talked to one of the 05s designers today............

Ok, so I got to see/sit in the 05 stang GT today at jordan ford here in san antonio. The car looks good, but lacks the muscular appearance and stance of the current body style. still looks awesome though , i think i still will be more partial to the 99+ stangs. I think the reason why is that the current body style is wider and more angular, giving it that aggresive look while the new stang appears to be more slender and longer

Heres the good part:
I talked to one of the designers of the 05 GTt...Larry Ericson to be exact......and asked him a few questions. Good news is that he told me the 05's are going to be close to a second faster than the current GT's hopefully, its true. guess we will really have to wait to find out.
I then asked him about the new cobra and he wouldnt give me a direct comment on the engine size. I told him i heard rumors that it was going to be a 5.7L s/c engine and all he said was that they are still working on the size of the motor. He said it will still be a 4V and also still be supercharged He then told me the new cobra will be "far above 400 hp.---His exact words by the way


I also have a GREAT vid of the exhaust of the 05 GT, but i need someone to host it....so if u can PM me or something



EDIT: forgot to add that while i was sitting in the 05, i shifted around a bit. The shifter feels soooo much better than the current ones. It is way way smoother and takes a crap load less effort to shift the gears. I could literally just tap the shifter and it would go into the next gear. shifter placement isnt tooo bad either not any worse than the current shifter location.

try to post it if ya can!

oh yea well i talked someone who works at ford he said it is crap , it isn't as aerodynamic as the 99+ one.

That's hard to believe, but very soon we'll read some magazine tests and maybe they can confirm this. You may a little too harsh prematurely. Time will tell. Either way, I don't think it'll have a negative effect on sales.

cmon i wanna see the vid

So you talked to "someone who works at ford" and they said the new Stang is crap? In another thread on Stangnet (http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=492740) you stated the following:

For some reason I'm not taking you too seriously...

Suggestion for forum rule: You are not allowed to post unless you are old enough to drive.

So what?

A '68 Hemi RoadRunner isn't as aerodynamic, but if you gave me a choice of having a '99 Stang or a '68 Hemi Roadrunner, guess which I'd take?

Aero isn't everything. Aerodynamics are what gave us all the boring cars we see on the road today. Gimme a car with some personality.

Then again, I sold my last Mustang when you were 1 year old. What do I know, I've only been driving 24 years.

troll

someone has to be able to host the vid!!!! any takers????

I'll host it on my web site. I'll have it up within an hour of you e-mailing it to me.

There was an interview, somewhere, with Hau Thai-Tang. He mentioned that even though the front end of the new Mustang, with the forward leaning hood edge, looks like it should be worse, their windtunnel testing showed the drag was actually quite low.

pffft... aerodynamics... you can only get so much style from that bland ass approach. Every car out there looks the same because of aerodynamics. I'm glad the new Stang doesn't fall into that pit.

Yeah, I agree... and it seems most car manufacturers are abandoning maximum aerodynamic efficiency in favor of some better styling cues as well.

So you're telling me I'll only be able to go 148 instead of 154? BFD.

When aerodynamics considerations are in order, one needs to consider the drag coefficient. The drag results from the wind resistance to the movement of the car. The coefficient directly depends on the geometry of the body and on the resulting surface boundary layer. The more edges there are, the more drag is encountered. In other words, a vehicle that is more rounded like the 99-04 mustang will encounter less wind resistance than a more square design like the 2005 mustang.

By optimizing the drag coefficient and therefore reducing it, the is a considerable fuel economy gain and power gains. Having a continuous boundary layer is much more favorable than one with discontinuities. In this area, the 99-04 body style is more efficient. Drag coefficient can be calculated using computer simulations or wind tunnel tests.

When's the last you heard any of the car magazines really discuss drag coefficient? Just for *****s and grins, I went to CarandDriver.com and searched for "drag coefficient". Do you know what the results were? A big fat ZERO! So I started researching a little more on the web. Guess what I found? The Chrysler 300C (a rather blocky car) has a drag coefficient of 0.35. So I searched for info on the 2004 Mustang. I found a best drag coefficient of 0.33 and a worst of 0.36! How much you want to bet the '05 Mustang isn't any worse than 0.36? With todays computer aided design, they're able to create aerodynamic designs that don't look like melted jellybeans.

Sorry but I don't expect any conventional car magazine to discuss information about drag coefficients. It is a good that you did the research and found out what it is about . I posted the reply to give people a little background in the engineering of the body. I am not trying to put down the '05 Mustang but am simply doing a scientific comparision.

You do not want to tell me that the drag coefficient on the 300C is equal or lower than that of the 99-04 Mustangs.

How can you say that? The 300C has very few edges and the front is nearly rounded in every direction, kinda like a hemi-sphere... The 99-04 Mustangs have fake ducts and vents that break up the air flow and cause disruptions in the boundary layer. The difference in drag at 60mph with coeffecients of 0.30 and 0.35 is 14lbs... 14lbs difference for 3000+lbs... Rolling resistance of the wheels will make a bigger difference than areodynamics at "consumer" speeds. You're only going to see a notable difference at 100+mph. And that's a 0.05 difference in the drag coefficient. Most cars fall in that 0.33 to 0.36 range stated above. We're talking the difference between 154 and 155mph here.

(You're not just learning about this stuff are you?)