. It seems easy but there are a lot of factors from packaging to managing crash energy that need every inch.

But that also means they took 10" off the back end. That will at the very least get you a much smaller trunk. Will be interesting to see if they can offer a spare tire and a decent size fuel tank.

If they've done all this and maintained all the current powertrain offerings and not impacted interior space they've done a hell of a job.

Fuel tank on the mustang is in front of the rear axle. So shortening the rear overhang will not effect the gas tank. If you compare the camo mules to the current car. it is noticibly shorter.