backtop


Print 105 comment(s) - last by wallijonn.. on Aug 16 at 6:57 PM

Ford's pony car to go on a massive diet according to a new report

Ford's iconic Mustang is due for a major redesign next year, which should give it some momentum against the Chevrolet Camaro, which has been outselling it in recent years (to be fair, the Mustang has clawed back in recent months). The new Mustang is supposed to gain a few new engines and an independent rear suspension.
 
However, a new report from Edmunds suggests that the new Mustang is also supposed to lose a lot as well -- namely a few hundred pounds from its curb weight. According to sources familiar with the 2015 Mustang, the vehicle will be a minimum of 400 pounds lighter than the current model.
 
Ford hopes to achieve this astonishing weight loss partially by trimming down the dimensions of the pony car. "The big thing is that it will be a 'smarter' size," said Edmunds' source for the 2015 Mustang information. The vehicle will feature shorter front and rear overhangs, trimming just over a foot off the overall length. The new Mustang is also reported to be about 6.5 inches narrower.


Computer rendering of a possible design direction for the 2015 Mustang
 
"They are going to use more aluminum, better structural engineering in terms of spot welds and so on and so forth, basically using less material and making it stronger," added the source.
 
A 2014 Mustang with 3.7-liter V6 engine and a 6-speed manual transmission weighs 3,501 pounds and is rated at 19/29 mpg (city/highway). Opting for the automatic transmission boosts the EPA rating to 19/31 (city/highway).
 
We previously reported that the 2015 Mustang is set to get a 2.3-liter EcoBoost four-cylinder engine producing close to 300hp. There are also rumors that an EcoBoost V6 engine will join the existing 5.0-liter V8 engine in the lineup. All of the new engine options will be optimized to improve fuel economy in response to government CAFE mandates.


2015 Mustang test mule
 
The Mustang, however, isn't the only upcoming Ford model set to go on a serious diet. The best-selling F-150 could see a weight reduction of up to 700 pounds due to a greater use of aluminum and high-strength steel.

Source: Edmunds



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Reclaimer77 on 8/14/2013 3:03:37 PM , Rating: 2
Efficiency has been greatly improved, what are you talking about? The same displacement engine today gets much better fuel economy, AND a higher power output, than just years ago.

Measuring efficiency in JUST miles per gallon is a fools game.

Now thanks to the Government, moving backwards is viewed as a good direction to dumb Liberals like yourself. Cars will be smaller, less safe, and make less power. All in the name of fuel economy. More importantly, they'll get dramatically more expensive as manufacturers are forced to use exotic materials and technologies.

Let the consumers choose which cars get made, not Washington.

Your smaller more fuel efficient car has been available in one form or another. Stop telling us what the rest of us need to drive.


By Jeffk464 on 8/14/2013 4:05:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Cars will be smaller, less safe


Using your argument its safer to crash in a 747 then a Cessna because the 747 is bigger.


By Voldenuit on 8/14/2013 4:24:42 PM , Rating: 2
It is much safer to fly in a modern airliner (4 deaths per million flight hours average) than a light aircraft (22 deaths per million flight hours).

Source: http://planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm

It is also safer to crash in a modern airliner because modern airliners have more sophisticated crash structures (seat rails rated for 27G, engine nacelles designed to break away on crash to avoid igniting fuel tanks, etc) than light aircraft.

However, I don't think the plane analogy is applicable to cars, because light plane vs heavy plane is a difference of kind, whereas light car vs heavy car is usually a difference of degree.


By Reclaimer77 on 8/14/2013 6:07:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, I don't think the plane analogy is applicable to cars, because light plane vs heavy plane is a difference of kind, whereas light car vs heavy car is usually a difference of degree.


Also because we're discussing a smaller car colliding with a heavier one. Plane crashes usually involve the plane hitting the ground. So I agree, bad analogy, and a wrong one to boot.

p.s. pretty cool we both used the same linked source lol


By Reclaimer77 on 8/14/2013 5:31:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Using your argument its safer to crash in a 747 then a Cessna because the 747 is bigger.


?????

Did you actually research that one before you spoke? Because, yes, you have FAR more of a chance surviving a crash in a 747 than a Cessna.

Most people in passenger liners survive the crash. The leading cause of death is smoke inhalation. A third of all deaths are from smoke inhalation, NOT the crash itself.

http://planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm

Notice your Cessna, a general aviation craft, has orders of magnitudes more fatalities than a passenger liner.

I don't know if they just don't teach physics anymore in school or what. But why does this discussion keep happening? I'm sorry this doesn't jive with your political ideology, but all safety equipment being equal, a larger vehicle is inherently more safe for the passengers of that vehicle. And it's a simple matter of physics to understand why, if you people would just apply yourselves.


By Jeffk464 on 8/15/2013 12:06:57 PM , Rating: 2
The roads would be more safe if everyone drove mid sized sedans that were well designed for crash tests. What happens when your chevy suburban collides with another suburban. Sorry two accords crashing is a safer bet.


By Argon18 on 8/14/2013 5:12:36 PM , Rating: 1
A very good point. Engine efficiency is way WAY up from even just a decade or two ago.

Automakers are all using that newfound efficiency however, to enable them to create large heavy vehicles with many hundreds of horsepower, while still getting the same MPG as before. In other words, they are keeping MPG the same, in order to give the consumer a larger and faster vehicle.

If instead, they reduced size and power, and used the efficiency to deliver superior MPG, they could create some really fuel efficient stuff.

In Europe for example, 50 MPG is blah, while 50 mpg is nearly unattainable in the US. The most efficient cars in Europe have been hitting 80+ MPG for the past decade or so. Nothing is available in the US at that fuel economy level. Small turbo-diesel engines are doing amazing things in Europe, while they're completely unavailable here (outside of a paltry few VW models).

Even the Big-3 sell some amazing small turbo-diesels in Europe, but they refuse to bring them here. Why? Profit margin. It's more profitable for them to sell us low-tech vehicles. Solid axles, leaf spring suspensions, bland V6 gasoline engines, etc.


By Reclaimer77 on 8/14/2013 5:45:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Automakers are all using that newfound efficiency however, to enable them to create large heavy vehicles with many hundreds of horsepower, while still getting the same MPG as before. In other words, they are keeping MPG the same, in order to give the consumer a larger and faster vehicle.


That's not really true though. Power AND economy have both increased on average.

quote:
If instead, they reduced size and power, and used the efficiency to deliver superior MPG, they could create some really fuel efficient stuff.


It's not really that simple. Especially when the consumers WANT the size and power over superior MPG. Why shouldn't they make the vehicles that people want to buy? That's sort of an important goal in any business don't you think?

Remember the GM offshoot GEO? They got GREAT mileage! But waning interest in small stripped down econo-buckets doomed the brand.

The truth is when it comes down to it, people are willing to pay more in gas for a much nicer, roomier, and powerful vehicle. There's mountains of consumer buying data to prove this point.

You're saying we should just abandon that, and force the manufacturers to make vehicles that people don't want to buy. All in the name of fuel economy, just because.

quote:
Even the Big-3 sell some amazing small turbo-diesels in Europe, but they refuse to bring them here. Why? Profit margin.


Wrong. I wish you would stop making stuff up.

They CAN'T bring them here because the EPA's mandates make it nearly impossible to bring small turbo-diesels to the market. We have the most strict emissions standards of any nation.

Not only do those "80+ MPG" European models fail our safety and crash test regulations, but they don't meet our emissions standards either.

Also a European gallon isn't a US gallon. There's no way to have an all-engine 80+ MPG vehicle using US gallons, it's impossible. And in Europe diesel fuel is MUCH cheaper, and in the US it's MUCH more expensive than petrol.


By Spuke on 8/14/2013 5:54:51 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
In Europe for example, 50 MPG is blah, while 50 mpg is nearly unattainable in the US.
You know I've seen you post here before so you should really know better than to compare these two. Not only is the unit of measurement different, the testing methods are different too. 50 mpg in the EU is NOT the same as 50 mpg here. You cannot compare the two.


By wallijonn on 8/16/2013 6:57:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Let the consumers choose which cars get made, not Washington.


Marketing sways consumer's minds. It's also why they don't have disposable income - they're too busy texting, watching movies, playing games and listening to music on their cell phones. The average bill for people who package phone-internet-cable/dish is about $275 a month. That's almost the car payment.


“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki