All-New 2015 Mustang Said To Lose 400 Pounds – How Will The Camaro Answer?
37
Sponsored Links
It seems like an uphill battle for automakers. As technology improves, cars drop weight all over the place, in the name of efficiency and performance. But some of that becomes negated, because safety and luxury improvements aren’t exactly lightweight, either.
Regardless, Ford is reportedly putting their iconic Mustang on a diet with the next-generation model. We think this has something to do with the blue oval wanting the Mustang to be seen as a true global performance car, instead of a redneck racecar. According to Edmunds sources, the goal for the 2015 model year (and complete overhaul) is 400 pounds, which would mean as light as roughly 3,100 pounds for the next-generation model. We can be sure that this will make for a tougher competition for our friends at Chevy, who also have a new Camaro coming by what’s expected to be the 2016 model year.
As always, GM has a plan. The big, meaty Zeta platform (currently shared between the Camaro and Holden Commodore) is on its way out. It’s done well for those folks interested in RWD, but a replacement is already here, and is expected to encompass the Camaro program – the Alpha platform. Our friend the Alpha has already proven its worth in the Cadillac ATS, and the soon-to-be 2014 CTS. It’s far lighter and more compatible overall than Zeta, while offering a stiff, yet compliant ride. It will help shed some weight, and the Camaro will probably downsize from its full-sized proportions, as well.
As a reference, the lightest ATS weighs in at just over 3,300 pounds, the lightest in its segment. However, we anticipate the next Camaro to be lighter than that, as it’s not expected to have all the luxuries (read: dead weight) of the Caddy. Sounds like it’s going to be close. Though how do you feel GM should “add lightness” to the upcoming Camaro? Let us know in the comments.
- Sweepstakes Of The Month: Win a Corvette Z06 and 2024 Silverado. Details here.
Sponsored Links
But then again the mustang is said to be as shorter than it is now so it probably would be compact sized???
I would estimate the next Camaro to be 3300 with the 4. 3450 with the V6 and 3500 with the LT.
This is a gusstimate target based on the size I expect, They could go lighter if they go smaller but I do not expect it to be smaller than the ATS.
Loose all/some of the extra seat electronics, sound deading, rear doors, etc. and the 6th gen Camaro with the 2.0T *could* come in pretty close to the rumored ‘Stang numbers (that 3100lb figure is likely with the 2.0 EcoBoost). I also read that the Mustang is going to slash about 10″ from it’s overall length, that’s a pretty huge cut putting it into RSX territory
I’d take Edmunds numbers with a grain of salt. If Ford downsizes the Mustang as Edmunds predicts, the car will be the size of a Fiesta. I think that’s too small for this particular market.
The car would probably not even have room for a console. Front seat passengers would be shoulder to shoulder.
didn’t somebody said that Ford will have a 2.3 Ecoboost??? And another point is that I’m not really sure if mustang fans will like a turbo 4 like that’s just really not making sense.
Traditional Mustang fans may not like it. A new audience may, however.
perhaps yes… perhaps no… most people do realize that muscle cars does have to be either V6/V8 though
It’s not like those engines are going away from the Mustang lineup.
The Mustang was never a muscle car, but a pony car. Same deal with the Camaro.
That’s probably true. But this is the WRONG time to market cars to Millenials that are not buying any right now. The average age of a Mustang buyer is a surprisingly high 55, but they have the money to buy one. Average age of a Scion buyer is 52 (pre-FRS intro). If a Mustang just becomes a jellybean-Genesis or an FRS, why buy one? Get one of those, they have far better build quality.
Nothing wrong with having a turbo 4 as a n option. It’s not being forced on anyone and the V-6 and V-8 engines are still available. Choices are good. Why would you want to limit them?
I think the size of the current camaro is perfect. Any smaller and cargo and passenger volume will be hurt. Alpha will definitely save weight. To continue on that, lightweight materials should be used; aluminum and carbon fiber. Don’t cut weight the easy way by cutting the size.
I hope they don’t screw up the Camaro like they are doing with the Mustang, the Camaro size is PERFECT. It sounds like the Mustang will become a cheap COPY of the Hyundai Genesis- without the build quality, it will suck. Who cares about weight??? BALANCE is what matters. A Miata doesn’t weigh much, who wants one of those? If you want a “lightweight” car, buy a Scion FRS- it’s a nice car for a girl. Leave the Camaro and Challenger for male buyers.
“A Miata doesn’t weigh much, who wants one of those? If you want a “lightweight” car, buy a Scion FRS- it’s a nice car for a girl.”
So now light weight is equivalent to “nice for a girl” and a Jenny Craig special is a “man’s car”?
That’s almost laughable if I didn’t think you we’re serious.
“Who cares about weight??? BALANCE is what matters. A Miata doesn’t weigh much, who wants one of those?”
People who care about 50/50 weight distribution, otherwise know as chassis balance; something that you hold in high regard
You really don’t have a clue how much better cars are the less they weigh. But then again, you have moaned in the past about how it must be a US government ruling that is trying to make cars weigh less; as if it were like the draft being reinstated.
I would not underestimate the Mustang you have no clue about yet or it may haunt you.
As for less weight it is very important to keep this kind of car alive as café is only going to get higher and if they can not meet the objectives they will be eliminated or restricted in number.
As for weight you must also understand less mass improves performance in ways that more HP never can. It improves handling and also improves braking in ways you could never in any other way. For every action there is a equal and opposite reaction. This is so true when slinging mass side to side.
Why do they make race cars light? For over all performance and the same can apply here. 50/50 balance is important but so is less mass.
While the present Camaro is cool looking it suffered the short falls many cars bases on Show Cars suffer.
It could have been improved in many ways and many on the Camaro team wanted too but they were ordered to keep to the show car looks inside and out for better or worse. I do not see a repeat of this.
Light weight is not a girls car it is a performance car.
If done properly the new Camaro can surpass anything the present car can do. The Alpha is much more advanced vs. the present Zeta. It also has the benefit of the investment and refinement that it got for the Cadillac. The same thing happened to the Impala at the refinement filtered down from the XTS.
Keep in mind the Zeta was adapted to the Camaro and not designed with it in mind. Compromise is ok to a point but there is always a price to pay in refinement.
All I can say is when we see the car in Camo about 30% of you will pitch a fit on something you have no idea about. then when the car appears 50% will love it and 50% will hate it. In 3-4 months 90% will be ok after it is praised for its class leading performance and refinement. In the end 10% will never like it and prove you can’t please everyone. I have seen this cycle more than one and even the F bodfather has stated this too.
The next Camaro will be of a standard we have never seen in the car. The performance will be class leading. The interior will be done right and it will look like a Camaro but not go the retro route. The investment in this car will go all the way this time. In the past they generally got the engine right and the suspension pretty right but ran out of money on the interior. This one will have much better materials and the window regulators will not fail.
Like it or not this is an adapt, invest and refine or die issue anymore.
The current Camaro is going to be a hard act to follow in many respects. It has huge appeal mainly due to the “don’t mess with me, I’m a bad ass” styling. Using the Alpha based ATS as a guide/template, the next gen Camaro will definitely be much lighter, but also significantly shorter (8″?) and narrower (4″?), in other words a smaller car. Nothing wrong with a smaller, lighter car, but like others, I don’t want to see the car lose it’s “attitude”.
I like the current Camaro, it’s easily the best looking of all the retro designs but it is too big and heavy. Compared to my WS6 it’s huge. I rented a SS last year on vacation and despite the extra hp it didn’t feel much if any quicker. It definitely rode and handled better, mostly I suspect due to the independent rear end but if it weighed 3400lbs instead of 4000+ it would be an awesome car IMO.
I don’t see this Camaro as retro at all, it just has Camaro DNA. The hood scoops on the Challenger are the same as in 1970- that car is the retro one, but I like it. It’s not about weight- it’s about power-to-weight ratio. A big, heavy HEMI Challenger will kick any other car’s ass. Lighter cars are far less safe than heavier cars.
Most people see a Smart Car do okay in a wall crash test and think it is safe- the wall isn’t moving. Very few understand conservation-of-energy physics- get hit by a Suburban weighing 4500 lbs and that moving-wall energy has to go somewhere.
Spy shot of the Mustang- can you say fugly? Looks like a larger FRS with a Fusion coupe front end.
http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8313&postcount=104
“It’s not about weight- it’s about power-to-weight ratio.”
Contradict much? A “big, heavy HEMI Challenger” will NOT kick any other car’s ass if the other car has a superior power to weight ratio. That applies to any car ever made, and making the Challenger heavier will only make it lose even harder.
“Very few understand conservation-of-energy physics- get hit by a Suburban weighing 4500 lbs and that moving-wall energy has to go somewhere.”
Yeah, the Fourtwo gets pushed away, but the passenger cell keeps it’s integrity. Because it doesn’t have a front crumple zone, it’ll use the Suburban to “soften” the impact until it has spent it’s kinetic energy and is overcome by the Suburbans kinetic energy that pushes it away. The Suburban won’t fare much better and would also be a write-off.
Have to agree with you here Grawdaddy, also concerning power to weight ratio, big power (like the 6.4 Hemi) is great in a straight line but put the challenger or any other heavy car on a track or auto cross course and you’ll soon find out what all that weight wants to do. ( won’t turn, won’t stop!)
And just how buyers do you really think will be buying the Challenger to put on an Autocross track?
Admittedly very few if any will put a challenger on an autocross course, but we’re talking about weight and the fact that it affects performance whether going straight or around turns. No doubt it’s easy to get extra hp out of the Hemi just like it is with an LS engine. All else being equal the lighter car will always outperform the heavier one.
I assume you are talking strictly off the showroom performance. Its so easy to alter those Hemis with easy bolt on performance to make it a drivers race against all competition. Its easy to get those things in low to mid 12 runs without going inside the engine.
It is all about weight as less weight can be more efficient and deliver the same of better performance with less power and energy.
As for smaller cars being less safe that is false anymore. Cars today are made to take a hit and absorb a hit. I can give you example over example of a smaller car taking a hit from a larger vehicle and the smaller car keeping the driver safe.
Check out the video of the 09 Malibu hitting a 59 Impala head on. Both cars were in solid condition and the Malibu driver was ok where the Impala had the Malibu nose go through the driver and into the back seat.
Better and smarter construction, more use of Boron steel and other high strength metals all are making smaller cars much safer than even some larger cars.
Of course there is always going to be a crash that takes a life but just because it is small does not make it a injury anymore.
Good example is the HHR that was struck in NC a couple years ago buy a Chevy Van head on. The HHR was crushed to the windshield but the driver only suffered a broken foot from standing on the brake when the impact happened. Even I have had a crash in a FIero and hit a Dodge van in the side at 40 MPH. The body was gone but the radiator was not broken and after bending the steering wheel out I drove it home.
In crashes today there are more physics in play than just weight anymore and if you are going to use it as an example you had better use them all to be accurate.
As for the Mustang it matters little if you like it or not as if it hits a cord with the market it will still be a challenger. At this point I would not count it out in anyway. It would be ignorant to do so.
As for retro. The Challenger and Camaro are aimed to remind you of two specific cars that they had built in the past. The Camaro is not just reminding you of a Camaro but it is showing you a modern take on a 1969 Camaro. The retro look as served it’s time and it is time to make a new car that will create a new classic that in 2045 they will do a retro look on it.
At some point you have to stop living in the past.
This proves the saying “there’s an ass for every seat” because IMO the Camaro is too heavy and needs to go on a diet. And hopefully they’ve water boarded whoever was responsible for the interior design and materials. After seeing the new StingRay I have high hopes for the interior and exterior of the next Camaro.
aluminum and especially carbon fiber cost a lot, the Camaro MSRP doesn’t really start in a range to justify it. But the current ZL1 and Z/28, those items are addressed where the cost can be justified on the higher end models
I suspect Ford is using a lot of Aluminum as they are investing heavy in these materials.
The real issue is how well the new Mustang will be received. This car will be the greatest change it has seen since 1979. It will be interesting to see how well it is accepted by the old school owners.
The Camaro will see changes too but I suspect that GM may not push it as far.
The major factor is the Mustang also looks to be a much smaller car than it is today too. Not sure how that will play. I have heard some call it the Mustang III.
When the Camo comes off I expect to hear some real polarizing comments. They will love it or hate it.
that new face of the next gen mustang looks too much like the Taurus
Not really it is much like the Evos show car with a hint of the Fusion.
The front end is modern but will be missed as a Mustang. the real issue is the c pillar and rear and how they come out. The car looks much lower and smaller.
This change will be interesting to see how it comes out. If the love hate response is even at 50/50 it should do well. Now if people are indifferent it will fail. the Luke warm response of 75/30 can be the kiss of death. It is a pattern pointed out by Lutz in his new book. It can show that a car has no real passion with people. He said if you see a lot of 10s and 1s the cars tend to do better in the market. The passion of the one half drive the market and the rest come around.
add plastic, trunk, hood, fenders, doors. its light, more dent resistant, cheaper to replace, and most importantly does not rot!
Not really as Plastics need to be supported and generally have little crash worthiness.
Case in point the Fiero and Corvette both have has plastic bodies but there is so much metal inter the skin that the weights are still 2800 and 3200 pounds each.
While they are dent resistant they are generally not cheaper and they do break.
The greatest issue is panel gaps have to be greater as these panels move and expand with the heat. Look at the panel gaps on the Fiero and will see what I mean. This is why the F body only used the nose and not the doors and quarters too.
Plastics while sounding like an idea involve a lot more than people thing and it has been tried more than one with limited success. H body fenders, Saturn, GM dust buster vans etc. and only the Vette remains due to tradition more than anything else.
I think they should make a stretched alpha platform called ……alpha-max or alpha-2.
They have one it is the Omega.
The new Omega is taking much of the design of the Alpha architecture and applying it to a larger platform. While not identical there will be similarities.
I really see no need to enlarge the Alpha as if you have seen the CTS you would understand it can be made larger than the present CTS and Camaro.
The real issue is they would like to get the Camaro back to a size It used to be in the beginning. It was not a mid sized car back then. Pony Cars were smaller lighter and more nimble than the mid sized muscle cars and they are working to get back there.
If they do not lose size you will lose this type of car. Look at the CAFE regs coming and you are going to be hard press to meet them with a two ton car.
Shucks…stick that 3.6 v6 in a 3300lb car open the intake and exhaust for better breathing and we are talking a low to mid 13sec 1/4 mile car even without turbos.
Fra
If you have driven an SVO you know that Mustangs can handle and have power. The 1987 275hp 305-330 ft lb torque SVO was significantly made to outperform V8’s. The plug was pulled for this SVO. Read up on the rs200 to see what can be done with Turbo 4’s. Its all about weight, weight distribution and power. I’m cant wait to see what is the weight distribution for the V8. You can easily get 400hp on twin cam I4’s. If the V8 Mustang gets close 3300-3400 that brings it close to the Corvette weight. Excited to see what powerplants do best on the track.