I don't think Ford should settle with 26X horses in the v6 mustang, not when the competition has 300 horses. I think they should make 300+ their target. The average consumer sees hp and doesn't really take Hp:weight ratio into consideration because hp:weight ratio isn't listed on the window sticker. They see that one car has 40 horses more and automatically assume it is faster/better.

Just from a marketing standpoint, they should offer a 300+hp DI 3.5/3.7L. Not only will it match the camaro hp for hp but the significant weight advantage would insure that it is much faster.

I don't know. I'd like to see Ford act as the leader for once and not just settle for being as "quick" or as "good" as the competition. GM has shown they can do that (act as the class leader in performance) and their track record shows that, i think it's time Ford stepped up.

I'm as much a Ford/Mustang guy as i am a camaro/GM guy so i would like the upcoming mustang to match or best the camaro in everything and vice versa when it comes time for the 5th gen to be replaced. A better camaro should = a better mustang, and a better mustang should in turn = a better camaro and so on.

 

What if Ford likes being the entry level guys trading some performance for bringing the car in at a cheaper price point?

 

I've always heard that IRS makes a car heavier.

 

That seems to be the conventional wisdom, 25-50 pounds over an SRA.

Might be confusing it with unsprung weight though???

 

Everything you said is spot on and IS how things will come to pass. With one exception. No IRS. Watts Link SLA. And that's all I'll say about this.

 

Okay. What's the intel on the '10 Mustang?

My understanding was

1. No IRS
2. Continues with current 4.6 3V engine -- pumped up to ~320hp
3. About the same weight as the current one

The '11 Mustang
1. Adds 400/360 5.0
2. Still SRA
3. A bit heavier due to the new engine

IRS was going to have to wait for a new platform when they unified the Au Falcon with the new RWD sedans. Of course, the latter are on hold.

What's wrong with the above?

 

That's the version I heard!

But we have to wait until late 2009 or 2010 for the 400hp confirmation, since that's in the '11 model year (presumably why your sig has you waiting for an '11 model )

 

Or maybe 100 or 150. We know that Holden said that the improved IRS in VE (G8) added 50 pounds over that in the VZ (GTO).

Charlie suggested that the IRS in the VZ weighed less than the SRA in the Gen4 Camaro. I found that a little hard to believe. But who knows....

 

If you put a really nice SRA against a really nice IRS there will be about a 150lbs difference as teal mentioned. I have no idea where people are getting these 25-50 numbers from.

 

Here's some interesting facts. The Mustang team started with the Lincoln LS platform, though they made changes. The Camaro team started with Zeta, but they're calling Camaro Zeta2 now.

The LS weighed about 3800 pounds with the 280hp 3.9 V8 and a decent IRS.

The S-type shared the LS platform and weighed about the same as the LS (maybe 50 pounds more) with the 4.2 V8 and about 4000 with the S/C V8 (around 390hp).

The new Jag XF started with the S-type platform. The S/C model has a 420hp 4.2 S/C V8. It weighs 4200 pounds. The base model is more like 4000, I think, with a 300hp 4.2.

Interesting to think they both came from the same roots. I'm sure the Jag engineers didn't just add the weight for "road hugging" like the Pinto people did many years ago.

 

From what I have read, Huntsman was probably not the GRWD platform, yet people think it is. In this case it could be true, as the GlobalRWD would underpin the new mustang and a bunch of other cars.
Newer than the new D2C (which is only a few years old)

The mustang originally was to have the DEW98 platform, but it was deemed to heavy and expensive. A lighter version was created called DewLite, wasn't used.
The only thing the D2C took from those, was the floorplan.
(originally the 05 was suppose to be an 03 and a half mustang)

The 2010 stays on the D2C platform for at least another 3 years or so.

I remember the 05 mustang having this issue as well in testing.
Different steps were takin to get around that.

 

There was some discussion here awhile back about the weight penalty an IRS imposed, the usual number cropped up but somebody else mentioned that people in the know (engineers I guess) said a well designed IRS would only impose about a 25-50 pound penalty - I suppose if the car is specifically designed for an IRS - however when you adapt an SRA car to IRS the IRS unit will be substanitally heavier becuae it has to work with a chassis desinged for an SRA.

 

A watts link would be awesome. I'm tempted to put one on my car since I switched over to the FR3 suspension but I'm worried about it messing up the balance desinged into the FR3 kit and I really dont want to get into messing around with adjutable this and that beyond the few componts I've added to get back what lowering the car took away.

 

Man that is a freaking brilliant statement, I just wish the bone heads like Fourcam330 over at SVT performance and all the fanboys just like him would wake up a realize that. I got tired of arguing with idiots like that long ago, and that was even when we were talking about the GT-500. They couldn't believe that the GT-500 would gain any more than 90 lbs over a GT and would argue until they were blue in the face(no pun intended) to that fact. Then the sucker came out at a portly 3940# and they all started picking on the poor GTO for some reason...me thinks jealousy.

Now the Camaro comes around and all they have to say is that the new 2011 Mustang is going to own all; I would love to believe that being a big fan of competition and all but I know in my heart that they are going to be only a 100 lbs lighter if even that when that sucker comes to market and more than likely going to be yet again recipients of an inferior and less quality made product.

 

Yeah, so...ummm...about all those Mustang recalls and that really bad IQS stuff Ford has been getting.