"expected" weight gain

[williamwally]

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).

Exactly; the list isn't big and the alternatives are very expensive, have no useful back seats, trunk or both.

Sponsored

 

[Hemisedan]

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.[/QUOTE]

Well stated. I thought that I was the only one that feels this way.

 

[FordBlueHeart]

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...

You are reading waaaaaaay too far into my original post. I never said that in order for it to weigh less it had to handle worse. If you read the response I had to Eurospeed, you will see that I tried to explain myself better. It was simply a way to show that losing weight isn't the Holy Grail for handling.

Let me try again. Would you buy a 2014 with it's current chassis and handling traits weighing 200 pounds less or would you buy a 2015 with a stiffer chassis and suspension, better handling, but weighs the same as the 2014?
I would think that first of all, you would want the best handling car, then weight would be a secondary concern. Not the primary.

I want a lighter car too, but as far as we know right now, that might not happen initially. But what if it handles and does everything performance wise better? Why would anyone be so close-minded to say, "yeah, but it doesn't weigh less so I'm not going to get it"?

The only thing that appears to me to be nonsensical is your ability to understand where I am coming from. But I understand that, since my position is that I don't agree with you that weight is the only thing that matters. It only makes sense that you would disagree with me. Fair enough?

 

[SLVRBACK]

The mustang has always been an amazing performer, even with some " disadvantages " such as the solid rear axle. Even with it, it still out-performed cars with " better " technology and architecture.

In regards to weight, do we really think the mustang can't pull it off even if it keeps the same weight figures are before? If ford can pull of the handling of a BRZ at 800lbs heavier, all the more power to ford.

I think that the car is exactly where it needs to be. The mustang isnt a follower. It paves the way of performance and sets benchmarks in its own way. I'm excited to see how this next generation performs.

 

[FordBlueHeart]

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...





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.

This is a great post Jesse! It really shows us where you are coming. I agree with what you are saying about bloat, but (you knew there was a but) I feel the reason is purely government intervention.(You know all about that living in Colorado right now)
Safety regulations are what is responsible for the rapid increase in weight and dimensions. Technology is just now catching up to these requirements and allowing the Manufacturers to downsize again, although it is expensive!
You mentioned the Toyobaru twins as a great handling car that is smaller. It may be, but it was designed for a certain amount of power. Therefore they could make it smaller because they didn't need it to carry the weight of a V8 which in turn drives up the weight of all other components.

 

[91z28350]

While I respect your opinions, that is the point of these message boards, let's look at why I disagree with you guys.

1. weight - the original 65-66 Mustang had a shipping weight of 2570 (with a straight 6). Now add power windows, seats, a larger v8, the bracing necessary for a high power motor (the highest output in 65-66 as I can find was a 271HP net 289) and of course the required safety equipment.

2 size - again using the 65-66 as a template, the car could not fit a big block in it, wasn't until the 67 size increase that the 390 was available, and 68 for the 428. The width of the 32v motors is even larger than the FE big blocks, not sure how you could get a smaller car that still fit dohc motors?

3 fox body - the highest horsepower Fox I can find refernce to was the 1993 Cobra, weight 3225? so 350 pounds less than a 5.0 coupe. With all the upgrades in interior quality and new safety equipmnt required I don't think tha is too bad of weight gain over 20 years. Especially for a value priced car.

I understand where you are coming from, who wouldn't want a lighter car? What I don't want is significantly smaller car. That may bethe crux of our disagreement. Those who want a fox body or SN95 sized car, and those who like the S197 and now S550 sized cars. In the end, neither of us are wrong, boils down to personal preference. I like long, muscular cars, you like smaller, more nimble cars.

 

[FordBlueHeart]

I would like a Fox sized Mustang. As Jesse stated, it has roughly the same interior space as the S197 and S550.
But I wouldn't want to be in an accident with one. At least one with Fox body safety requirements.

 

[Dirk McGurck]

We aren't going to extremes saying we want a Fox-body or Toybaru sized car, just a little smaller. Most companies make cars larger and same weight. So making the car smaller should yield a lighter weight.

Not many people would see a difference with a slightly smaller trunk and less back seat room, especially considering the seat are lowered from the IRS and the wider body.

 

[tacamo]

Total weight is not the sole factor for performance...this car was not designed, in street trim, to be a race car. If you want to make it a race car you can take weight out of it. Balance is much more important for road performance- that means CG and fore/aft distribution. The target for me personally is a capable grand touring car. Ford has the right idea the way they are headed now as driven by the market and the gov't regulations. There is nothing to keep individuals from stripping the production chassis to make a pylon racer or drag car. I'm 67 years old and have been doing this for many, many years. Don't expect Ford to go much beyond their Cobra Jet or Laguna Seca effort to keep the racers happy with a factory effort. The GT segment is probably orders of magnitude bigger than the boy-racer segment. The factory strippers aren't cheap either (ala Z-28/Cobra Jet/Laguna Seca). Before you gaff me off as an old fart please be aware that I built and regularly drive a '64 AC Cobra replica. That's pretty much a light weight (2350#) bare bones (no heat/radio/top/side windows, etc.) incredible handling dinosaur. The market for those originals, when they were new, was about 1,000 cars made between '62 and '67... and they weren't cheap. Neither were the GT-350 (especially the Rs). Why do expect Ford to cater to such a small market segment? That's what hot rodding was all about. Make it what you want it.

 

[91z28350]

Spoken like a pro!

 

[Thed]

If Ford can back up that the GT PP is faster than a Boss at the track and if it accelerates faster than the old GT, weight isn't an issue for me.

 

[Wildcat]

I think those early rumor articles about it dropping 400 pounds created some unrealistic expectations for some. But in the end those were just rumors.

Common sense would tell you a car adding more features and technology and better quality materials and keeping the wheelbase of the outgoing model isn't going to be dropping major weight. In fact, a slight gain should be what you would expect.

Ford isn't building a track car. They're building an every day car to be driven on regular roads by regular people. They're building a better quality car with a better suspension that will appeal to a broader potential customer base. That comes with a cost.

I don't understand how people can complain about the car having a chinzy interior and oxcart suspension, and then when Ford changes and adds the new tech and materials, people complain about no weight loss. It's really unreasonable to expect both.

 

[VIN666]

Being the owner of a 2600 lbs SRT4 I am no stranger to car dieting.
I don't think that 3400 lbs is unreasonable for the GT. In fact, I think it is good.
Apparently, I was fed incorrect information when I heard that Ford was aiming to drop 400 lbs. So when they announced that they met their target, I was very excited.
I agree with the "old fart" that cars can be further stripped down, no doubt. But look at the Z06s for example. Base car 3350 lbs, Z car 3100 lbs. I was hoping for something like that in the PP GT.
Unrealistic? Maybe. Hence the term hoping

 

[tacamo]

Look at the Z06--- they had aluminum frames and the regular cars had steel frames. How much did that cost? How much more expensive was the Z06? How many more did they sell? Strippers ain't cheap. Vettes and Mustangs have always been different market approaches. Mustang volume is huge compared to Vettes.

 

[VIN666]

And with volume comes better pricing...
Either way, curious to see what the actual numbers end up being.

Sponsored