Z284ever

It's true that Mustang's starting point was DEW98. But it went through enough changes where it is now considered it's own architecture - and Ford plans on keeping it that way. If you're looking to save mass, there are some definite advantages to that approach.
You don't have to design your "pony car" around an architecture which needs to provide a spacious, three passenger rear seat and large trunk for example.

One of the reasons Ford's GRWD is dead, are the compromises involved in having one architecture covering such different products. And dare I say, Ford saw the position GM found themselves in with Zeta and said no thanks.

Bottom line for Ford was, the realization that sharing an architecture (GRWD) between Mustang and a fullsized Lincoln would either mean a total pig of a Mustang or a cramped, unrefined Lincoln - or both.

The Mustang's D2C architecture will now go it alone, being continually optimized for Mustang use only. When the next gen Mustang comes (~2014), it will ride on an improved D2C and be lighter and probably abit smaller.

teal98

The Hyundai Genesis shares its architecture with a coupe and sedan, with the coupe being significantly smaller and hundreds of pounds lighter, and importantly, limited to a V6. Nissan does that also, even sharing the basic FM between a 370Z and their FX50 SUV. Lexus IS and GS share an architecture too.

I'm not saying that base platform has no effect (the 370Z could be a little lighter, though also more expensive, if a chassis were built just for it or if more changes were made to FM for it), but the compromises are nowhere near as extreme as you imply.

For the most part, the Camaro is the weight it is, because of design choices and feature content, and the same is true of the Mustang.

guionM

Although the history of the D2C is accurate, I must digress from the rest of your post.

First, at Ford there is a platform chief and a small group that runs Ford's large FWD/AWD platform development. They won the debate. They won the debate for one simple reason. For the purpose of the car, the D3 was the best choice. Nothing more.

Consider that Ford already is ramped up to use the D3, from structural stampings to a large North American supply network for it (not to mention the Volvo derived structure was gotten on thye cheap, and is already paid for). Then look at the fact that Ford is hellbent to show a profit within the next year or 2, and Mulally has sped everything up and has a extremely aggressive product pipeline but tight budgets.

Ford didn't look at Zeta. Ford took a look at it's own priorities, and the team with the better car for the least money that could get things to market the quickest won.

As for choosing between "pig" and a "cramped, unrefined", really don't know where that conclusion came from.

You yourself point out that the Mustang came from the DEW chassis. That chassis not just underpinned the Lincoln LS and the Thunderbird, but it's also the structure under the Jaguar S-type and the all new Jaguar XF. I don't think anyone would consider an XF "unrefined".

You are also off the ballpark in weight.

The DEW98 based Jaguar XF weighs 4,017 pounds.
The D2C based Mustang GT weighs just 3,550.

What gives?

The biggest difference between the 2 are the suspensions.

The DEW98 has 4 wheel, double wishbone independent suspension.

The D2C Mustang has lighter front strut suspension based on the Mazda 5 and Volvo S40 with lightweight trailing arms, as well as a solid rear axle that is well lighter than a IRS assembly bolted into the back end.

Most all of the floor stampings are identical (just like Camaro's is to the G8). The structural change that is most substantial is that the D2C was made to accept Ford's versions of the Modular Engine up front (The LS & Thunderbird used Jaguar's version, which is narrower than Ford's).

The DEW "lite" was to be the chassis of not only the 2005 Mustang, but also the Fusion and Zephyr as well. That plan went south due to 4 reasons.

1. The car was too expensive to make.
2. It couldn't fit Ford V8s.
3. It would be heavy (as the DEW's aluminum suspension parts would be replaced by lower priced steel or iron).
4. Jac Nasser was gone.

The Mustang survived because the SN95 Chassis would be obsolete by 2006MY (new standards that required the relocation of the fuel tank).

Ford then kicked around the idea of using the Mustang's chassis to replace the Crown Victoria/Ford Falcon. While it's still possible that Ford will use the Mustang as the basis for an Aussie Falcon & Aussie made large car, the fact is that producing such a car here beyond the Mustang is dead for now.

You are correct in that the D2C has a different chassis designation than the DEW98, just the way the Camaro is designated an F-body and the Holden Commodore is designated a VE and the Caprice/Statesman is designated a WM.

Camaro although based on Zeta, structurally has as many changes over the VE as the Mustang has over the DEW... perhaps even alot more:

* Wheel-to-dash ratio.
* "A" pillar placement.
* Much Shorter rear overhang.
* Much higher belt line.
* Clearence made to carry far larger wheel & tire combo.

Although GM built the versatility into the Zeta, in the D2C, all of this carries over from the DEW intact. Save for suspension, the Camaro is farther removed from the large Holden sedan than the Mustang is from the DEW.

Therefore, the idea that creating a unique chassis saves weight not only isn't financially fesible (for low volume vehicles such as Mustang, Camaro, and Challenger), but the indication is that the better choice is to take an existing chassis (even a large one) and find ways to cheapen & lighten it (as Ford has done).

Final point, cramped space.

Let me point out that the Cadillac STS is more cramped and has less space out back than the same sized Pontiac G8. Sigma and Zeta would have netted the same weight car, the only difference is one would have more room than the other.

guionM

You hit the nail on the head. And you provid excellent examples to prove this point.

As I always say in these types of discussions on weight, it's all a matter of what you intend to give up to reach a particular weight, and can it be sold in the marketplace. There's no free rides.

Camaro was made to handle industrial strength power, and be priced at a level where we can afford it and where GM won't lose their shirts selling it.

The fastest Mustangs are governed to 155 mph for a reason.

Again, what compromises does one want to make. IRS is the first and juciest target. The next target is that stiff, performamnce capable chassis.

Allow me to point out that the V6 Hyundai Genesis coupe is heavier than a Mustang GT. The Dodge Charger R/T weighs more than a much bigger Crown Victoria. Even though a BMW 3 series is nearly the size of a Cobalt, it weighs as much as a Malibu...despite using a massive amount of aluminum.

RWD is not a high volume chassis as it once was. the other unpleasent fact is that lower production cars need to have either a high price or be based on another car in order for it not only to be profitable, but for it to see the light of day. Thinking that a car maker is going to create a unique chassis for a new affordable sports coupe is alot like thinking you can move the Empire State building simply by wishing it. Simply ain't gonna happen.

On the other hand, taking a sedan chassis, and making compromises on it is the best way. Look at Mustang.

We wanted an uncompromised Camaro with a very long wish list.

We got it.

Z284ever

I wasn't talking about DEW or D2C - I was talking about GRWD and the tradeoffs required for both Mustang and a fullsized RWD Lincoln to share the same architecture. The business case required both of them, (and the Aus market Falcon) to share the same architecture. The engineering required one or the other or both to be severely compromised.

BTW, if you look at the DEW98 LS/T-Bird/S-Type, they are not very large cars and the transition from DEW to D2C was still a fairly substantial tear up. Imagine a much larger GRWD Lincoln sedan and what it would take for Mustang to share an architecture with it.

Z284ever

I must admit that I am not completely fluent in Hyundai's RWD architecture - but my understanding is that there are marked differences between the coupe a sedan.

And for the most part, I don't disagree with your comment on the Camaro's weight. But I also think that a completely decontented Camaro would still not be a light car.

Z284ever

In your previous post, you essentially said that there is a free ride - in that a large sedan and small coupe CAN share an architecture compromise free.

Make up your mind, dude!

DMS Motorsports

I have had the opportunity to drive all 3. For a long trip and for comfort, the Challenger is fastly superior that the Camaro and Mustang. Seats are seriously more comfortable in the Challenger and it even has a useable back seat.

The Mustang is a a bunch lighter. But take a Mustang thru hard twisties, you cannot put enough bracing front, mid section, lower and upper front to keep the body rigid. the Camaro, however, has serious body rigiditiy improvements over the Mustang.

With this said however, the Camaro sits too high, with too small of coil rates, and insufficient sway bars in the front, and bushings that allow too much movement. Then you cannot even adjust caster, nor do they even include a front camber adjusting bolt, even though the hole is there.

All these things are 100% fixable

mike
dms

bossco

So you are saying S-197 wasn't any real improvement over the fox body cars (the implication of your statment is even with say a roll cage, the Mustang is still inadequately braced for anything other than A to B everyday driving and that anything more seriously taxes the chassis ability to perform).

DMS Motorsports

The last visit that I was at Back Street, one of the guys there was working on a new Mustang. It had a full cage, multiple supports top and bottom on the engine, 2 supports in the middle, and a serious amount of support in the back end. Again, it had a full cage. The owner told me he needed all of this to keep the body from twisting.

Now I have driven a 2008 Mustang with some serious hp that is autocrossed aggressively and I cannot say it was as bad as a convertible, but you can really feel the twisting.

mike
dms

teal98

That's my understanding too. Yet they share an architecture/platform. A major difference is that the Coupe is not engineered to accept a V8.

It depends on what we mean by decontenting. If the Camaro chassis were re-engineered and rebodied to take the 304hp V6 as the largest engine, I have no doubt that it would shave several inches off the length, a couple off the width, and you'd end up with a car the same size and weight as the Genesis Coupe (about 182" long and a little under 3500 pounds, well-equipped).

In that case, the decontenting is mostly in the chassis and drivetrain, and not in the frills.

This is the basis for my comments on the weight of a 2005 Alpha. If Alpha had been approved back then, with design and engineering carried out pre-CAFE-update, and provision for the 550hp LSA, and 20" wheels, IRS, and concept dash-to-axle dimensions, I have a really hard time seeing how you save much weight.

Weight savings in a putative 2016 Alpha Camaro will come about due to being designed for less power, and with the post-CAFE-update priorities for fuel mileage, etc., making additional expense of both light weight materials and additional engineering effort on weight reduction more justifiable.

So I don't see the current Camaro's weight being due to a wrongheaded Alpha versus Zeta decision in 2005, but rather being due to the product requirements and the era in which it was engineered.

Z284ever

Not if it was on Zeta.

The Camaro is nearing the smallest possible package Zeta is capable of. You could probably trim a couple of inches off the length, (mostly by trimming the cowl to front axle length), but nowhere near 182". And the structure is inherited from the Commodore, you can decontent, but mass will already be baked in.



Now if you're talking from a clean sheet, you've got a point...

Z284ever

You mean transdifferentiate Alpha into a Zeta? No point in that.

Had "Alpha" been approved in 2005, it would have taken a different direction than the current car. It certainly would not have been package protected for an LSA.

teal98

Interesting. With all the changes that GM made to Zeta for Camaro, I would have thought that if they'd set out to build a Hyundai Genesis Coupe competitor from Zeta instead of the current Camaro, they surely could have, including dimensions, weight, and maximum of a V6.

I guess the issue there is how much that would have cost and whether it could have shared an assembly line with the other planned U.S. Zetas...probably something that we'll never know.

The sheet had some writing on it, but there was a fair amount of erasing (sorry for the strained analogy).

teal98

Charlie, you leave me to infer that the maximum engine would have been an LS3. Maybe with that, 18s, and favoring weight over styling concerns, I could see this could-have-been coming in 100-150 pounds lighter in the base configuration, or around 3700.

Given the world at that time, however, package-protecting for an LSA seems a pretty obvious thing to do.

Speaking of which, I've noticed in road tests that while the CTS V6 is a pretty chunky car compared its competitors, the CTS-V is not. It's lighter than the Jaguar XFR and Audi S6, and about the same as estimates for the E63. I wonder if the V6 CTS is carrying extra structure for the LSA.