I have a dream

O

oh9mustang

Banned
Jul 27, 2008
138
0
0
#1
I think the S197 looks very good, but , IMO, it's to big.
Wouldn't it be a very cool ride if Ford kept the DC2/S197 design but made it fit a Fox Mustang size.
Ford did make a bigger (wheel base) mustang than the DC2, it was in 1971-73.
The Current DC2 platform has a wheelbase of 107.1 and an overall length of 187.
The 71-73 Wheelbase was 109.
The Fox platform is 100.5 with an overall length of 179. And even better IMO, would be the Mustang II platform (Pinto) that was 96.2 with an overall length of 175.
I thought the 1969-70 Mustangs were to big also and their WB and Len are real close to the S197.
Ford, Please make a smaller Mustang. And while your at it a Notchback also.
 
#2
So what is your problem exactly with the car? The fact that is too big or the fact that it looks too big? Are you trying to achieve the optimal sports car wheelbase or do you think the car is actually too large?

There are things you can do to minimize the visual impact of the car.
 
#3
Walter
My problem with the car is that it is to big, kind of like I said in the original post.
It's to big, it's big, a big car, to big.


"There are things you can do to minimize the visual impact of the car"

Yea , one of them would be , make the thing smaller.
 
#4
I wouldn't mind loosing a little bit of trunk space, if you must cut the over length down. But certainly don't cut the wheelbase down any. Wheel base and track width are both very important to the overall performance of a car, and a little more of each is, in general, better.

The M3, for example, has a wheelbase of 108.7 with an overall length of 181.7, and I consider that a pretty small car. The mustang is also about the same size as a vette. The mustang is a little bigger than most high end sports cars (Ferrari, Lamborghini, BMW) but those are all larger the the fox with the only notable exception being Porsche, which are tiny cars but have the engineering to go with it. A very similar car in terms of size and look is the CLK63 AMG black, a $150k purpose built sports car.

Personally, I think the size of the car is good, good lines and flow in general. I'm glad it's not as big as the Challenger or the new Camaro, but I don't really see it as too big.

And I don't see how you can point to any part of the mustang II and say it is in any way good...
Dan
 
#5
Dan Oh
Your opinions are certainly your own.
My opinion is the Mustang is to big, I would like to have it at least Fox wheelbase.
The Fox and the SN95 and New edge went around corners very well even with a shorter wheelbase.
I had a Mustang II, a Mach 1, I pulled the 302 and c4 and put in a Bored 460 with a 494 steel crank. It ran well.
Mustang II is just a unibody with rack and pinion, nothing wrong with them. Besides, I wasn't talking about the Mustang II, I was referring to the Mustang II wheel base.
 
#6
The bit about the mustang II was just a jab at it. The SN95/fox/Fairmont chassis is a half way decent platform, a very light starting point at least. From a technical standpoint, though, it is almost completely lacking.

You're right, it is simply an opinion, a matter of what's important to you. Honestly I wouldn't care if they knocked 8" off the car to match the fox overall length, but the extra wheelbase can be a significant benefit and I'd rather have a slightly larger care that has better suspension geometry.
Dan

I suppose this is why you have a mustang station wagon as you avatar? Pretty silly thing to get up in arms over...
 
#8
if you think these cars are big park next to one of those big boats dodge makes. i think they are called a challenger. :rlaugh:

these cars are a little on the big size, but it just makes it even funnier when we beat up those hondas on cruise night. :D

i wanna see ford make a true fastback again. although i am not sure how that would work out with the current body style.
 
#9
What I find more of an issue is that the car is bigger then my old fox and my old 67 but my rear passengers had more room in the backseats in the older smaller cars. Thats the weirdest part, is if it is that much bigger I would have preferred more leg room for my passengers then a bigger trunk. Just my 2 cents.
 
#10
really? i found alot more room in my 07 then my 94 in the rear. i took a 2 hour trip to my uncles and my mom was in the back seat and she said it was comfortable.

my dad hits his head in the rear though on the rear glass.

my 94 was cramped in the back seats and not too spacious up front either. i'm a small guy, but in my 07 i have alot more room and alot more comfort.

i enjoy the big trunk, but because of height i have a hard time fitting some things in. i don't see myself fitting drag wheels in my trunk. at least rears.
 
#11
oh9mustang said:
Walter
My problem with the car is that it is to big, kind of like I said in the original post.
It's to big, it's big, a big car, to big.


"There are things you can do to minimize the visual impact of the car"

Yea , one of them would be , make the thing smaller.
Click to expand...

Negatron...

As the chief designer Hau Tai Tang said the reason why the GT500 has black sideskirts and the black bottom rear diffuser is because it creates a visual impact that is much smaller then if it were completely painted. Nose aside if you look at a GT500 from the rear three quarters it looks like the car is smaller.

Also I added the blackout panel for my car and the visual effect is of a slimmer and trimmer rear section. There are tricks that designers use and can be adapted to our cars no problem.

You could make a smaller mustang but you'd have to give up drivetrain suspension or both let alone qualifying for new safety standards.
 
#15
walter said:
Negatron...

As the chief designer Hau Tai Tang said the reason why the GT500 has black sideskirts and the black bottom rear diffuser is because it creates a visual impact that is much smaller then if it were completely painted. Nose aside if you look at a GT500 from the rear three quarters it looks like the car is smaller.

Also I added the blackout panel for my car and the visual effect is of a slimmer and trimmer rear section. There are tricks that designers use and can be adapted to our cars no problem.

You could make a smaller mustang but you'd have to give up drivetrain suspension or both let alone qualifying for new safety standards.
Click to expand...

Eyedeeit
The car dosen't look smaller to me, just as fat women in a black dress are still fat.
So all those small mustangs out there are lacking in drivetrain suspension and somehow a smaller version would not qualify for new safety standards? How would that be?

And if wheelbase is a yard stick for better drivetrain suspension, then ford shoud have kept the 71-73 wheelbase. Which is almost 2 inch's longer than the S197.
 
#16
I dunno man. Change the size around a bit, I'm just not sure I'd want to drive something as small as my buddy's notch-back, really depends on how they do it. The car isn't small, but it's not that big.

I wouldn't mind if it was a bit smaller, it'd make auto-x a bit easier. If they put a well engineered IRS in back and SLA setup in front I'd take it too, heh. Anything below 100" wheel base just starts to get really small.
Dan
 
#18
I actually love the size of the car. I'm 6ft 4 and fit great plus they have balls for their horsepower to weight ratio. I think Ford did a good job with the car as it is larger which probably makes it a bit safer plus they run their balls off with minor mods. I have 4 minor things done to the car which is an auto and its running 13.1 and damn near 106mph. Sure if it were 300 lbs lighter like a fox notchback it would be running 12s but these are all out great cars they way they are I think.
 
#20
oh9mustang said:
Ok Negatron.
The masses want a smaller Mustang , just as easy to say as saying they are designed to sell to the masses and mean that the Masses like a bigger mustang.

If a pole was taken to make the Mustang smaller or not, my guess smaller would win.
Click to expand...

First, LOL. Second, my guess is the "I don't really care" box would have 80%+ of the votes.
Dan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MRaburn
2015 Ford Mustang Set To Lose Some Weight
Replies
0
Views
2K
StangNet Site News
MRaburn
MRaburn
itsaMustangtoo
A good read
Replies
1
Views
2K
1974 - 1978 Mustang II Talk & Tech
Power Surge
Power Surge
Top Bottom
Back
Forums
Menu