AutoWeek Article

[shatner saves]

Has anyone seen this?
http://www.autoweek.com/search/sear...56&Search_Type=STD&Search_ID=1877845&record=1

Some info I haven't seen before:

"The rear axle ratio is a more aggressive 3.55:1 for harder acceleration. Ford says the car should sprint to 60 mph in 5.5 seconds, with the V6 model hitting 60 mph in around seven seconds."

Has ford even hinted at the 0-60 time before now?

"This new car is 31 percent stiffer than the outgoing Mustang. Engineers claim a twisting force of 15,000 lb-ft would only deform the body by one degree. Thai-Tang says a typical coupe figure is in the 12,000-to-14,000-lb-ft range. “That’s [15,000-lb-ft figure] pretty much world-class,” he says. “To lengthen the wheelbase and still get 15,000 lb-ft is a big feat for us.”"

This is right from the horses mouth. 15000 lb-ft/degree equals 20340 Nm/degree. The current BMW 3 series chassis is in the 12000 to 13000 Nm/degree range for the coupe.

*sweet*

"Mustang GT’s top speed will be electronically limited to 145 mph"

Is this news to anyone?

 

[kirkyg]

Has anyone seen this?
http://www.autoweek.com/search/sear...56&Search_Type=STD&Search_ID=1877845&record=1

Some info I haven't seen before:

"The rear axle ratio is a more aggressive 3.55:1 for harder acceleration. Ford says the car should sprint to 60 mph in 5.5 seconds, with the V6 model hitting 60 mph in around seven seconds."

Has ford even hinted at the 0-60 time before now?

"This new car is 31 percent stiffer than the outgoing Mustang. Engineers claim a twisting force of 15,000 lb-ft would only deform the body by one degree. Thai-Tang says a typical coupe figure is in the 12,000-to-14,000-lb-ft range. “That’s [15,000-lb-ft figure] pretty much world-class,” he says. “To lengthen the wheelbase and still get 15,000 lb-ft is a big feat for us.”"

This is right from the horses mouth. 15000 lb-ft/degree equals 20340 Nm/degree. The current BMW 3 series chassis is in the 12000 to 13000 Nm/degree range for the coupe.

*sweet*

"Mustang GT’s top speed will be electronically limited to 145 mph"

Is this news to anyone?

Thats sweet. Ford was very smart to go the quality route on their vehicles. I know toyota took 2nd for top automakers...but only because they have a monopoly in japan and allow no us vehicles to be imported. I look for ford to take back number 2 in the next 2 years while taking a nice market share from both GM and toyota.

kirkyg

 

[351CJ]

Thanks for the info Shatner. I should have gotten my Autoweek yesterday, but there was no mail. I wonder if someone ripped off all my mail to lift my Autoweek.

Note that Autoweek lists the expeced price for the GT @ $25K. 3 rags have now said that the GT will start about $25K, but as of yesterday I still see people using the incorrect $26.9K figure from M/T. No wonder we have myths and ubran legends that just won't die. Did I hear anyone say V8 under $20.

 

[Boss 351]

With all this talk about "stiffer chassis" is the Mustang directed at middle aged men? lol

 

[GelatiCruiser]

With all this talk about "stiffer chassis" is the Mustang directed at middle aged men? lol

 

[351CJ]

I just read the Autoweek article again. There is actually quite a bit of new info. in there.

1. Clarification of the unibody stiffness as Shatner posted. - Coupe 31% stiffer

2. Clarification that the $300 for IRS is materials cost - however this # seems high to me.

3. They say that they got to drive it, but only for a couple of minutes at 40 MPH max.

4. The GT's top speed will be electronically limite to 145 MPH.

5. The Pirelli tires will be W rated - 165 MPH

6. Estimated 0-60 times as Shatner mentioned

7. Liquid filled engine mounts.

I also got a big chuckle from all the whiners who have posted here saying that Ford ruined the 2005 Stang and that it was nothing like the concept. Here's what Autoweek said about that:

This time we couldn’t ask for more in terms of a production car staying true to the concept on which it is based.

The production car has longer bumpers than the concept, otherwise the front-end styling is largely unchanged.

 

[jcayer]

Thanks for the article.. that has a lot of more "official" sounding information, since they are stating it comming from ford directly. Then only think I am not big on is that they mentioned that ford said that it "should" go 0-60 in 5.5sec?? Shouldn't ford be able to test the 0-60 on the car if they have driven them for over a million miles already???? (or is that just to cover themselves incase something changes btwn now and final production???)

 

[351CJ]

Then only think I am not big on is that they mentioned that ford said that it "should" go 0-60 in 5.5sec?? Shouldn't ford be able to test the 0-60 on the car if they have driven them for over a million miles already???? (or is that just to cover themselves incase something changes btwn now and final production???)

I'm sure that Ford is still working on the PCM software and engine calibration data. I'd guess that the software won't be finalized until a couple weeks before production starts.

 

[PimpDaddyGT]

That is some great and encouraging info!

Eric

 

[BSRacing]

"The rear axle ratio is a more aggressive 3.55:1 for harder acceleration"

3:55s is not actually too much of a change from the current model geared at 3.27. Why? because the new Stang has an inch taller tire... is almost like using a 3.27 on a current stang...

To go with a good gear we will have to use anywhere from 3.90s to 4.30s...


.. and btw, electronically controlled to 145MPH, that's what chips are for...

 

[SVTdriver]

I also got a big chuckle from all the whiners who have posted here saying that Ford ruined the 2005 Stang and that it was nothing like the concept. Here's what Autoweek said about that:

[/b]

Shhh don't say that too loud. They might hear you and come in complain again.:d

 

[zombie]

so when is this sucker comming out? I need a new daily driver.

 

[shatner saves]

I like this part:
"The new car rides on what Ford officials call an all-new platform. Thai-Tang says Internet message boards and other publications are inaccurate in calling it a modified version of the DEW98 chassis that the Lincoln LS and Jaguar S-Type use. “The chassis is all-new and the body structure is stiffened,” he says."

"internet message boards"? Why, that's us!

Hau Thai-Tang, sir, if you are reading this, the live axle is swell and all but I, and many like me, are in fact willing to pay a little extra for an IRS equipped GT....

 

[kirkyg]

I like this part:
"The new car rides on what Ford officials call an all-new platform. Thai-Tang says Internet message boards and other publications are inaccurate in calling it a modified version of the DEW98 chassis that the Lincoln LS and Jaguar S-Type use. “The chassis is all-new and the body structure is stiffened,” he says."

"internet message boards"? Why, that's us!

Hau Thai-Tang, sir, if you are reading this, the live axle is swell and all but I, and many like me, are in fact willing to pay a little extra for an IRS equipped GT....

Some people just never get it. MOVE ON YOUR NOT GETTING IRS UNLESS YOU GO WITH A COBRA. If they gave everything you want on the regular GT it would cost even more and the cobra would be pointless. The GT has always been about straight line performance and IRS is not necessary to get there. I think they've done PLENTY to the new GT to make it handle very nicely.

kirkyg

 

[Omegalock]

Some people just never get it. MOVE ON YOUR NOT GETTING IRS UNLESS YOU GO WITH A COBRA. If they gave everything you want on the regular GT it would cost even more and the cobra would be pointless. The GT has always been about straight line performance and IRS is not necessary to get there. I think they've done PLENTY to the new GT to make it handle very nicely.

kirkyg

I think he was refering more to the fact he wanted the IRS as an OPTION not standard..

 

[shatner saves]

Some people just never get it. MOVE ON YOUR NOT GETTING IRS UNLESS YOU GO WITH A COBRA. If they gave everything you want on the regular GT it would cost even more and the cobra would be pointless. The GT has always been about straight line performance and IRS is not necessary to get there. I think they've done PLENTY to the new GT to make it handle very nicely.

kirkyg

"pointless"? I wouldn't call a 150 bhp difference pointless.

A lot of people point th IRS when they talk about how expensive the Cobra is. They never cite the hand built engine, the cost of a blower, intercooler, etc. Doesn't Ford source some of the brake components from Brembo on that thing?

I am not advocating selling a $25,000 cobra. I am suggesting that there is a core group of mustang enthusiasts, and potential new mustang owners, that don't quite fit into the live axle GT camp or the $30k+ SVT camp.

I won't pass judgement on the Live axle car until I drive it. I'm sure it will work quite well. I just think ford is missing the boat by not offering the alternative.

Oh, and if the car is *just* about straight line performance, I'll be spending my money elsewhere.

 

[Sir TWIG]

I agree Shatner, you straight axle people need to get off your high horse (no pun intended). I am not a drag racer, but I do race my 72 Mustang. The option, OPTION I SAY, to have IRS would please ALL!!! If you do not like it, DO NOT GET THE OPTION!!! Please, PLEASE, EVERYONE, no need to argue this point any longer. I'll make anyone in the Vegas area a deal, when the new SVT comes out with IRS and you don't like it, then I trade you rearends from the GT I buy.

 

[shatner saves]

I agree Shatner, you straight axle people need to get off your high horse (no pun intended). I am not a drag racer, but I do race my 72 Mustang. The option, OPTION I SAY, to have IRS would please ALL!!! If you do not like it, DO NOT GET THE OPTION!!! Please, PLEASE, EVERYONE, no need to argue this point any longer. I'll make anyone in the Vegas area a deal, when the new SVT comes out with IRS and you don't like it, then I trade you rearends from the GT I buy.

That's actually a pretty amazing idea. You may have just invented a new cottage industry.

I will make the same offer for those in the Milwaukee/Chicagoland area.

 

[(&)]

The GT has always been about straight line performance

I'm seriously starting to think that there should be some sort of Mustang IQ test before people are allowed to post. Ford has been touting the Mustang's handling since the 70s. Go to Ford's own Mustang site and read the title. It says "Turning Corners and Heads for 40 Years". I guess they forgot to ask you what the Mustang was all about before they wrote that... And I don't think I have to post the countless GT magazine ads I have that focus on handling.

Also consider what the term "GT" means...

 

[shatner saves]

I'm seriously starting to think that there should be some sort of Mustang IQ test before people are allowed to post. Ford has been touting the Mustang's handling since the 70s. Go to Ford's own Mustang site and read the title. It says "Turning Corners and Heads for 40 Years". I guess they forgot to ask you what the Mustang was all about before they wrote that... And I don't think I have to post the countless GT magazine ads I have that focus on handling.

Also consider what the term "GT" means...

word.