• Welcome to Mustang7G!

    If you're joining us from Mustang6G, then you may already have an account here!

    As long as you were registered on Mustang6G as of March 10, 2021 or earlier, then you can simply login here with the same username and password!

When do you think the S650 will be revealed?

Hack

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2014
Threads
13
Messages
8,767
Reaction score
154
Location
Minneapolis
Vehicle(s)
Mustang, GR86
I still don’t understand why people think that just because it was supposed to use the same platform as an SUV it would have been bigger and higher off the ground. It’s simply not accurate. Just for example take a look at the VW MQB platform, used for the Atlas 3 row mid-size SUV along with the GTI, Golf R, Audi TT and RS3 just to name a few. I wouldn’t say any of those cars are big, bulky, and high off the ground.
I assume any SUV chassis is set up for front wheel and four wheel drive. That means the engine has to be high up above the front suspension to give room for the front driveline components. Yes you can probably modify the chassis raising the front suspension up or lowering the engine location, but the rear of the chassis will also be set up for a higher ride height instead of having provisions for the drivetrain to be recessed and the car as low as possible.

So why take a chassis that's not set up for a sporty, low vehicle and then have to modify it so much? Why not use a chassis under an actual sporty, performance vehicle as a starting point? Something like the current Mustang chassis.

All of those VAG "cars" are really high off the ground. They could be a lot lower if they weren't set up for AWD or FWD

They are also big and bulky for what they are. Yes they are smaller than some cars with a V8, but they don't have V8s.

I think quite the opposite would've been the case. New platform would allow the usage of lighter materials (aluminium frame and such) and would've also allowed for structural improvements. Hybrid and AWD would've been easily implemented. Just because CD6 is so far only used by suv's doesn't mean it couldn't host a proper GT.

However, I think when Hackett took over, a new Mustang was thrown under the bus along with the entire CD6 platform. God knows why and @amk91 has given us some useful insights in what might has happened but at this point I don't see any future usage of the CD6 platform. It is already a couple of years old and I doubt Ford would use it to develop something that will hit the markets in 2025 or beyond that.
What frame would you suggest to make from aluminum? I'm sure you realize modern cars don't have frames. Front and rear subframes could be switched to aluminum with no other changes to the car. Certainly a new chassis is not needed in order to have aluminum subframes.

What about the current platform precludes the use of aluminum? The Mustang already uses aluminum. I agree it would be good to use more if it can make the car lighter. Frankly I'd rather see the car get smaller and still use steel so that it doesn't shoot up into the $80K range for a loaded GT. IMO $60k is already too high.

I don't want the Mustang to be setup for AWD. That means it will be higher off the ground, heavier and less sporty. AWD is terrible IMO.

If you want AWD, there are a ton of "cars" out there with AWD. Pick one of them rather than wrecking the Mustang. Don't say you think all the good AWD cars are too expensive. Remember the Mustang would be more expensive if converted to AWD.
 

Bikeman315

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Threads
18
Messages
4,932
Reaction score
275
Location
Myrtle Beach, SC
First Name
Ira
Vehicle(s)
2019 Mustang GT/CS
I assume any SUV chassis is set up for front wheel and four wheel drive. That means the engine has to be high up above the front suspension to give room for the front driveline components. Yes you can probably modify the chassis raising the front suspension up or lowering the engine location, but the rear of the chassis will also be set up for a higher ride height instead of having provisions for the drivetrain to be recessed and the car as low as possible.

So why take a chassis not set up for a sporty, low vehicle and modify it so much? Why not use a chassis under an actual sporty, performance vehicle as a starting point.

All of those VAG "cars" are high off the ground. They could be a lot lower if they weren't set up for AWD or FWD

They are also big and bulky for what they are. Yes they are smaller than some cars with a V8, but they don't have V8s.


What frame would you suggest to make from aluminum? I'm sure you realize modern cars don't have frames. Front and rear subframes could be switched to aluminum with no other changes to the car.

What about the current platform precludes the use of aluminum? The Mustang already uses aluminum. I agree it would be good to use more if it can make the car lighter.

I don't want the Mustang to be setup for AWD. That means it will be higher off the ground, heavier and less sporty. AWD is terrible IMO.

If you want AWD, there are a ton of "cars" out there with AWD. Pick one of them rather than wrecking the Mustang. Don't say you think all the good AWD cars are too expensive. Remember the Mustang would be more expensive if converted to AWD.
I think we are all getting way to far ahead of ourselves. We should continue to be concerned about what the S650 will be. Plenty of time to discuss the S750 when M8G comes out.
 

Hack

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2014
Threads
13
Messages
8,767
Reaction score
154
Location
Minneapolis
Vehicle(s)
Mustang, GR86
I think we are all getting way to far ahead of ourselves. We should continue to be concerned about what the S650 will be. Plenty of time to discuss the S750 when M8G comes out.
I think it's good to discuss what people want the Mustang to be. I don't want a future Mustang to be like this last generation Camaro (a failure).

It seems like people think they can get something for nothing. There's a consequence for additions to the Mustang design.

I'd rather have Ford try to make the Mustang simpler, lighter, less expensive, more economical. Not throw more parts at it and make it cost another $10k or 15K.
 

Bikeman315

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Threads
18
Messages
4,932
Reaction score
275
Location
Myrtle Beach, SC
First Name
Ira
Vehicle(s)
2019 Mustang GT/CS
I think it's good to discuss what people want the Mustang to be. I don't want a future Mustang to be like this last generation Camaro (a failure).

It seems like people think they can get something for nothing. There's a consequence for additions to the Mustang design.

I'd rather have Ford try to make the Mustang simpler, lighter, less expensive, more economical. Not throw more parts at it and make it cost another $10k or 15K.
So do I. But we know that's not happening. Ford is going to do whatever is most cost effective. This is not a high volume vehicle so there is be no investments in anything special at this point. Honestly we should be grateful we are getting a S650. What we may or may not get with a S750 is yet to be seen.
 

DeluxeStang

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2021
Threads
0
Messages
318
Reaction score
382
Location
Utah
First Name
Kev
Vehicle(s)
Explorer
I guess we will never know what would have been, but I'm really glad the Mustang is on the current car platform and not an SUV platform. IMO Mustang is already too large and high off the ground. I would be surprised if the CD6 version would have been smaller and lighter with better fuel economy and performance. Probably it would have been porkier and more complex. Maybe that's why it was scrapped. They realized they were going to spend a lot of money and the car wouldn't be improved.
It's really hard to say, one of those, we'll probably never know what a cd6 mustang would have been liked kinda things. Unless someone close to the cars development ever came clean on what the performance and engineering targets were for it. The beauty of modern architectures is how flexible and adaptable they are. The cd6 mustang could have been a porker. But it also could have been smaller and lighter. Could have gone either way. I believe it was Farruko who mentioned how a supra sized mustang was considered at one point. Not sure how far along that car got in it's development.
 
Last edited:

IceGamer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2021
Threads
5
Messages
175
Reaction score
201
Location
Germany
Vehicle(s)
BMW G20 330d xdrive
I think it's good to discuss what people want the Mustang to be. I don't want a future Mustang to be like this last generation Camaro (a failure).

It seems like people think they can get something for nothing. There's a consequence for additions to the Mustang design.

I'd rather have Ford try to make the Mustang simpler, lighter, less expensive, more economical. Not throw more parts at it and make it cost another $10k or 15K.
I do get your point and I think in general I can agree with you. However, as is, the current (fully loaded) GT is sold for almost 60.000€ before discounts in the EU. I can buy a manual M3 for almost the same (63.000€ after discounts). Obviously this isn't a totally fair comparison but the point is that the Mustang is no longer a cheap or affdordable car for younger people. Those who are willing to spent 55k might as well spent 65k and get a much better car, performance and quality wise.
The M3 is a direct competitor to the Mach 1 (sold for over 60k in Europe) and besides the V8 it really hasn't much to offer...

Ford has to make the Mustang cheaper, which is not going to happen or they have to greatly improve the car and at the moment I don't see that happening either. All I see at the moment is a heavily refreshed S550, exterior and interior wise. Can it keep up with a M3 from what we've seen? Design wise I would say so, however, build quality and materials used will most likely not be on pair and I doubt performace will...
I hope the S650 knocks it out of the park and Ford surprises us but at the moment I see a detuned Coyote, no MT and a heavy price increase in Europe...
 

Murfstang

Active Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2021
Threads
0
Messages
31
Reaction score
51
Location
USA
First Name
Justin
Vehicle(s)
2020 Ford Explorer ST, 2021 VW GTI
I assume any SUV chassis is set up for front wheel and four wheel drive. That means the engine has to be high up above the front suspension to give room for the front driveline components. Yes you can probably modify the chassis raising the front suspension up or lowering the engine location, but the rear of the chassis will also be set up for a higher ride height instead of having provisions for the drivetrain to be recessed and the car as low as possible.

So why take a chassis that's not set up for a sporty, low vehicle and then have to modify it so much? Why not use a chassis under an actual sporty, performance vehicle as a starting point? Something like the current Mustang chassis.
The CD6 platform is a rear wheel drive based platform, all vehicles on the platform in non-AWD spec are rear wheel drive.
 

Murfstang

Active Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2021
Threads
0
Messages
31
Reaction score
51
Location
USA
First Name
Justin
Vehicle(s)
2020 Ford Explorer ST, 2021 VW GTI
I think it's good to discuss what people want the Mustang to be. I don't want a future Mustang to be like this last generation Camaro (a failure).

It seems like people think they can get something for nothing. There's a consequence for additions to the Mustang design.

I'd rather have Ford try to make the Mustang simpler, lighter, less expensive, more economical. Not throw more parts at it and make it cost another $10k or 15K.
Using a (rear drive based) platform that is also used in other vehicles would allow them to put more money towards creating a better Mustang. The sales numbers of all the other high volume vehicles sharing the platform could offset the cost of developing high performance parts for the vehicle as well as higher quality interior materials and focus the R&D on things like higher performance and more more fuel efficient engines.
 

Hack

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2014
Threads
13
Messages
8,767
Reaction score
154
Location
Minneapolis
Vehicle(s)
Mustang, GR86
questionable styling perhaps and poor marketing for sure. But brilliant mechanical execution.
I think we could debate "brilliant mechanical execution". Camaro and Mustang are within split seconds of each other as far as performance goes, if they have similarly stiff suspension, similar power and similar tires. But GM's vaunted Alpha platform cost more money than the Mustang platform to produce.

Some other parts of the mechanical execution are visibility, trunk accessibility, ergonomics, etc. I think those are all poor in the Camaro.

I do get your point and I think in general I can agree with you. However, as is, the current (fully loaded) GT is sold for almost 60.000€ before discounts in the EU. I can buy a manual M3 for almost the same (63.000€ after discounts). Obviously this isn't a totally fair comparison but the point is that the Mustang is no longer a cheap or affdordable car for younger people. Those who are willing to spent 55k might as well spent 65k and get a much better car, performance and quality wise.
The M3 is a direct competitor to the Mach 1 (sold for over 60k in Europe) and besides the V8 it really hasn't much to offer...

Ford has to make the Mustang cheaper, which is not going to happen or they have to greatly improve the car and at the moment I don't see that happening either. All I see at the moment is a heavily refreshed S550, exterior and interior wise. Can it keep up with a M3 from what we've seen? Design wise I would say so, however, build quality and materials used will most likely not be on pair and I doubt performace will...
I hope the S650 knocks it out of the park and Ford surprises us but at the moment I see a detuned Coyote, no MT and a heavy price increase in Europe...
M3 MSRP starts at $72,800 vs. Mustang GT $37,545. Almost double for the M3 here.

Sounds like M3 is a bargain in Germany. Makes sense, because it is a locally produced car. I don't really like the turbo 6, but if the M3 were cheaper than a Mustang here I would probably go with a 911. :wink:

The CD6 platform is a rear wheel drive based platform, all vehicles on the platform in non-AWD spec are rear wheel drive.
But none of those vehicles are sporty cars built low to the ground and all of them have AWD versions? I'm asking because I'm too lazy to do a search.

Using a (rear drive based) platform that is also used in other vehicles would allow them to put more money towards creating a better Mustang. The sales numbers of all the other high volume vehicles sharing the platform could offset the cost of developing high performance parts for the vehicle as well as higher quality interior materials and focus the R&D on things like higher performance and more more fuel efficient engines.
I think that depends on a lot of details. They are already building Mustangs using the current platform, so very few tooling changes should be necessary to continue building Mustangs with the same platform they are using now. I doubt CD6 benefits them with lower material costs per car or anything like that.

I think it's probably cheaper to start from an existing car and only change things that need improvement rather than starting from an entirely new platform where every part of the car has to be adapted to the new platform.
 

shogun32

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2019
Threads
30
Messages
3,663
Reaction score
216
Location
Northern VA
First Name
Matt
Vehicle(s)
2019 GT+PP, SS+1LE, 2020 F150
I think it's probably cheaper to start from an existing car and only change things that need improvement rather than starting from an entirely new platform where every part of the car has to be adapted to the new platform.
Ford could fix the rear shock mounts with a different sheet metal die and revised AL casting for instance. by basically wholesale copying the Maverick's parts. They could fix the rear diff by changing the drill bit they use on the AL inserts to 14mm instead of 16mm.

They could issue panel-gap gauges and pairs of glasses, if not seeing-eye dogs to the body shop "inspection" staff.
 

Hack

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2014
Threads
13
Messages
8,767
Reaction score
154
Location
Minneapolis
Vehicle(s)
Mustang, GR86
Ford could fix the rear shock mounts with a different sheet metal die and revised AL casting for instance. by basically wholesale copying the Maverick's parts. They could fix the rear diff by changing the drill bit they use on the AL inserts to 14mm instead of 16mm.

They could issue panel-gap gauges and pairs of glasses, if not seeing-eye dogs to the body shop "inspection" staff.
Very true.
 
 
Top