"expected" weight gain

[Dub347sbf]

I disagree, MOST enthusiasts do NOT necessarily want a SN95 sized Car (and this enthusiast sure as hell does not want that). The other point that you are flat out missing, they are designing this car to be able to handle 420+ hp all the way up to most likely 600+ (can't be exact since we don't know what the final numbers are on the coyote and no idea what/if a FI halo mill will make), and that takes a strong foundation. The 3200 lb car you reference is what the 93 Cobra(fox body)weighed, with a whopping 235 hp and what, 17" tire/wheel combo at best? Not mention no big brakes, none of the required government mandated safety (now not just US requirements, but Euro requirements as well) a body that doesn't want to turn in to a pretzel, etc. Here oare the weights of a couple SN95's for reference: 2003 Mach 1 - 3,380 lbs.(325 hp), 2003 Cobra - 3,665 lbs (rated at 390hp) 2000 Cobra R - 3589 (385 hp). A couple SN197's: 2012 GT500 3750 (550 HP), 2013 GT Track Pack - ~3600 lbs (420HP). I just don't see them making a car as light as you want while still being able to sell a base model v6 in the ~25K range. Hey if they can, and keep the current proportions ( I admit I find the S550 quite beautiful and definitely showing her Mustang heritage), awesome! But my point with the numbers above, even the SN95 was no light weight, and the passenger protection requirements have increased dramatically since 03.

Last point, the Z06, the C6 Z06 was approximately 100 pounds less than a regular C6, and they used balsa wood cores between the floor pan, thinner glass, carbon fiber roof panel, fixed roof, less sound deadening, etc, and a 20K+ price increase. And for the new Corvette, Chevrolet's halo car, even with the use of a aluminum frame in the base models for the first time, the Z51 gained about 100 pounds. That is for a 2 seat sports car with aspirations of being counted amongst the best in the world, in a class that has an elite field of competitors.

Is it weird that z28 350 guy makes sense? Or am I missing something? Great post.

Sponsored

 

[91z28350]

Sorry, that Z28 was my First long term hot rod. This Z28 guy has a 3.6 LC KB GT500 @ ~725 to the rears ;)

 

[Dub347sbf]

Sorry, that Z28 was my First long term hot rod. This Z28 guy has a 3.6 LC KB GT500 @ ~725 to the rears ;)

Regardless of what you drive, your logic is amazing. With regards to what you drive now, DROOL thanks for being a voice of reason in this madhouse!

 

[91z28350]

Thanks. I am by no means a Ford apologist. I am a car guy first and foremost. As a personal preference I like really fast GT cars. But I do try and be logical, so Cheers and Thanks for noticing!!
James

 

[Dub347sbf]

Thanks. I am by no means a Ford apologist. I am a car guy first and foremost. As a personal preference I like really fast GT cars. But I do try and be logical, so Cheers and Thanks for noticing!!
James

:cheers:
-Hunter

 

[C00KIE M0NSTER]

So we have supposed car guys in this thread heralding the Corvette and 370Z for size and weight. The Corvette costs nearly twice as much and is a 2-seat sports car. The 370Z comes with MUCH less hp in the form of a smaller V6, and also seats 2.

These factory "lightweights" undercut the Mustang by a whopping ~ 200 lbs.


What am I missing? Put in this context, along with the fact that the Mustang's two most direct competitors are much heavier than the Mustang, it makes the Mustang look like an engineering marvel.

The 2013 M3, comparable in size and performance, weighs 3700+

The new M3/M4 will have at least 430 hp and be under 3306 lbs!

 

[scottpe]

The new M3/M4 will have at least 430 hp and be under 3306 lbs!

Yep, and it took lots of expensive materials to get there (carbon fiber and aluminum). Easier to pull off in a car priced $25k above the Mustang GT. ;)

 

[Trackaholic]

The new M3/M4 will have at least 430 hp and be under 3306 lbs!

I've heard that they are trying to lose weight, but haven't seen a figure yet. Where did you hear about the 3306 maximum? If they pull that off, it would be mighty impressive.

Unfortunately, I'm not a fan of the looks of the new M3, nor the fact they have ditched the awesome V8 in favor of a turbo-6. I know it will be a great car, but I wonder if it will have a similar problem as the M5, which gained great torque over the V12 version, but seems to have lost its sense of fun in the process (although the latest M5 is based on the 7 series chassis, which is probably why it seems more like a luxury car than a sports sedan). The M3 shouldn't have an issue with a compromised platform.

Still, the engine change alone greatly reduces my interest in the upcoming M3.

-T

 

[Whiskey11]

I figured I should add this in before I address the quote: There are a lot of enthusiasts, and journalists that consider the Nissan 350Z/370Z to be Japanese Pony Cars... The only reason they don't fully meet the definition of a Pony Car is the lack of a back seat. I should also add that there are a lot of enthusiasts and journalists who feel that the vaunted M3 is a German Pony Car... and it does have a back seat... Whether you agree or not is entirely up to you but I feel that they certainly represent their respective country's interpretation of what a Pony Car should be... smaller, relatively quick and reasonably inexpensive for the performance value. I'm not sure what the M3 costs overseas but I've heard it's reasonable compared to the $60k variants here in the states.

I disagree, MOST enthusiasts do NOT necessarily want a SN95 sized Car (and this enthusiast sure as hell does not want that). The other point that you are flat out missing, they are designing this car to be able to handle 420+ hp all the way up to most likely 600+ (can't be exact since we don't know what the final numbers are on the coyote and no idea what/if a FI halo mill will make), and that takes a strong foundation. The 3200 lb car you reference is what the 93 Cobra(fox body)weighed, with a whopping 235 hp and what, 17" tire/wheel combo at best? Not mention no big brakes, none of the required government mandated safety (now not just US requirements, but Euro requirements as well) a body that doesn't want to turn in to a pretzel, etc. Here are the weights of a couple SN95's for reference: 2003 Mach 1 - 3,380 lbs.(325 hp), 2003 Cobra - 3,665 lbs (rated at 390hp) 2000 Cobra R - 3589 (385 hp). A couple SN197's: 2012 GT500 3750 (550 HP), 2013 GT Track Pack - ~3600 lbs (420HP). I just don't see them making a car as light as you want while still being able to sell a base model v6 in the ~25K range. Hey if they can, and keep the current proportions ( I admit I find the S550 quite beautiful and definitely showing her Mustang heritage), awesome! But my point with the numbers above, even the SN95 was no light weight, and the passenger protection requirements have increased dramatically since 03.

Last point, the Z06, the C6 Z06 was approximately 100 pounds less than a regular C6, and they used balsa wood cores between the floor pan, thinner glass, carbon fiber roof panel, fixed roof, less sound deadening, etc, and a 20K+ price increase. And for the new Corvette, Chevrolet's halo car, even with the use of a aluminum frame in the base models for the first time, the Z51 gained about 100 pounds. That is for a 2 seat sports car with aspirations of being counted amongst the best in the world, in a class that has an elite field of competitors.

What enthusiasts are you talking about when you say MOST enthusiasts do NOT want an SN95 sized car? I've talked to a lot of autocrossers and I'd say the vast majority of them DO want a smaller sized Mustang if they are to be interested in it. I'm not sure that constitutes "Most" and since the term "enthusiast" is vague at best I'm not sure what to make of that. I'm not sure why drag racers wouldn't want a lighter, smaller car either since a lighter smaller car tends to be easier to accelerate.

It's really funny that you mention the 17" wheel/tire combo and absence of big brakes, you'll be pleased to note that the SN95 cars and the Fox Cars do extremely well with their relatively small sized rotors and floating calipers, when upgraded to Cobra Calipers, on a road course and the aftermarket has jumped to support Cobra calipers such that you can actually buy the things in Autozone and other major chain part stores. So much so that while the aftermarket DID release the kits for fixed calipers, they aren't nearly as prevalent as they are on the S197 chassis. Quite frankly, the cars didn't need more brakes, due to the lower weight. Brakes will only do as much as the tires can support... the S197's fault in the braking system on a road course isn't the brake torque, it's the heat capacity. I can get my bone stock brake pads, calipers and rotors to lock up some of the stickiest autocross tires with 12.4" rotors and 2 pot floating calipers, more brake rotor diameter isn't going to make me stop any quicker, or harder from speed, at least not that a set of decent brake pads can't accomplish... all it will do is add mass for more heat capacity... why do we need more heat capacity? Because we are stopping more weight and in some cases, from higher speeds (Mustangs have gotten faster over the years, I'll give you that).

Talk to anyone who has ran an S197 on a road course and it is universally agreed upon that if you want to do it some what frequently that the Brembo 4 pots are going to be a lot less headache and last a lot longer than the stock front brakes do. As for the SN95 not being a lightweight, I agree but only when inspected in a vacuum... compared to the modern Mustang with GT's pushing 3600lbs or more, 3300lbs curb weight for a 5.0L 1994 Mustang GT (SN95) or 3350 for one with a 4.6L is lighter weight than the current cars. Hell, my car has a number of weight reduction options on it and it weighs 3425lbs with an 1/8th tank of gas and without me in it.

I also find it funny that folks start looking at the E90 M3 and newer for curb weights, how about 3400lbs for an E46 M3 which stopped being sold in 2006, or how about an E36 M3 which is at 3200lbs. Considering that the M3 didn't get its title as the benchmark of the modern sports car with the E90 series M3's, I think we should really look at the models that did. The E36 M3 is ubiquitous for being that car, not the E90. Some would argue it was the E30 M3 that did it and it weighed 2800lbs. Go onto the various E90 M3 forums and see the bitching about the weight of the cars and come back and tell me that "enthusiasts" don't want a smaller, lighter weight car, or that they are content with the weight of the E90 M3.

The S197 chassis is a superb chassis from a chassis stiffness point of view. Some minor tweaks that wouldn't add weight are all that is really needed to handle big HP numbers. Long gone are the days of needing to add sub frame connectors to the car in order to save it from it's own power and to stiffen the car up. Again, the S197 chassis is stiffer than a McLaren F1 and a number of other cars:


Aston Martin DB9 Convertible 15,500 Nm/deg
Audi TT Coupe 19,000 Nm/deg
Bugatti EB110 - 19,000 Nm/degree
BMW E36 Touring 10,900 Nm/deg
BMW E36 Z3 5,600 Nm/deg
BMW E46 Sedan (w/o folding seats) 18,000 Nm/deg
BMW E46 Sedan (w/folding seats) 13,000 Nm/deg
BMW E46 Wagon (w/folding seats) 14,000 Nm/deg
BMW E46 Coupe (w/folding seats) 12,500 Nm/deg
BMW E46 Convertible 10,500 Nm/deg
BMW E90: 22,500 Nm/deg
BMW Z4 Roadster: 14,500 Nm/deg
Chrysler Crossfire 20,140 Nm/deg
Chrysler Durango 6,800 Nm/deg
Chevrolet Corvette C5 9,100 Nm/deg
Dodge Viper Coupe 7,600 Nm/deg
Ferrari 360 Spider 8,500 Nm/deg
Ford GT40 MkI 17,000 Nm/deg
Ford Mustang 2003 16,000 Nm/deg
Ford Mustang 2005 21,000 Nm/deg
Ford Mustang Convertible (2003) 4,800 Nm/deg
Ford Mustang Convertible (2005) 9,500 Nm/deg
Jaguar X-Type Sedan 22,000 Nm/deg
Jaguar X-Type Estate 16,319 Nm/deg
Lambo Murcielago 20,000 Nm/deg
Lotus Elan 7,900 Nm/deg
Lotus Elan GRP body 8,900 Nm/deg
Lotus Elise 10,000 Nm/deg
Lotus Elise 111s 11,000 Nm/deg
Lotus Esprit SE Turbo 5,850 Nm/deg
Maserati QP - 18.000 nm/degree
McLaren F1 13,500 Nm/deg
Mercedes SL - With top down 17,000 Nm/deg, with top up 21,000 Nm/deg
Porsche 911 Turbo (2000) 13,500 Nm/deg
Porsche 959 12,900 Nm/deg
Volvo S60 20,000 Nm/deg
Audi A2: 11,900 Nm/deg
Audi TT: 10,000 Nm/deg (22Hz)
Renault Sport Spider: 10,000 Nm/degree
Volvo S80: 18,600 Nm/deg
Porsche 911 Turbo 996 Convertible: 11,600 Nm/deg
Lotus Elise S2 Exige (2004): 10,500 Nm/deg
Volkswagen Fox: 17,941 Nm/deg
Lambo Gallardo: 23000 Nm/deg
Mazda Rx-7: ~15,000 Nm/deg
Saab 9-3 Sportcombi - 21,000 Nm/degree
Opel Astra - 12,000 Nm/degree
Lamborghini Countach 2,600 Nm/deg
Ford Focus 3d 19.600 Nm/deg
Ford Focus 5d 17.900 Nm/deg

I've underlined several cars that are in the same ball park stiffness wise (some are slightly stiffer) that are significantly more expensive. This list was taken from: http://www.germancarforum.com/community/threads/the-list-torsional-rigidity.12334/

Tell me again why Ford should be focusing on a stiffer chassis? Because safety? A stiffer chassis transmits more force to occupants because it has less ability to absorb the force through deformation of the car. While this means the car survives impacts better, the occupants tend to die easier, not exactly an overwhelmingly intelligent thing to do. Any sections of "crumple zones" in key areas of the car's load paths for forces are going to take the brunt of all torsional loads, adding stress to those areas of the car in normal driving.

Personally, I think the car doesn't need to get too much stiffer if at all... I can already jack up 3 of 4 wheels from one point on my 2009 GT's jacking points without tweaking the chassis and I have done NOTHING to stiffen it at all.

 

[Josh Painter]

No manual is what kills me. Yes, I know no human can shift fast enough for the motor. I don't care.

The price is what kills me. For $96K (if I had it) I could buy a GT, an F-150, a Triumph Thunderbird, and still have enough left over to throw a hell of a party.

And the quickest way to lose 200 or so pounds is don't let that beer hound buddy ride shotgun.

 

[SStormtrooPer]

I disagree, MOST enthusiasts do NOT necessarily want a SN95 sized Car (and this enthusiast sure as hell does not want that). The other point that you are flat out missing, they are designing this car to be able to handle 420+ hp all the way up to most likely 600+ (can't be exact since we don't know what the final numbers are on the coyote and no idea what/if a FI halo mill will make), and that takes a strong foundation. The 3200 lb car you reference is what the 93 Cobra(fox body)weighed, with a whopping 235 hp and what, 17" tire/wheel combo at best? Not mention no big brakes, none of the required government mandated safety (now not just US requirements, but Euro requirements as well) a body that doesn't want to turn in to a pretzel, etc. Here are the weights of a couple SN95's for reference: 2003 Mach 1 - 3,380 lbs.(325 hp), 2003 Cobra - 3,665 lbs (rated at 390hp) 2000 Cobra R - 3589 (385 hp). A couple SN197's: 2012 GT500 3750 (550 HP), 2013 GT Track Pack - ~3600 lbs (420HP). I just don't see them making a car as light as you want while still being able to sell a base model v6 in the ~25K range. Hey if they can, and keep the current proportions ( I admit I find the S550 quite beautiful and definitely showing her Mustang heritage), awesome! But my point with the numbers above, even the SN95 was no light weight, and the passenger protection requirements have increased dramatically since 03.

Last point, the Z06, the C6 Z06 was approximately 100 pounds less than a regular C6, and they used balsa wood cores between the floor pan, thinner glass, carbon fiber roof panel, fixed roof, less sound deadening, etc, and a 20K+ price increase. And for the new Corvette, Chevrolet's halo car, even with the use of a aluminum frame in the base models for the first time, the Z51 gained about 100 pounds. That is for a 2 seat sports car with aspirations of being counted amongst the best in the world, in a class that has an elite field of competitors.

Guess what, I agree with you 100%, everything you said -- especially when talking about a hypothetical situation where the car stays the SAME size it is now. I have along -- and if you reread my posts, you will notice I said I have been disappointed with the bloat and weight for years -- and being more passionate about it now becasue the car is supposedly all new and there was opportunity there.

I have said all along that size reduction must occur for weight loss to occur. Also I never said MOST enthusiasts want a SN95 sized car -- I was saying it would be nice, for me. I said MOST enthusiasts want to see SOME size and weight go away -- and if you look around at most of the threads where size and weight is mentioned, I think you will find YOU are in the MINORITY that thinks the car is a great size and weight. I understand you like the size of the car, and I don't -- that is where we disagree. But on the flip side I think if MOST(not all) had there choice they would see the car lose SOME overhang/size. That results in loss of size overall.

That said, lets not get want confused with need -- a lot of guys WANT a smaller, lighter car, but if they don't get it, it is not a deal breaker. For me it is. I have said this from day one. But the fact it is not a deal breaker for them doesn't make their WANT any less valid.

Because we all seem to be so hung up on safety, engine size(which a Coyote is lighter than a 5.0 HO BTW) , rigidity, etc, and for some reason think these are the only things that causes weight, I want to do a little comparison here:

My 2000 Jeep Wrangler is built into a rock crawler -- and because it plays in the rocks it needs armor. When I designed my skids and bought body protection, I knew I was going to be adding weight -- it was unavoidable. My goal was to minimize that impact as much as possible obviously. Long story short, my front fenders, rocker guards, and rear fenders/crusher corners are all aluminum. With only the fenders and rocker protection I saved 300lbs at a cost of about $175. I plan on taking out another 150 or so for another $100. That will be a total of 450lbs at a cost of $275(the price difference between steel and aluminum for full skids and body armor). Keep in mind, these are aftermarket parts sold at a premium. A premium that doesn't exist or would be passed on to the consumer at a mark up in a world where Ford is building something in volume. It probably costs the aftermarket companies about 1/4 of that $275 -- and that is in extremely low volume, hand built, hand welded, etc. I bet that is a lot cheaper than a lot of people would have guessed...

Granted, the 350 wouldn't carry over directly because we are talking about a heavier gauge metal, but there is far less real estate on my Jeep than a Mustang -- hell, there is far less real estate on my Jeep than my Fox, so that is still SIGNIFICANT savings.

That said, we know S550 has aluminum front fenders -- extend that to the hood, the door skins, and the deck lid. Take 3" off the back of the car, and 2" off the front. Lose an inch in width. You are talking about a significant weight savings, at a cost that is negligible in the grand scheme of things -- and tech that trickles down to your volume cars. That is before you even consider this is a new chassis("supposedly"), with new tech, and the weight that can be engineered out of the bones.

As you lose weight in the body and bones, you subsequently lessen the need for heavier suspension components, load bracing and massive brakes. The reduction may be minimal there, but it counts. You can see where this is going. It adds up, and becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

Weight wise, the SN95 is a bad comparison to use directly. I agree that safety requirements have increased. But what we know about manufacturing processes, metals, plastics, composites, as well as the size/weight reduction in electronics and such since then is VERY different. Additionally, the SN95 was built on a modified Fox chassis -- you are talking about chassis tech from the 70s.

And again, the C7 was only a comparison to prove the car does not NEED to bulk up significantly over any period of time. Cost of the car today is irrelevant, because the Corvette has always come at a premium over the Mustang, and in fact, with Mustang being a higher volume car, it should have less issues making up the difference in cost. The Corvette needs to be higher cost in part because it is lower volume.

At the end of the day, and in my experiences, weight loss is not the doom and gloom scenario some people have been tricked to believe it is. Is it free? No. Is it only for the rich? Absolutely not. It also CAN be a negligible cost that you or I would never notice.

One last thing to keep in mind, even if Ford made $100 less for each car, the better your Halo car is in looks, performance, and perception -- the more folks you bring into your dealerships. That has to count for something. And then you have tech to improve your volume cars.

 

[VIN666]

All the enthusiasts I know want smaller lighter cars.
I have NEVER heard a single car guy anywhere, that was excited about the weight of current cars.
Not at cruise nights, not at "street races", not at car shows, not at track days, not at autoxs, not at rallyxs, not at the drag strip.
Never. Once.

 

[Whiskey11]

snip

All the enthusiasts I know want smaller lighter cars.
I have NEVER heard a single car guy anywhere, that was excited about the weight of current cars.
Not at cruise nights, not at "street races", not at car shows, not at track days, not at autoxs, not at rallyxs, not at the drag strip.
Never. Once.

You two, take your logic and GTFO! :bolt:

I'm just kidding, spot on!

 

[tacamo]

Colin Chapman (LOTUS god) once said that if he could build a car so light that it fell apart as it crossed the winning finish line he would have achieved his goal. I really don't think any real enthusiast is happy with the weight/mass of most of the current cars today...maybe some of us with more miles under our chassis just understand ALL the factors involved in making it what it is and are willing to accept some of the less desirable realities along with the positives. This new Mustang looks like a really great winner...it looks to be a delightful and strong street performer. It is aimed at a huge market. It is loaded with compromises. I'll bet it is successful. I want one and will vote with my wallet when they become available.

 

[SStormtrooPer]

...maybe some of us with more miles under our chassis just understand ALL the factors involved in making it what it is and are willing to accept some of the less desirable realities along with the positives.

I am glad you said this because it is VERY important and I agree 1000000%. I say it is important, because going thru this thread, there is A LOT of "1 reason" answers or excuses that argue why weight loss CAN'T happen.

While you want to point out all the factors that result in weight, which are 100% valid in their own merit, I equally want to point out that weight loss is obtainable at a VERY low cost thru a lot of different channels, and equally valid. I don't think the resourcing changes at all. I think what changes is where you focus the resourcing. My job requires me to approach reason this way, and I have done for my company what the majority of others told me was not possible.

I am very opinionated, as you can see ;), but I also feel in this thread we have not given rational and logical thought a fair chance on BOTH sides of the argument.

Sponsored