"expected" weight gain

[Whiskey11]

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.

A few things: My pylon racer is in a class where weight reduction is limited, not limited by a hard weight number (I WISH!) but by things you can do to the car to remove weight, things such as race seats, coilovers, battery, etc. Basic things, nothing drastic like pulling interior. Let me be the first to tell you, it IS a race to the bottom in weight in that class because the competition is already so damn close.

The less weight the new Mustang has, the better and I'd be happy to pay a little more for it and I certainly don't want all the options either. If the GT came in at 200lbs lighter it would be between 3350-3450 for weight, I'd be THRILLED with that as the roughly 100-110lb lighter Turbo 4 car will be at a palatable 3240-3350lbs. Within my class there is about 180-200lbs of weight that is easy to remove and stay in the class.

On weight distribution: Ehh, yes, no... poor weight distribution can be quite easily bandaided with stiffer springs or better chassis development. It will certainly make the car harder to tune correctly but it is not impossible to band aid around it enough to make the chassis work well. Will it be as ideal as 50/50 or 49/51? Nope. I highly doubt a 50/50 weight distribution will make up for 700lbs of weight over the nearest competition (that's assuming the GT weighs 3500lbs in competition trim) when you are forced onto the same width tires. What I do know, is that a car weighing 2500lbs with a 57/43 weight distribution is far more nimble than a car weighing 3500lbs with a 50/50 weight distribution. I would say that holds true all the way up until you get to the 200lb split between the two cars.

Sure you could bandaid heavier cars with bigger brakes to handle the added braking stress or wider tires to handle the extra lateral weight transfer but those options do not always exist and there is only so much making the brakes bigger, the engine bigger and wider tires will do for how the car performs and handles.

Finally, the Laguna Seca is not Ford's handling stripper car in the same sense the Cobra Jet is. The Cobra Jet is not street legal and the closest thing to that for the handling world is the Boss 302S and Boss 302R cars which are also not street legal. They start around $70k IIRC but they are full fledged, licensed race cars, not street cars.

We also aren't asking for a stripper model car either, just a reasonable weight car. You obviously find a 3500-3800lb car as reasonable for a GT car. If you want a loaded car with every option in the world and it weighs 3800lbs, great. I just prefer a more reasonably optioned car with far less weight. A 3200-3300lb Turbo 4 would be AMAZING... a 3600lb turbo 4, even with it's power output the same as the 4.6L 3V will be a giant TURD.

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.

Actually... If the Mustang was back to Fox Body proportions but with modern amenities... I'd be in heaven provided the weight was proportional to that size too... IE: GT in the 3000lb range with the Turbo 4 being in the 2800lb range. It would be one hell of a car for basically everything except maybe carrying around extra passengers.

Sponsored

 

[tacamo]

You can bandaid for poor weight distribution on a race car but when you make those changes you are going to have a car that rides like a buckboard on the street. I've been there. My examples of the Cobra Jet and the LS were illustrative. I had a street Cobra Jet in 1968 for example and it was a stripper...and it drove like a POS any time you tried to go around a corner. It was purpose built for straight line and it was expensive. I had a Boss 302 in 1969 and it was a POS below 3000 RPM but it was a hoot in the twisties and it was expensive. The modern cars have been developed to have much broader appeal and, in street form and can outperform any of the older HIPO vehicle I grew up with. The real world is not a pylon race. If you're really so focused on that to the point where you want a high volume production car built to that standard/requirement perhaps you need to reevaluate whether a Mustang is the right car for you....God knows there are lots of other options out there now. A Lotus Super Seven is a hell of a parking lot racer but I wouldn't want to drive it very far or very fast on the road (an illustrative example). There are lots of old Fox bodies out there too.

 

[SStormtrooPer]

Wow, this is a interesting thread.

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).

The 2014 TT AWD Turbo S is 3500 -- not a fair comparison since the TT setup and AWD add 400lbs. Now, a Carerra S is 400hp(so technically not over 400), but is 3045lbs.

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.

No one said it NEEDS to be 1965 or Fox sized -- it would be awesome IMO, but unrealistic. We UNDERSTAND that we will never have a 1965 or a Fox again. The argument is that people have been complaining about size/weight for years now, Ford has been promising weight loss across the entire line-up, and the reality is it did not NEED to get to this point to begin with -- there is NOTHING dictating that the size of this car is inherent to the segment and performance specs, or the safety equipment. If it was the safety, every car would be this size.

The argument that Ford can only work within the current parameters due to safety is invalid -- case in point:

1963 Corvette:
- 175.3 L
- 69.6 W
- 49.8 H
- 3000 - 3100lbs

C7 Corvette:
- 176.9 L
- 73.9 W
- 48.8 H
- 3300 - 3400lbs

The "safety" argument infers the C7 should be damn near the size of a Mustang -- but it isn't. *Note* I chose the 63 Vette, because that body style signified what the design philosophy of the Vette would be indefinitely.

In the end, neither of us are wrong, boils down to personal preference. I like long, muscular cars, you like smaller, more nimble cars.

Correct, I like what the Mustang was for about 40 years of its life, though I will admit is started to grow in the 90s. I think ou like what was the Torino, until Ford stopped making it, or the GTO. Big muscle cars. That is part of my point. A car this big is fine, we just should have never "lost" the Mustang to get it -- Mustang is more than just a name to some. See Corvette reference above. We didn't see that car fatten up by 38% since '65.

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.

No one once said weight was the end all... not really sure why it keeps coming up that way. I will say this though, a proportionately lighter car is easier to balance and will take a lot less money and engineering to make it great. AND it will FEEL light.

Also, where is any one saying the car needs to be stripped down, and why should I have to strip down a $35,000+ pony car?

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.

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.

Interesting. The 1965 had a WB 1" LONGER than the current car. We need to stop arguing one little part of the equation. That like saying we can never install a shaker intake because the current hood doesn't have a hole in it. The WB doesn't dictate all other proportions.

And no one in here was complaining about interior, suspension, or doing anything else other than discussing size and weight. Contrary to popular excuse, I mean belief, the is nothing forcing Ford to comply with the Gods of "Strict Weight and Sizing".


At the end of the day, I would much rather have Ford spend engineering money to fit engines, drivelines, etc. into a car that is smaller and lighter, and due to that has superior dynamics -- and feels like it to, than have a car that has grown out of its segment, increased 38% in weight, and needs Ford to spend its engineering dollars making it "act" like it is not that big.



Thanks for the conversation guys. Even if we don't agree, this type of thinking and debating ultimately becomes a voice for what we want the things we enjoy to be in the future.

 

[91z28350]

The problem I have with your figure is it is for a base six cylinder. A 1968 Fastback has up to a 3300 lb weight.
"Even if we don't agree, this type of thinking and debating ultimately becomes a voice for what we want the things we enjoy to be in the future."

Lastly, I don't want a fox body sized Mustang and iff I wanted a straight out muscle car, I would have bought a Challenger. I don't expect to change your mind, but I do want Ford to understand that at least this fan is happy with the general direction of the new car. I voted with my wallet when I bought my GT500 new. I will be very interested to see what the FI halo car is in the latter half of this decade.

 

[SStormtrooPer]

The problem I have with your figure is it is for a base six cylinder. A 1968 Fastback has up to a 3300 lb weight.

Sorry was off 100 - 150lbs. 1965(not 1968) was 2750 for a 289 4spd fastback. May have been lighter as a coupe.

I understand you want a big(ger) car. But the reality is people have been complaining about size/weight for years -- A LOT of people. And like you, I speak with my wallet. Others just listen to excuses. To each their own.

 

[tacamo]

I must object. A heavier car is no more difficult to balance than a lighter car. The dynamics of lateral/longitudinal G will change as the weight goes up but balance is balance regardless of the weight. If the balance is 50/50 at 2000 lbs the balance dynamic is the same as 50/50 at 4000 lbs.
Also, considering the impact of safety regulations, crash test requirements, emission requirements and market demand to have every convenience known to man in the car as standard equipment, where do you suggest the weight to be removed come from? The choice of a '63 Vette as a benchmark for weight efficiency is interesting since a '63 Vette weighed roughly 1000 lbs more than it's closest competitor, the 289 Cobra.

 

[Dirk McGurck]

Adding niceties doesn't necessarily contribute to heavier weight. 370Z's have heated and cooled supportive leather and fabric buckets that are light and small. Ditto with the Corvette. I could make do with 3 high quality speakers over 9 bumping stereo speakers; some cars have one speaker. Springing for higher quality and lighter materials shouldn't be too much to ask for if I'm putting down > $45k for a car.

 

[Whiskey11]

I must object. A heavier car is no more difficult to balance than a lighter car. The dynamics of lateral/longitudinal G will change as the weight goes up but balance is balance regardless of the weight. If the balance is 50/50 at 2000 lbs the balance dynamic is the same as 50/50 at 4000 lbs.
Also, considering the impact of safety regulations, crash test requirements, emission requirements and market demand to have every convenience known to man in the car as standard equipment, where do you suggest the weight to be removed come from? The choice of a '63 Vette as a benchmark for weight efficiency is interesting since a '63 Vette weighed roughly 1000 lbs more than it's closest competitor, the 289 Cobra.

Weight balancing a lighter car is definitely easier... a 34lb battery is 1.7% the overall weight of the car... it's only .85% the weight of a 4000lb car so the difference between moving that battery from front to rear will have a much more profound impact on weight distribution on a lighter car. Sure, 50/50 is 50/50 whether at 4000lbs or 2000lbs but things done to balance a car (such as battery relocation) generally have greater impacts on a lighter car making it easier to balance out a lighter car.

I'm also not exactly sure what your deal is with autocrossing the car. Yes, I do autocross my car and I DO want a lighter weight car because of that. I also want it because they tend to be less hard on consumables while autocrossing. I'm not saying Ford has to send me a 3000lb Mustang for me to be happy, I just want a car I can GET CLOSE TO that number without having to gut the damn car... the closer it is, the better. My autocross cars are daily drivers, stiff springs and all.

There are DOZENS of ways Ford could do it with a new chassis... hell they could get their buddy's at Mazda to go over the chassis and "Gram theory" it, they can switch out certain materials for lighter weight material. I'm not sure why Ford is obsessed with a stronger chassis... the S197 chassis has a higher chassis strength value than some super cars (McLaren F1 anyone?) and it isn't exactly floppy (See: Everything model year 2004 or older) for a chassis. They've already made it so previously common modifications, like sub frame connectors, are obsolete and the only chassis stiffening mods that seem to make a difference is a full 12 point cage that is PLENTY of chassis strength. Add the duff to the convertible models that people generally aren't concerned with performance as much on, let the rest of us have that lighter chassis that doesn't need to be 10934081340918340134134134 newtons per degree of deflection in the chassis.

 

[tacamo]

If you add "stuff" to a volume it adds weight. You can mitigate that to some extent by making the "stuff" lighter but that usually means more expensive material. Physics suggests that if the 370Z or the Vette didn't have all the stuff they too would be lighter. Neither the Vette or the 370z are in the same market segment as the Mustang. I think the Mustang has come a long way on quality (it seems to be quite good now) and has pursued the weight factor as well as it can economically. I'm buying one.

 

[Dirk McGurck]

Add the duff to the convertible models that people generally aren't concerned with performance as much on, let the rest of us have that lighter chassis that doesn't need to be 10934081340918340134134134 newtons per degree of deflection in the chassis.

Admit it: you had fun typing that.

 

[FordBlueHeart]

Great posts Phil! Would love to see pics of that Cobra too.

 

[SStormtrooPer]

I must object. A heavier car is no more difficult to balance than a lighter car. The dynamics of lateral/longitudinal G will change as the weight goes up but balance is balance regardless of the weight. If the balance is 50/50 at 2000 lbs the balance dynamic is the same as 50/50 at 4000 lbs.
Also, considering the impact of safety regulations, crash test requirements, emission requirements and market demand to have every convenience known to man in the car as standard equipment, where do you suggest the weight to be removed come from? The choice of a '63 Vette as a benchmark for weight efficiency is interesting since a '63 Vette weighed roughly 1000 lbs more than it's closest competitor, the 289 Cobra.

I must object as well. 50/50 balance is indeed 50/50 whether the car is 2000lbs or 4000lbs. But, you are forgetting the forces introduced when that weight is moving. And then trying to make that weight feel like its not there. Is that not "balancing" a car? You can argue all day long that weight doesn't have an impact, but physics don't lie. And like you, I have a story -- I design and fabricate suspensions for Jeeps in my free time, and before that, I did the same thing for Fox body Mustangs. I am fairly well versed in balance, and the effects of weight and movement on a suspension system and vehicle. Weight is the most difficult thing to have to overcome. Sorry.

In regards to the second part of your comment, I chose a 63 Vette because it is a car from the same era, that did NOT bloat out like the Mustang(and don't forget, many are trying to compare the C7 and S550). Did it gain weight due to all the things you mentioned? Sure, but not nearly as much. If it would have gained the same 36%(corrected), it would be 4000+ lbs. The Vette must not have any of that stuff by your reasoning, right? More likely -- GM listened to their enthusiasts. If you want to know where some of us believe the weight should come out of, you could read the entire thread.

 

[Dirk McGurck]

If you add "stuff" to a volume it adds weight. You can mitigate that to some extent by making the "stuff" lighter but that usually means more expensive material. Physics suggests that if the 370Z or the Vette didn't have all the stuff they too would be lighter. Neither the Vette or the 370z are in the same market segment as the Mustang. I think the Mustang has come a long way on quality (it seems to be quite good now) and has pursued the weight factor as well as it can economically. I'm buying one.

The Vette and the 370Z are already lighter than the Mustang, yet have plenty to offer for luxuries. Also, why wouldn't Ford want to steal sales from Nissan and GM? They apparently want it to look like they don't care about the Challenger (rightfully so) or the Camaro (I said look like). I'd be fine if they took the Mustang out of that segment and attacked Porsches, the Vette, M3/M4, S5s and the Merc offerings.

 

[tacamo]

Hell, I like autocrossing. I'm just not in a hurry to drive an autocrosser on a long cross country trip. Your willingness to drive a serious autocrosser on the street probably makes you a pretty small segment of the total market. Ford is obsessed with a strong chassis because of crash requirements/safety issues, handling benefits and because lighter materials undoubtedly add cost. I don't think anyone at Ford just wants to make a heavy car for the sake of a heavy car. If they could lighten it they would gain fuel mileage benefits too which would be to their advantage. I don't believe for a minute that Ford is on this road out of stupidity. They are already better than their U.S. competitors ( do you want to autocross a Challenger/Camaro?) and they are less expensive than their potential offshore competitors.

 

[m4a1mustang]

Adding niceties doesn't necessarily contribute to heavier weight. 370Z's have heated and cooled supportive leather and fabric buckets that are light and small. Ditto with the Corvette. I could make do with 3 high quality speakers over 9 bumping stereo speakers; some cars have one speaker. Springing for higher quality and lighter materials shouldn't be too much to ask for if I'm putting down > $45k for a car.

Cooled only in the Roadster. Supportive? Not really. Slightly better than the standard S197 seats, but we still slide around in the corners! We are a lot heavier than you'd think for a car this size. A 370Z manual coupe with the sport and touring packages, plus navigation, has a curb weight of right at 3400lbs. We actually get fewer goodies in a smaller package than the Mustang, so it will be interesting to see how close the larger s550 could get.

Sponsored