2015 Mustang pics -- apparently the real deal

RodneyWright · **Posted:** Wed Dec 04, 2013 11:14 pm

so here you go.... more "official" stuff from the 6th gen mustang website...

http://www.mustang6g.com/

supposed to be a video w/ this, but I can't get it to play.

Arthur McDonald · **Joined:** Fri Aug 29, 2003 1:54 am **Posts:** 2052

Les Davis wrote:

Ryan Holton wrote:

Arthur McDonald wrote:

I'm ashamed that I did not pick up on this for a good 10 hours.

http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php?t=969

I understand that the official unveiling (USA) will be on Good Morning America tomorrow (Thursday), but apparently someone got hold of a copy of the Dec 9 issue of Autoweek and started snapping pics with his cell phone.

So, what color will yours be Art?

Art buys every other generation of Mustang, not every generation. He'll be new Mustang shopping in 2020.

Well, if you count 79-93 as the same generation, 94-04 as the same generation, and 05-14 as the same generation... you are right. I've had two Fox-bodies (81 notch and 90 hatch) and a 2007. But from what I've seen, I won't be in a big rush to buy the new one. It just doesn't look enough like the red Mustang GT 2+2 that burned itself into my five year brain at the Chip's drive-in that evening in 1965.

I think it looks like a Fusion coupe. Or maybe a Probe II. Or maybe a Mustang G50.

I read somewhere that it lost 200 lbs compared to the 2014, so that's good. Supposed to have aluminum front fenders.

DickRasmussen · **Posted:** Thu Dec 05, 2013 12:14 am

RodneyWright wrote:

so here you go.... more "official" stuff from the 6th gen mustang website...

http://www.mustang6g.com/

supposed to be a video w/ this, but I can't get it to play.

Video played for me. You didn't miss anything unless you want to listen to a WSJ reporter talks design goals. Don't know if his comments are repeating Ford statements or his own opinion.

I'm on my 3rd and 5th Mustangs. All V-8's, all some version of red.

1969 - Sold
1988 - Sold
1997 - Own
2001 - Sold
2012 - Own

Chuck Branscomb · **Posted:** Thu Dec 05, 2013 8:34 am

Steven Carter wrote:

Still can't get rid of visions of the Mustang II when I hear "Mustang" and "4cylinder engine" in the same breath. That said, it's great looking, lighter than prior generation and features a real rear suspension. What's not to like?

Why they don't put that Ecoboost drivetrain in a light convertible sportscar still has me baffled. Maybe they think it will steal Mustang sales?

Wait. How old were you when the '74 Mustang II debuted in the fall of 1973?

What was FAR more sickening about the Mustang II was the 302 V8 with something like 140HP...a sick, strangled, wheezing, unidentifiable V8.

That whole period was the dark ages of automotive "engineering", and getting my permit in 1974 was depressing to a car nut. Of course there were Shelby Mustangs from the 60s available for $2500 at the time since nobody wanted a car that required "leaded gas" and got 10mpg. Perhaps that was the "good" from that era that few recognized at the time.

What I thought of with 4cyl and Mustang was the 1985 SVO with the turbo 4. Ford's attempt to create a lighter, better handling car with enough power to satisfy most. Not that it worked of course, but it was interesting at the time...TRX tires and all.

Richard has it right by the way. 914. One of the most fun and unappreciated (until just recently) cars, at least in 6cyl or '73 2.0 form. :thumbsup:

RodneyWright · **Posted:** Thu Dec 05, 2013 9:18 am

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/car ... s/3820457/

Nice write up. One dismaying fact is they are stating they are lowering the roof line by 1-1/2". I guess that makes this car unavailable for me for any kind of track related stuff. I do like what they did w/ the hidden B pillar. Guess I'll have to wait until the big 50th anniversary show in Charlotte to see this in person. Car is supposed to be for sale late '14.

Steven Carter · **Posted:** Thu Dec 05, 2013 9:45 am

RodneyWright wrote:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/12/04/ford-mustang-2015-styling-chassis-engines/3820457/

Nice write up. One dismaying fact is they are stating they are lowering the roof line by 1-1/2". I guess that makes this car unavailable for me for any kind of track related stuff.

but this:
"Taking advantage of the 2015's new chassis, designers were able to lower the roof 1.5 inches, the hood 1.3 inches and the dashboard about 2.8 inches."

Almost seems like the whole orientation is shifted lower, (contrary to industry trends in Richard's link) so maybe seating position is lowered also. Don't give up so easily!

DickRasmussen · **Posted:** Thu Dec 05, 2013 9:48 am

RodneyWright wrote:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/12/04/ford-mustang-2015-styling-chassis-engines/3820457/

Nice write up. One dismaying fact is they are stating they are lowering the roof line by 1-1/2". I guess that makes this car unavailable for me for any kind of track related stuff. I do like what they did w/ the hidden B pillar. Guess I'll have to wait until the big 50th anniversary show in Charlotte to see this in person. Car is supposed to be for sale late '14.

Rodney,

Specs in the downloads area of this link. https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedi ... stang.html

Headroom is down 0.9 inch but leg room is increased comparing to the specs I have for the 2011's.

I was hoping the car would be shorter and maybe narrower. Nope. No weight info in the specs but haven't read the various other downloads yet.

Pics and "fluff" here also. It appears that cars will be available in late 2014 (fastback and convertible per the "footnotes") but maybe just convertible.

http://www.ford.com/

Forgot to mention. The new design looks great! Especially in red. :sing:

Chuck Branscomb · **Posted:** Thu Dec 05, 2013 9:53 am

Let's hope they take the cue from GM on their IRS design and use half-shafts with differing torsional rigidity (by the proper, designed amounts) to eliminate IRS axle-hop and the subsequent lack of traction coupled with drivetrain/chassis destroying forces. BTW, has anyone spun them hard on the newest CTS-V or the 2014 Vette?

RodneyWright · **Posted:** Thu Dec 05, 2013 10:05 am

DickRasmussen wrote:

Rodney,

Specs in the downloads area of this link. https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedi ... stang.html

Headroom is down 0.9 inch but leg room is increased comparing to the specs I have for the 2011's.

I was hoping the car would be shorter and maybe narrower. Nope. No weight info in the specs but haven't read the various other downloads yet.

Pics and "fluff" here also. It appears that cars will be available in late 2014 (fastback and convertible per the "footnotes") but maybe just convertible.

http://www.ford.com/

Forgot to mention. The new design looks great! Especially in red. :sing:

If the .9" is indeed fact in regard to head room, that's a killer for me. Right now in the '08, there is ~1/4" of space between the helmet and headliner. An inch of difference in the wrong direction would make this a no buy option from an autox standpoint. Now, as a daily driver, it would be ok. It's interesting, right now I have issue w/ setting the seat just right in a e46 2 door car and my head "just" rubs. I can't even fit into a new camaro w/ a sunroof. Same w/ the Chrysler crossfire, can't fit into the car.

So many nice cars out there that don't have my name on them....

Steven Carter · **Posted:** Thu Dec 05, 2013 10:26 am

That's a bummer Rodney... :thumbsdown:

OTOH, running all engines on 87 octane is a big winner. They even say the 11:1 CR V8 can be run on 87---cylinder head design has come a long way.

Ryan Holton · **Posted:** Thu Dec 05, 2013 11:08 am

F/R Suspension

http://www.autoblog.com/photos/2015-for ... to-1912913

DickRasmussen · **Posted:** Thu Dec 05, 2013 11:27 am

Chuck Branscomb wrote:

Let's hope they take the cue from GM on their IRS design and use half-shafts with differing torsional rigidity (by the proper, designed amounts) to eliminate IRS axle-hop and the subsequent lack of traction coupled with drivetrain/chassis destroying forces. BTW, has anyone spun them hard on the newest CTS-V or the 2014 Vette?

Some heavy duty info in this thread.

http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php?t=843

Especially post 14.

Quote:
Less wheel hop than the traditional SLA IRS because the vertical movement is controlled/limited with the I Link. It will take far less shock/spring energy to damper than violent rattle. Solid Axles could easily compensate with stiffer spring/shock and larger/lighter control arms. However, if one tire started hopping for whatever reason, the other side would start to hop too. Both wheels are in direct relation... One goes up violently, the other goes down just as violently... On basically two rubber balls filled with air mind you.

It may be a cheaper IRS system and a lightweight design as well... Durability is compensated in the Integral Link somewhat. It does indeed absorb the fore/aft and lateral torque the wheel is subjected to BUT, the issue with IRS is usually the half shafts and U joints those shafts use. That is the issue with IRS an drag racing now... Before, the wheel hop was hard to tune out AND, half-shafts were weak and sometimes smaller because of packaging restrictions on SLA IRS setups. Most SLA IRS is forced to use a coilover to provide some room for a half-shaft which reduces maximum rear wheel sizes and interior space. Overall weight of the unit keeps half-shafts small too... The small links the ILIRS uses allows some pretty big half shafts. No Control Blades, Trailing Arms or Large Sub-Frame allows for a more direct exhaust system too.

I imagine Steeda and Roush will have some serious half-shafts available almost immediately. They get the specs, and in some cases, look over the shoulder of Ford while new systems are being tested. The Ford Mustang commands an $8 billion dollar a year after market, this is where most IRS systems get little or no support for other vehicles unless they are high end tuners. Just as there are super high strength drive shafts a plenty for the S197, those companies will offer half-shafts very soon.

More fascinating engineering geek info here too:
http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php?t=842

RodneyWright · **Posted:** Thu Dec 05, 2013 11:30 am

and more info....

http://www.autoblog.com/2013/12/05/2015 ... utoblog%29

DickRasmussen · **Posted:** Thu Dec 05, 2013 11:41 am

Rodney,

Any chance the the seating position options, hood height, etc. might allow enough seat back angle to solve the helmet clearance problem?

Reclined seat angle works in formula cars. :lol:

Dick
More concerned with being able to get the seat high enough to see over the hood. :wink:

RodneyWright · **Posted:** Thu Dec 05, 2013 12:55 pm

DickRasmussen wrote:

Rodney,

Any chance the the seating position options, hood height, etc. might allow enough seat back angle to solve the helmet clearance problem?

Reclined seat angle works in formula cars. :lol:

Dick
More concerned with being able to get the seat high enough to see over the hood. :wink:

Right now I don't think I'm putting too much stock into the fact I may buy one of these. This will be the hot car next year and no deals will be had. In regard to the reclining seats, I played that game in the 328 and wasn't happy w/ the seating position, but I put up w/ it.

Like I said, resolving this potential seating issue is years away....

THSCC Forums

2015 Mustang pics -- apparently the real deal

Who is online