"expected" weight gain

[m4a1mustang]

Aside from having the same wheelbase they are saying the chassis is entirely new. If that's the case I can totally see how they'd hit those weight targets. I certainly hope so... and they're acting like they know they have something good... so I tend to think we may be very pleased whenever they do announce the figures.

Sponsored

 

[Taneras]

Call me pessimistic, but I don't expect the GT to weigh in below 3550. Don't get me wrong I'd flip out if they were less, I'm just not expecting it.

 

[VIN666]

Yeah, for autoX (especially competitive) the rules can really pigeon hole a choice. I do a bunch of track days, but just for fun, so for me the added power and lack of turbo is a benefit. The weight is a negative, but it's more of a sliding scale, so I don't really have a cutoff. That said, my 350Z I think was about 3250 lbs so I may change my tune after driving a heavier Mustang.

I'm actually bit surprised you'd want to AutoX a turbo though. I love AutoX in my Z, but I tried a friend's BMW 335, and even though the power was better, the turbo lag was horrible. I guess one would adapt if they owned the car, but I still get bothered by the lag in my GTI and I've driven it for 50,000 miles.

It's possible I'm a very slow learner. :doh:

-T

Won the local SM autox championship in an SRT4 a few years back.
There was no SMF at the time, so pretty much all the other cars were subarus.
Long story short, you learn to drive a turbo and after a while it becomes second nature to throttle in in time to compensate for the lag.
Left foot braking is another alternative, but comes at the expense of wear...

I think the EB could be a fantastic AutoX car, but I doubt it can meet my power goals. So when the time comes, I'm probably going to get the GT and boost it to make it somewhat exciting.
I for one don't think that a 800 hp Mustang is too much for the street.
Compared to crotch rockets it's still a slouch...

 

[Grimace427]

We know of at least a few areas where Ford cut down on the weight; the aluminum front fenders, the new front control arms, did I also read aluminum front subframe? I understand many believe the IRS adds weight over the SRA but that is no guarantee, not all IRS designs add weight. Even assuming the chassis was the same those points alone could add up to a nice weight reduction.

 

[91z28350]

I can tell you, a 800 hp SC Mustang is not a car you want to lose focus with. But it sure can be fun

 

[Dirk McGurck]

500 or 800 hp in a street car is pointless.

I kinda agree. I don't ever see needing more than 400 or so at the wheels.

 

[thePill]

Call me pessimistic, but I don't expect the GT to weigh in below 3550. Don't get me wrong I'd flip out if they were less, I'm just not expecting it.

My '11 Brembo GT weighed 3555 at "50 Miles to E"... It was suppose to weigh 3602lbs.

 

[Pitch]

I kinda agree. I don't ever see needing more than 400 or so at the wheels.

There's no point to having more than an i4 either considering there's a 40 mph speed limit most places and 65 on fwys. Last I checked prius's can do those speeds just fine.

See my argument here? People do it for fun and bragging rights

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[Taneras]

My '11 Brembo GT weighed 3555 at "50 Miles to E"... It was suppose to weigh 3602lbs.

Does curb weight include a full tank of gas? I think fuel is about 6-7lbs per gallon. 9 gallons or so could account for the weight difference. Also, if you have one, an aftermarket exhaust can save a dozen or two pounds.

Also does that weight include you - that be amazing if it did.

 

[m4a1mustang]

It should include a full tank.

 

[Trackaholic]

The DIN curb weight that the German MFGs use includes a full tank of gas, all included tools, the spare tire (if so equipped), but no driver and of course they supply a base model car for the weight. Options (like power seats, leather, sunroof, etc. will all add to the quoted value).

I just investigated this a bit because the new M4 has a DIN curb weight of 1497 kilos (3293 lbs). I figure it'll be 3400 at least by the time a magazine weighs one. It would be nice if the Mustang was similar (or less).

Here is the EPA definition. Sounds about the same:
Curb Weight - The weight of a vehicle with standard equipment and fluids, but not including options, driver, passengers or cargo

-T

 

[thePill]

I think people are nervous because Ford is being coy with the weight, only saying that they've met their goals. I personally don't know what those goals are (I've only heard rumors), so I'm trying to keep my expectations low so I'll be fine if the weight stays the same but pleasantly surprised if the weight drops.

I really do hope you are right about the weight loss, because a 3400 lbs GT would be pretty sweet all things considered. But, gotta keep telling myself that it's unlikely.

Another thing is that Ford is doing a reveal similar to what GM did for the C7 Vette. They are showing the car, but not giving out many performance details or specs. GM was also very coy with the weight of the C7 - early rumors had it losing weight - and GM was quick to hype the increased stiffness and reduced weight of the frame. But when the final numbers were revealed, the car actually gained 100 lbs or so.

I followed the C7 closely because it is competing with the Mustang for my next purchase, so I may be a little suspicious of Ford due to the experience with the Vette. GM also mentioned "at least" 450 HP many times, and then the LT1 made 455 or 460 depending on exhaust choice. Many people were let down with this as well, given how small the HP improvements were over the LS3 and how significant the engine updates were. In this too, Ford is following GM closely, talking only about 420+ HP from the new Coyote engine. They are adding many things from the RoadRunner, but at the same time not changing the redline, so I wonder how much the power upgrade will end up being.

Contrast with BMW who just released the info on the new M3 and M4, with basically full specs and sure enough, managed to bring the cars in @ 3300 lbs (although I expect that number to be higher when cars with all the options are weighed by magazines). Seems like they just kept things quiet, got all their engineering done, them bam! - Here's the goods. Haven't followed the release of those cars though, so maybe the rampant speculation was the same on Bimmer forums as it is here for the Mustang.

Anyway, it is a bit fun to have this info unknown, because it spurs fun discussions like this one.

-T

This is going to be a first... The Mustang and Corvette will have a similar output and base curb weight.

Does curb weight include a full tank of gas? I think fuel is about 6-7lbs per gallon. 9 gallons or so could account for the weight difference. Also, if you have one, an aftermarket exhaust can save a dozen or two pounds.

Also does that weight include you - that be amazing if it did.

That is without me in it. The curb weight is with a full tank of gas but, any racing I would take on only "50-to-E" for all heat racing.

 

[C00KIE M0NSTER]

I followed the C7 closely because it is competing with the Mustang for my next purchase, so I may be a little suspicious of Ford due to the experience with the Vette. GM also mentioned "at least" 450 HP many times, and then the LT1 made 455 or 460 depending on exhaust choice. Many people were let down with this as well, given how small the HP improvements were over the LS3 and how significant the engine updates were. In this too, Ford is following GM closely, talking only about 420+ HP from the new Coyote engine. They are adding many things from the RoadRunner, but at the same time not changing the redline, so I wonder how much the power upgrade will end up being.

Ford did something like this when they announced the 2013 GT500. They said the 5.8L would make 650 hp and 600 ft lbs. The final numbers came in at 662 hp and 631 ft lbs of torque. So just because GM does something a certain way doesn't mean Ford will follow suit. That goes for weight savings too. Just because the C7 became heavier doesn't mean the Mustang will also. Last I checked Ford isn't GM.

 

[Whiskey11]

Yeah, for autoX (especially competitive) the rules can really pigeon hole a choice. I do a bunch of track days, but just for fun, so for me the added power and lack of turbo is a benefit. The weight is a negative, but it's more of a sliding scale, so I don't really have a cutoff. That said, my 350Z I think was about 3250 lbs so I may change my tune after driving a heavier Mustang.

I'm actually bit surprised you'd want to AutoX a turbo though. I love AutoX in my Z, but I tried a friend's BMW 335, and even though the power was better, the turbo lag was horrible. I guess one would adapt if they owned the car, but I still get bothered by the lag in my GTI and I've driven it for 50,000 miles.

It's possible I'm a very slow learner. :doh:

-T

Every Ecoboost car I've driven has been pretty responsive in regards to lag. 90% of peak torque available at 1500-1750 RPM till red line will do that. The constant on off of the throttle application will certainly cause some issues and I'm sure I will need to learn to left foot brake if I really want to take maximum advantage of the boost created by the turbo. The added wear is going to happen regardless, at least it's just the brake pads!

Worst case, it sounds like the EB4 is going to be very quick to build boost and I may just treat it like my 3V... since the 3V doesn't start making power until over 3k RPM, slow corners meant jumping the throttle EARLY and riding the surge out of the corner. It's a bit of a wild ride but you get used to it and if it does take quite some time to build boost, then that is what I'll do. I drove my buddy's Evo IX SE a couple times during a test'n'tune and it didn't seem to have a whole lot of lag. It was perceptible but it wasn't awful and he's making a decent amount of power out of his stock turbo. The ST classes have a lot more boost change restrictions (can't command more boost in the ECU or touch the boost tables and any boost limiting features) than SM does. The plan is to leave the engine and drivetrain basically stock until I determine it needs more power and torque.

Really though, Ford needs to hit an aggressive weight goal. I don't forsee the Mustang competing with 2800lb BMW's, 2600lb FRS/BRZ's, 2700 RX8's and 2400lb Integra Type R's at more than 3100lbs in race weight, nor do I see them competing against 3000-3100lb STi's and Evo's, even with 40mm more tire at each corner. I'm really hoping the EB4 comes in at 3200lbs, give or take. Less would be amazing, but 3200-3300 is really pushing my limits. If it ends up being more than 3300lbs, I'll keep my 2009 and go off the deep end with it.

 

[JohnZiraldo]

I'm wondering if this story from TTAC about Ford having problems with aluminum on the new F150 has anything to do with Ford's coyness about the Mustang's weight.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/20...y-nearly-three-months-due-to-aluminum-issues/

Sponsored