400 pound weight loss??

[WestRace]

From various comments from Ford, it seems like weight is one of their major concern so I am pretty hopeful the weight issue was carefully considered. Everything I can gather going on in front looks positive as the front aluminum fender, lower strut mount means shorter strut -> less weight, the dual pivot control arms will save weight as well, lower hood also saves weight ...
The part overhang hopefully, besides the aluminum fender, will mostly be plastic.
Keeping my fingers crossed :-).

Sponsored

 

[w3rkn]

+1 on hopes of weight distribution but if the d@mn battery was in the trunk it'd be a 60lb+ swing and ~1%.

That "bloated" M4 weighs 3300lbs and is lower with a carbon roof and composite trunk.

Bloated compared to previous "proper" M3's/M4's.. e36 ~ e46.

 

[Dirk McGurck]

The E46, to me, is the best looking M3. Gimme one in Leguna Seca Blue, please.

 

[Stuntman]

The OEM battery weighs 32lbs. To mount it in the trunk would increase total weight by around 20-25lbs because of the larger battery cable(both length and gauge to offset voltage loss due to resistance) and also the addition of a voltage distribution box.

-32lbs off the front and +32lbs on the rear is a 64lb swing. Battery cable typically weighs ~0.5lbs/ft. So 14ft would weigh 7lbs more which I'd take for a big distribution improvement. A larger gauge is probably not necessary. Not sure where you got 20-25lbs from.

Bloated compared to previous "proper" M3's/M4's.. e36 ~ e46.

3,300lbs is in between e36 & e46 M3 weight and there was no previous M4.

 

[Grimace427]

-32lbs off the front and +32lbs on the rear is a 64lb swing. Battery cable typically weighs ~0.5lbs/ft. So 14ft would weigh 7lbs more which I'd take for a big distribution improvement. A larger gauge is probably not necessary. Not sure where you got 20-25lbs from.


3,300lbs is in between e36 & e46 M3 weight and there was no previous M4.

I work on Mercedes with rear mounted batteries, 20-25lbs total increase is being generous. A larger cable is required to offset the losses from resistance which would otherwise increase from length. Mercedes is actually moving away from rear mounted batteries for a multitude of reasons, one being simplicity in the electrical system. Anyone who's owned a Mercedes before 2013 models knows their electrical systems are definitely not simple. We don't want that just for the sake of a 0.5% weight distribution change.

 

[Stuntman]

I work on Mercedes with rear mounted batteries, 20-25lbs total increase is being generous. A larger cable is required to offset the losses from resistance which would otherwise increase from length. Mercedes is actually moving away from rear mounted batteries for a multitude of reasons, one being simplicity in the electrical system. Anyone who's owned a Mercedes before 2013 models knows their electrical systems are definitely not simple. We don't want that just for the sake of a 0.5% weight distribution change.

A 64lb swing is a lot more than a 0.5% distribution change. Put your car on scales and pull out the battery and set it in the trunk, you'd be surprised how big of a difference it makes. BMW has also had the battery in the trunk for decades and so has Mazda with the Miata. The Mustang battery relocation kits do not use larger cables and does not add 20lbs:

http://www.latemodelrestoration.com/item/UPR-9005/Mustang-Battery-Relocation-Kit

 

[Grimace427]

A 64lb swing is a lot more than a 0.5% distribution change. Put your car on scales and pull out the battery and set it in the trunk, you'd be surprised how big of a difference it makes. BMW has also had the battery in the trunk for decades and so has Mazda with the Miata. The Mustang battery relocation kits do not use larger cables and does not add 20lbs:

http://www.latemodelrestoration.com/item/UPR-9005/Mustang-Battery-Relocation-Kit

And are also not meant for daily driven, OEM production street cars.

 

[Stuntman]

And are also not meant for daily driven, OEM production street cars.

Ive seen them in daily drivers and ill be doing the same in mine. Moving the battety to the rear greatly improves the nose heavy dynamics of most front engine cars. We can agree to disagree

 

[Gman11Gt]

Ive seen them in daily drivers and ill be doing the same in mine. Moving the battety to the rear greatly improves the nose heavy dynamics of most front engine cars. We can agree to disagree

True, have seen a lot of folks do this for track cars, not so much for DD.

 

[w3rkn]

-32lbs off the front and +32lbs on the rear is a 64lb swing. Battery cable typically weighs ~0.5lbs/ft. So 14ft would weigh 7lbs more which I'd take for a big distribution improvement. A larger gauge is probably not necessary. Not sure where you got 20-25lbs from.


3,300lbs is in between e36 & e46 M3 weight and there was no previous M4.

My friend, the old e92 (coupe) M3 weighed in @ 3,700lbs...

Since there is no "previous" M4, I was most assuredly talking about the e92 Coupe and it's bloated'ness.



Coincidentally, my 135is is @ 3,300 lbs. It just has too short of a wheelbase and why I am waiting on the M2.

 

[eurospeed]

My friend, the old e92 (coupe) M3 weighed in @ 3,700lbs...

Since there is no "previous" M4, I was most assuredly talking about the e92 Coupe and it's bloated'ness.



Coincidentally, my 135is is @ 3,300 lbs. It just has too short of a wheelbase and why I am waiting on the M2.

IMO, the E36 M3 had the best balance of any M to date:

I6 @ 240 HP and 240 lbft torque
3175 lb @ 50/50 weight distribution

Had I known how bloated cars were going to get today, I probably would have kept mine for much longer.

Also, the M3 Lightweight was introduced in 1995 and cut an additional 225 lb.

 

[Stuntman]

My friend, the old e92 (coupe) M3 weighed in @ 3,700lbs...

Since there is no "previous" M4, I was most assuredly talking about the e92 Coupe and it's bloated'ness.

Coincidentally, my 135is is @ 3,300 lbs. It just has too short of a wheelbase and why I am waiting on the M2.

You were talking about how "bloated" the M4 is. Also the carbon roofed 6MT E92s weigh ~3,500lbs. The sunroof equipped (+45) e90s with a DCT (+45lbs) with tech & cold weather packages can weigh over 3,700lbs.

IMO, the E36 M3 had the best balance of any M to date:

I6 @ 240 HP and 240 lbft torque
3175 lb @ 50/50 weight distribution

Had I known how bloated cars were going to get today, I probably would have kept mine for much longer.

Also, the M3 Lightweight was introduced in 1995 and cut an additional 225 lb.

E36s are awesome cars. The 321hp euro version is one of the best IMO. Unfortunately we got a crappy S50/52 version. I'm eager to drive an M4 that finally gives the M some torque, but despite the e90/92s weight, IMO it is the most neutral and composed M3 with enough power to have fun with.

 

[Proudgeek]

Related weight loss news from ford regarding f150.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/02/autos/aluminum-f150/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

 

[Free Agent]

Related weight loss news from ford regarding f150.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/02/autos/aluminum-f150/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

I'll eat 700 pounds of aluminum if this claim happens (see quote below). Who comes up with this stuff?

Some experts believe the truck will be able to get about 30 miles per gallon, up from the 17 to 19 mpg of current models.

Of course what is "about 30 mpg"? 21, 22, 25 if they round up?

Good to see the weight loss but some people are entirely over-optimistic.

 

[trolls56]

I'll eat 700 pounds of aluminum if this claim happens (see quote below). Who comes up with this stuff?



Of course what is "about 30 mpg"? 21, 22, 25 if they round up?

Good to see the weight loss but some people are entirely over-optimistic.

Can't wait to see the new Raptor and would love for it to get anywhere near 20 mpg. I'm lucky to get 15 mpg.

Sponsored