"expected" weight gain

[86GT]

I know I'm a little late to the discussion here, but add me to the list of people who see weight as one of the more important aspects of my decision of whether I'm likely purchase or not. I'm really looking forward to the 2.3T, but if it weighs over 3300lbs with the performance pack and a manual transmission, count me out.

As for the GT, I'd consider it if the 2.3T was over 3300lbs and a base GT was sub 3550.

Sponsored

 

[minicobra]

:amen:

3400 lbs and those toggle switches. Oh my god I'd be in heaven.

I'm in for 3400

 

[Dirk McGurck]

Disagree about fuel, but agree on brake and tires.

I believe fuel usage will be determined by the power output, and no matter the weight you'll be using full power almost all the time on the track. There are not too many cases where you'd be full throttle in a heavy car (making full power), yet be at partial throttle in a lighter car (making less power, and therefore saving gas).

I guess if you argued that the lighter car could get away with less power the the point is true, but then you are comparing different things.

Definitely would like a lighter car for track purposes, though, and hope the Mustang is able to loose weight as originally rumored.

-T

He might have been remarking about fuel economy for all owners, not just track owners.

 

[Tony Alonso]

I'd be very surprised if this car gained weight, but in saying all that, if there's ANY weight gain after all the 400 lbs loss they all claimed, Mustang will go off my short list and I'll go back to my roots.

The 400lbs was speculated by an enthusiast site, not promised by Ford.

 

[williamwally]

Are there any cars you can buy new that are under 3500lbs with over 400hp that can seat 4?

 

[StangFan]

Are there any cars you can buy new that are under 3500lbs with over 400hp that can seat 4?

Porsche 911 Turbo
500 hp
3461 lbs (manual)
Seats 4 (barely)

Mind you, that's the 2013 model. The redesigned 2014 may weigh over 3500 (automatic is 3550).

 

[SStormtrooPer]

It's called a hypothetical.

I appreciate the debate, but I don't think we should create nonsensical hypothetical situations so we can prove a point. No one ever in their right mind would say I want my car to shed 200lbs at the expense of handling...

I think it is part of the equation though.

A Lamborghini Aventador or Ferrari Berlinetta is over 3800lbs if memory serves, and these are generally acknowledged as great handling cars. I am acknowledging I understand your point with the clarification you made.

I asked that question in terms of the individual's personal decision making criteria. Hopefully the weight won't go up, but the reality is that it might. For my purchase consideration, it likely would not influence. I understand it might yours.

Just conversing here to better understand your rationale.

The Aventador is AWD with a 700hp V12. While Lamborghini claims the car is just under 3600 lbs, I would not be surprised if it was more -- and it should be.

I appreciate the conversation -- we all have different opinions with none of them being wrong, because they are ours. I really do get what you are saying regarding the performance -- I just can't make myself be happy with that argument.

My rationale is this -- I am a driver. I enjoy the pure driving experience. When I am in my Fox(2914lbs with me in it), the car feels so light, so easy to throw around, I can feel the road, and it STICKS to the ground when I need/want it too(disclosure - it has Saleen springs, KYBs, 255s in the front, and 275s in the rear). It does whatever I want it to do. Now, I just recently drove a 2013 Mustang GT(I would rather call it the car that Ford replaced the Mustang with), and I have driven numerous S197s. The car is refined and it is smooth, but it is heavy, and you can feel every pound. It does what IT wants, and at its limits. With a rookie behind the wheel, the 2014 would probably be faster. With a decent driver, my Fox could handle the 2013 I think. And even if it didn't, the Fox is far more fun to drive. Imagine that light weight with the power and suspension tech of today. Ford can get some feel that the car is lighter than it really is thru engineering, but it will never be the same as the real thing.

Furthermore there is the wear and tear. Take my fox, and the 2013, and drive them at the exact same pace, same conditions. The stress and forces applied to my drivetrain, driveline, suspension, and tires is much less than those applied to the same components on the 2013. And the laws of physics won't change with S550. So, by taking weight out of the car, the result is a drivetrain, driveline, and suspension that can now handle more power.

I want the Mustang to succeed, I really do. But I want it to go back to its roots -- lightweight, cheap performance. I don't want it to be a heavyweight engineered to drive faster than it should be able to. Look at the Toyobaru twins -- whether us Mustang owners like it or not, those cars are already being acclaimed as one of the great sports cars of our time even though there are a ton of faster cars. They are pure in almost everyway, and companies are taking note. There are going to be others, and whether you like it or not, Ford needs to step up its game or we will see the Mustang go away, at least in regards to affordability. Making excuses for shortcomings is a thing of the past, and that ideology died with Old GM and Old Chrysler. A performance car growing out of its segment is a shortcoming.

Somewhere in the 90's Ford started to lose their way with the Mustang. Compared to the 1965, the 2014 is 7.5" longer with a 1" shorter wheelbase -- this means it has 6.5" more overhang. It is almost 5" higher. It is 5.5" wider. It is 1,000lbs heavier -- a half of a ton heavier. A lot of people will claim growth is the result of options, safety, rigidity, interior and cargo room, etc. Look at the BRZ -- 22" shorter, 4" narrower, 5" lower, and 800lbs lighter. And is has almost the exact same size interior as the Mustang. Should the Mustang be that small? No. But it does go to show that weight and size reduction can be had without a ton of other compromise.

If we as consumers continue to make concessions for the things that we want, where will it end? Would you be ok with a 4300lb 2020 Mustang regardless of how well it handles?

This is not a new topic for me with this car. I have hated the bloat for years. The reason I am so passionate about it now is because this is a new platform, new car. Ford had a huge opportunity here. Lets be realistic, we just won't see a drastic reduction mid-cycle, maybe some but not enough.

Sorry for the long post. Its may seems overly dramatic, but there is always that "last straw". Its seems that is where I am at.

 

[91z28350]

Bottom line is you want a sports car. The Mustang is not, nor has it ever been, a sports car. It is mass production 2+2 coupe. One that has to have, engineered in from the beginning, enough strength to handle a 420+ hp engine, possibly all the way up to a 600+ hp engine.
Have you driven one the toyo/subbie twins? I have, and was highly unimpressed. The engine is gutless unless you are above 4K rpm. The car itself feels cheap, and even on the last straightaway of the 'ring, I was lucky to hit 200KMH.

I get that the new Mustang isn't what you want. Sorry, it is what it is. But to try and compare it to a '65 or one the of buzz boxers from Japan? That is ludicrous. Oh, and btw, the Z51 corvette weighs in at 3400 lbs and the GTR at 3800.

 

[Taneras]

I think the current GT's are in the lower 3600 pound range. If Ford shaves 75-100lbs I'll be happy. I'd love to get my GT around 3550lbs. Considering everything else Ford did with this car that'll be a victory for me.

Personally I think anything below 3550 is a pipe dream. Heck even 3550 might be a pipe dream. :( I think the C7 stingray is 3450lbs.

 

[eurospeed]

Bottom line is you want a sports car. The Mustang is not, nor has it ever been, a sports car. It is mass production 2+2 coupe. One that has to have, engineered in from the beginning, enough strength to handle a 420+ hp engine, possibly all the way up to a 600+ hp engine.
Have you driven one the toyo/subbie twins? I have, and was highly unimpressed. The engine is gutless unless you are above 4K rpm. The car itself feels cheap, and even on the last straightaway of the 'ring, I was lucky to hit 200KMH.

I get that the new Mustang isn't what you want. Sorry, it is what it is. But to try and compare it to a '65 or one the of buzz boxers from Japan? That is ludicrous. Oh, and btw, the Z51 corvette weighs in at 3400 lbs and the GTR at 3800.

Whether some call it a sports car, pony car, grocery getter, etc. does not matter...that's semantics. What matters is the focus on performance which will vary based on vehicle type, i.e., this could mean exceptional fuel economy to Civic owners. For a majority of Mustang enthusiasts, I would think that means acceleration and handling among other things.

I've owned an FR-S and it was fantastic to drive (minus the wonderful engine issues -- and I'm not talking about the lack of power). That kind of balance and control is very rare for a $25K vehicle. The engine was certainly low on power, but nothing forced induction couldn't remedy in later revisions.

It's unfortunate, but many vehicle manufacturers have practically lost their way while trying to create a new generation of vehicles. The ongoing fuel crunch is a good start as it has driven a renewed interest in serious weight reduction, but they still need to hear from the enthusiasts or we'll all continue to see feature bloat.

 

[All-Or-Nothing]

I am so glad the Mustang will never get squeezed down to the size of a FR-S.

 

[SStormtrooPer]

Bottom line is you want a sports car. The Mustang is not, nor has it ever been, a sports car. It is mass production 2+2 coupe. One that has to have, engineered in from the beginning, enough strength to handle a 420+ hp engine, possibly all the way up to a 600+ hp engine.
Have you driven one the toyo/subbie twins? I have, and was highly unimpressed. The engine is gutless unless you are above 4K rpm. The car itself feels cheap, and even on the last straightaway of the 'ring, I was lucky to hit 200KMH.

I get that the new Mustang isn't what you want. Sorry, it is what it is. But to try and compare it to a '65 or one the of buzz boxers from Japan? That is ludicrous. Oh, and btw, the Z51 corvette weighs in at 3400 lbs and the GTR at 3800.

I have driven a BRZ. I didn't like it enough to buy one -- but I am one of the few that is yet to like the S550, so that doesn't say much.

Comparing the two cars is not ludicrous. It is a valid comparison -- because the BRZ is proof that the Mustang does not NEED to be the size it is. Should it be BRZ/FRS size? Hell no, that is way to small. Comparing to the 1965 is not ludicrous -- that is THE car that started this segment. There is no reason the car had to get as big as it did -- one of the biggest complaints for Mustang, Camaro, and Challenger is size/weight.

Tony Alonso said he was trying to figure out my rationale, and I "long windly" explained. I'm just going to leave this at the fact we are arguing to different points and that's fine. I do get what you guys are saying.

 

[aardvark]

Comparing to the 1965 is not ludicrous -- that is THE car that started this segment. There is no reason the car had to get as big as it did

You hit the nail on the head.

I get it that some here are happy with the current size/weight (and as a Ford shareholder, I'm happy that you're happy), but don't try to tell us that it's written in stone that a 'real Mustang' has to be as big as it is (and will continue to be). The 1965 at 181" and a half-ton less was a 'real Mustang.' The Fox at 180" and a half-ton less was a 'real Mustang.'

Look, I'll admit that there's a nostalgia element for some of us. I grew up with Mustangs... my family had a '67 and I learned to drive on a Fox. From the beginning, I've felt that the S197 had gotten too big, and I've hoped that Ford would dial it back a bit with the new generation. Were any of us expecting it to drop 1,000 lbs? Of course not. Modern safety requirements, as well as all the bells and whistles that are now standard, make a huge drop impossible.

Rumors of a drop in size were made plausible by the fact that enthusiasts and critics have been raising the size/weight issue for this last generation. The rumors also seemed to dovetail nicely with all the hype about Ford making a play for international sales with a more 'global' car, and admittedly, some of got our hopes up. It's back to reality now.

 

[86GT]

I am so glad the Mustang will never get squeezed down to the size of a FR-S.

That's a pretty broad assumption. The S550 should be around for 8-10 years, but who know what will happen after that.

 

[Maestro5.0]

Safety regulations with what they are in this day and age for a car like the mustang I would say it is a safe assumption those nostalgia days of 65 or Fox mustang size/weight are over for good. Different times, different realities. This isn't about design where they can choose what they want to adhere to.

Sponsored