The 7th Gen Mustang S650 Has Officially Landed!!

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

The problem @ZDan and @IRace.2.0 is that there is not near enough buyers to support these back to basic lightweight cars you pine for in your posts. If they built an exact modern replica of these cars (and I mean down to the weight and austerity of the interior) they would never sell in volume to support their development.

I don't hear anyone pining for an exact modern replica or "austerity". For sure they *could* have made the car smaller and lighter-weight, and I bet there would be plenty of demand for that. They might lose some of the market at the opposite end who want a bigger car with big power, but they'd gain some at our end of the market who want a smaller/lighter-weight car, with decent power/weight.

I mean, at the size/weight of the current Camaro/Mustang (nevermind the obscenely heavy Challenger) I'm not even interested, at all. And I'm a fan of pony cars of yore, and I even owned a '95 Z28 in the mid-'00s.

[spcmafia]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

The problem @ZDan and @IRace.2.0 is that there is not near enough buyers to support these back to basic lightweight cars you pine for in your posts. If they built an exact modern replica of these cars (and I mean down to the weight and austerity of the interior) they would never sell in volume to support their development.

Not only that, but they would never pass safety standards, which inherently would only attract a certain group of buyers. Which is another reason why modern vehicles have become much bigger and heavier.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by spcmafia

Not only that, but they would never pass safety standards, which inherently would only attract a certain group of buyers. Which is another reason why modern vehicles have become much bigger and heavier.

And those smaller, lighter 60s cars were complete and total shit compared to the slightly larger and heavier versions (people are splitting hairs over a couple of hundred pounds).
People love to say "they don't make them like they used to" but there is a good reason for that.
I would really enjoy the screams if people's Twins rotted through in 3 years and was pretty much done in 5 like the majority of the 60s cars did. Everybody can be as nostalgic as they want those car were light because they were made CHEAP.

[spcmafia]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

And those smaller, lighter 60s cars were complete and total shit compared to the slightly larger and heavier versions (people are splitting hairs over a couple of hundred pounds).
People love to say "they don't make them like they used to" but there is a good reason for that.
I would really enjoy the screams if people's Twins rotted through in 3 years and was pretty much done in 5 like the majority of the 60s cars did. Everybody can be as nostalgic as they want those car were light because they were made CHEAP.

Funny side note, say this vehicle would be sold in Honduras, or Mexico, I believe, but at least in Honduras, a lot of the safety equipment, which makes vehicles heavier and what not, is an optional add on. Yes. You can opt out airbags and other things. Shave a couple Lbs.
Did I say ABS too, yep, you can drive a sort of first gen Viper in Latin-American countries. For a true driver and vehicle fused as one experience.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by ZDan

I don't hear anyone pining for an exact modern replica or "austerity".

My point was that is basically what you would have to do to match the size and weight of these cars. You can't add all the modern "necessities" including safety and convenience features either mandated by the government or the buying public and keep the cars low weight, small and practical.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

And those smaller, lighter 60s cars were complete and total shit compared to the slightly larger and heavier versions (people are splitting hairs over a couple of hundred pounds).

It occurred to me they were also all usable 4 seaters, again because of the stuff that was "left out".

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

It occurred to me they were also all usable 4 seaters, again because of the stuff that was "left out".

Well how usable the back seat of a first gen Mustang were is debatable. Especially when the 34 year old car had no floor left back there!

People that are young enough that their only exposure to those cars are restored top trim have no idea just how bad the regular models were.
I grew up with the damn things.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

My point was that is basically what you would have to do to match the size and weight of these cars. You can't add all the modern "necessities" including safety and convenience features either mandated by the government or the buying public and keep the cars low weight, small and practical.

Put it this way: In 1989, a 240SX, which is pretty much *exactly* a late-80s FT86 with all that implies (way chintzier interior, way wobblier chassis, WAY WAY less powerful and slower), weighed 2800 lb. And a Mustang 5.0 weighed 3200 lb.

Fast-forward to now, and the modern version of the S13 240SX, our beloved FT86, weighs 2840 lb., 40 lb. more than the '89 240SX. While having a much nicer interior, WAY more performance, with all modern "necessitities", safety and convenience features whether mandated by government or the buying public. And the 2022 Mustang GT weighs 3850 lb., 650 lb. more than the '89 5.0.

If Toyobaru could build a modern S13 meeting customer and gov't demands at 2840 lb, Ford could build a modern version of an '89 5.0 at <3300 lb. If they wanted to. Obviously they are quite happy keeping the car close to what it has been since 2005, which is a much bigger and heavier car relative to its era. It wasn't a priority for them to make it smaller and lighter-weight relative to other cars as the 5.0 was in 1989.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

People that are young enough that their only exposure to those cars are restored top trim have no idea just how bad the regular models were. I grew up with the damn things.

Absolutely. I did my own share of keeping my feet on the seat in the rain so they didn't get splashed from underneath.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Yup. They were small cars in the context of the era. The 64-66 V8 Mustang was 2800-2900 lb. when most cars were 3500-4000+ lb.

It ballooned up in size/weight from ~1967 up to 1973 when they weighed as much as 3500 lb., vs. most cars still being in the 3500-4000+ range.

Then the Pinto Mustang came out and was quite a bit lighter, versus 70s American cars that were still mostly a lot bigger and heavier. Fox-body came out in late 70s and was reasonably light at ~2800 lb. for v8 models. Bulked up a bit to early 90s V8s at ~3200 lb. Mid-90s through 2004 mod-motor V8 Mustangs were ~3300 lb (IRS Cobras were heavier, supercharged Cobras heavier still).

Then the big 2005 "retro" came out at 3500 lb. And weight has piled on from there up to 3850 lb. for current-gen V8s.

Modern pony cars are definitely no longer on a "compact" chassis... The cars are pretty big and heavy relative to compact cars of today. A modern analog to the 1964 Mustang would be something like the FT86, perhaps with a longer hood and wheels further forward to house a V8, which could weigh ~3000-3200 lb.

??? It's a WHOLE LOT different from "other compact American sedans" (which by the way pretty much don't exist any more thanks to asinine CAFE breaks for stupidly oversized/overweight vehicles). I mean, TOTALLY different from the Focus. Also, at 3850 lb., a LOT heavier...

And I think a modern Mustang in keeping with the 1964 ethos, could easily be a 3000-3200 lb. car. Again, something like a V8 FT86.

Anyway, Mustang weights have fluctuated hugely over the car's history, at times it has been a reasonably lightweight "pony" car weighing *significantly* less than "normal" midsize sedans of the same era, and at others a much bigger/heavier muscle car that weighs more than "normal" midsize sedans.

I think you may have glazed over my post without reading or considering what I said. The original Mustang was build off the Falcon, a compact sedan. Compacts were new/few from pre-60’s like the Covair and VW Bug, but it was basically a reskinned Falcon. It would be equivalent to the Mustang being build off the Focus sedan, which has a similar wheelbase and dimensions. The difference is that compact sedans have gotten smaller compared to the past relative to the current times. This is because the compacts have ditched RWD, smaller, six and eight cylinders for transverse four cylinders. The Falcon was more akin to an economy BMW 3 series, where the BMW 2 series is sub-compact and the 3 series is compact, and the BMW weights aren’t far off from the Mustang. Again, the Mustang was small for its time because it was a compact, and in many ways, it still is a compact, smaller in wheelbase than most midsized sedans, which is also why I distinguished it from the Charger/Challenger platform, which necessarily was built off the larger RWD platform Dodge had with the Chrylser 300. The Camaro shares the platform for midsized luxury cars like the Z because compacts are all FWD, necessitating the shared platform with larger RWDs.

Like the Z transitioning to the ZX to inject some premium features into the car, the Mustang has moved and expanded up market at different points in its history based on the trends. Pony cars have gotten bigger because economy compacts have gone FWD. A Focus ST hatch is 3,223 lbs. The sedan is little heavier. The Focus RS is 3,434 vs a Mustang Ecoboost at 3,532, so a few inches extra wheelbase to fit the inline engine. I can’t see putting a RWD V8 into a Focus and getting to 3,200 lbs without doing a lot to the Focus and omitting adaptive dampers and bigger brakes or whatever else makes the Mustang GT more premium over a base Ecoboost or Focus.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I think you may have glazed over my post without reading or considering what I said. The original Mustang was build off the Falcon, a compact sedan. Compacts were new/few from pre-60’s like the Covair and VW Bug, but it was basically a reskinned Falcon.

That the original Mustang was built on the Falcon platform is is not news to me. But it is not *relevant* to discussion of the current car, which AFAIK doesn't share a platform with anything? I.e. it could have been whatever size they wanted. They chose to make it big. Could be related to the fact that the initial development of the 2005 "new retro" car was done assuming it would be a shared platform with a Lincoln Sedan (the discontinued LS series IIRC).

Quick search suggests there could be a "Mustang sedan" so perhaps it does...
Actually my main gripe with the "Mach E" is that IMO it'd be about a perfect modern station wagon as a stretched 5-door Mustang and not some tall pseudo-SUV!

The Camaro shares the platform for midsized luxury cars like the Z because compacts are all FWD, necessitating the shared platform with larger RWDs.

Yeah, so those cars have a bit of an excuse... Worth noting the Camaro V8 undercuts the Mustang by 100 lb., still overweight for a "Camaro" imo but less so.

Like the Z transitioning to the ZX to inject some premium features into the car, the Mustang has moved and expanded up market at different points in its history based on the trends.

Side note: When the S130 280ZX came out in 1979 at 2750 lb. it actually weighed slightly *less* than the outgoing S30 280Z at 2800 lb.
It did *look* heavier though, despite being the same size. The styling was kinda not as clean and it looked less like a sports car and more like a disco boulevardier... Also they f'd up the rear suspension design going from the Z's Chapman struts to semi-trailing-arms.

The real ZX weight gain came with the gorgeous-but-heavy Z32 300ZX. 3300-3400ish lb. for NA, 3500+ for the turbo :'(
350Z and 370Z have been 3300ish lb but now the new one is 3500+

I can’t see putting a RWD V8 into a Focus and getting to 3,200 lbs without doing a lot to the Focus and omitting adaptive dampers and bigger brakes or whatever else makes the Mustang GT more premium over a base Ecoboost or Focus.

Obviously you wouldn't want to create a rear-drive Mustang starting with an overweight fwd car with entirely incorrect proportions...

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Put it this way: In 1989, a 240SX, which is pretty much *exactly* a late-80s FT86 with all that implies (way chintzier interior, way wobblier chassis, WAY WAY less powerful and slower), weighed 2800 lb. And a Mustang 5.0 weighed 3200 lb.


If Toyobaru could build a modern S13 meeting customer and gov't demands at 2840 lb, Ford could build a modern version of an '89 5.0 at <3300 lb. If they wanted to. Obviously they are quite happy keeping the car close to what it has been since 2005, which is a much bigger and heavier car relative to its era. It wasn't a priority for them to make it smaller and lighter-weight relative to other cars as the 5.0 was in 1989.

Lotus could barely keep the Evora under 3,200 lbs with a supercharged V6 and micro 2+2 interior. You think Ford could do it with a V8 in a RWD configuration, while accommodating the full lineup from the Ecoboost to the Cobra, while having a chassis, suspension and brakes capable of the torque and forces? The GT has 420tq, which is almost three times that of the 86 and requires the 86 to make an overhaul in size in almost every dimension. It isn’t like the engine bay of the Mustang has a ton of space to contract.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by ZDan

That the original Mustang was built on the Falcon platform is is not news to me. But it is not *relevant* to discussion of the current car, which AFAIK doesn't share a platform with anything? I.e. it could have been whatever size they wanted. They chose to make it big. Could be related to the fact that the initial development of the 2005 "new retro" car was done assuming it would be a shared platform with a Lincoln Sedan (the discontinued LS series IIRC).

Quick search suggests there could be a "Mustang sedan" so perhaps it does...
Actually my main gripe with the "Mach E" is that IMO it'd be about a perfect modern station wagon as a stretched 5-door Mustang and not some tall pseudo-SUV!

Yeah, so those cars have a bit of an excuse... Worth noting the Camaro V8 undercuts the Mustang by 100 lb., still overweight for a "Camaro" imo but less so.


Side note: When the S130 280ZX came out in 1979 at 2750 lb. it actually weighed slightly *less* than the outgoing S30 280Z at 2800 lb.
It did *look* heavier though, despite being the same size. The styling was kinda not as clean and it looked less like a sports car and more like a disco boulevardier... Also the f'd up the rear suspension design going from the Z's Chapman struts to semi-trailing-arms.

The real ZX weight gain came with the gorgeous-but-heavy Z32 300ZX. 3300-3400ish lb. for NA, 3500+ for the turbo :'(
350Z and 370Z have been 3300ish lb but now the new one is 3500+


Obviously you wouldn't want to create a rear-drive Mustang starting with an overweight fwd car with entirely incorrect proportions...

The current Mustang is built on a compact car chassis with similar dimensions to modern compacts of RWD platforms just like in the past. They couldn’t realistically make a 86 sized Mustang. The hood would be higher. The engine bay would need to be wider. The transmission would need to handle three times the torque just in the GT. The driveshaft, rear axles, suspension and everything would need to be beefier to handle the increased torque and subsequent increased weight of the drivetrain. The 86 is a tin, hollow box using bare bones components with a fairly weak powertrain to maintain lightness. I don’t think the ethos of the Mustang was ever inline with the 86 ethos or that of a Lotus. It was light because it was a car of the times only.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Lotus could barely keep the Evora under 3,200 lbs with a supercharged V6 and micro 2+2 interior. You think Ford could do it with a V8 in a RWD configuration, while accommodating the full lineup from the Ecoboost to the Cobra, while having a chassis, suspension and brakes capable of the torque and forces?

I said they could have built a modern version of the Mustang at <3300 lb., I'll stick by that. The structure required to react torque from the driveline isn't as great as what's required to give the car a reasonably highish stiffness against road loads and natural frequency.

The GT has 420tq, which is almost three times that of the 86 and requires the 86 to make an overhaul in size in almost every dimension. It isn’t like the engine bay of the Mustang has a ton of space to contract.

Coyote might actually be narrower than the flat-4 FA, could be mounted further aft as the V-engine provides clearance for steering shaft, and also with the crankshaft a lot lower. Not saying it will fit in the existing engine bay, but it wouldn't necessarily have to make the engine bay much if any wider, and perhaps a bit longer with front wheels shoved forward a couple/few inches for weight distribution.
But lo, it looks like it *does* fit in the FT86:
https://www.drivingline.com/articles...v8-scion-fr-s/




Do I think Ford could make essentially a +460 lb. heavier V8 FT86 if they wanted to? Honestly I don't think they'd have any problem doing that.