"expected" weight gain

[Josh Painter]

How many performance oriented folks do you know who bought one? It was a Pinto in disguise. Don't hook the word hate on me. It was a perfect example of what you get when you address a different market, and the buyers were a different market. I don't hate it but on the other hand, as a performance oriented buyer I wouldn't have one either.

I bought one new in 1975.

It was right after a divorce, and I literally had nothing but the clothes on my back. The only one of the possessions I had to sell that really hurt was my Honda 750 Four. I remember it had an Action Fours 4-into-two exhaust system that made it sound like a Porsche.

I had no job and no car. There was a job waiting in another state, but I had no way to get there. Then a friend told me about his brother's '68 Dodge Charger. It had 130K hard miles on it, and the 440 Magnum and auto trans were mostly worn out. It had been sitting in a field for two years.

We put a new battery in it and worked our butts off in the Texas heat for hours to get the thing running. Friend gave me the title and said to send him $500 when I could afford to. So I stopped at a Wal-Mart for a case of cheap motor oil and a case of ATF and set out on my 600 mile journey. The old Dodge got me there, but it burned four tanks of gas and nearly all of the oil and ATF on the way.

When I started the new job, I met a guy at work who also had a '68 Charger. His had a rebuilt engine and transmission, but the body and interior were badly rusted out. Mine had a worn out engine and tranny, but the body and interior were nearly perfect. He offered to buy mine so he could swap engines and transmissions. I sold him the car for $800, sent 500 of it to my friend, and hitched a ride to the local Ford dealer with $300 in my wallet.

There was no way I was going to buy a Granada, and there was little else that appealed to me in his inventory. The dealer had five Mustang IIs on the lot. Four of them had automatics, including the boy racer model with the 140 hp V8, racing stripes, and phony scoops. After driving the automatic Dodge and feeding its ATF habit, I was ready for a manual.

So I put the $300 down on the fastback with the V6 and four speed manual. It had styled steel wheels, the interior group, Dark brown metallic paint and a tan interior. It was not a fast car, but it was reliable, resonably comfortable, had A/C and, most importantly, it was affordable for a young dude starting his life over again. The car served me well, and gave me a way to get back and forth to work and to travel to visit faraway friends come vacation time.

Would I have preferred to have an S-Code '69 GT? Hell yes, but there weren't a lot of those on the used car market in a small town in 1975. In fact, nearly every used Mustang with a four speed I had looked at prior to springing for the Mustang II had been used and abused. I had no intention of jumping back into the situation I had been in with the Charger.

So the Mustang II was less than ideal for someone interested in performance, but so was just about every other new American car at the time. Mine got reasonable gas mileage and the Cologne V6 provided sufficient power for passing on the highway.

Two years after buying the Mustang, I added a motorcycle to the garage, a '77 Suzuki GS-750 four. It was quick, fast and could snake through the twisties. So I had the Mustang II for basic transportation and the motorcycle for performance. Suddenly, my life was just like in the old days before the divorce when I had the CB750 for performance and an ordinary car (a Volvo 122S - the one that looked like a '46 Ford) for transportation. Only difference was I had a much newer car than I had them, and a much otter and better-handling bike. Win - Win.

The point of this long winded diatribe is that the Mustang II was a reflection of the times in which it existed -- nothing more, nothing less. And in my case, it was an immediate solution to my transportation problem. The little car helped me get back on my feet again, and I'll always remember it fondly for that. It never broke down and stranded me, but served me well instead until I could afford to purchase an '85 Volvo Turbo. But that's another story (and a $140 speeding ticket)...

Sponsored

 

[SStormtrooPer]

Your case is very well stated. Here's the problem I have: Your assertion is that changing the dimensions ever so slightly and using more aluminum in the body, etc. would result in hundreds of pounds of weight loss and subsequently result in less need for heavier duty supporting parts (i.e. cost savings). If it was as easy and cheap as you seem to think, do you honestly think that Ford would ignore that option?

So the fact that they haven't done this (we think...since they haven't actually released weight figures yet) tells me IT'S NOT THAT EASY. There has to be reasons that armchair automotive design engineers like most of us here have no clue about. Ford has every reason to want to save weight in their cars if the cost to do so is as negligible as you seem to think. The fact that they haven't pursued the changes you suggested probably means there's a reason.

I'm hoping Ford surprises us and does announce that they've knocked a couple hundred pounds off the car just to shut everyone up. :lol: In the meantime, arguing over hypotheticals will help us pass the time.

This is going to be long, but it is a VERY interesting angle to look at this from -- hopefully. I do this for a living to an extent, so it is interesting to me I guess...

First lets be honest here -- I think we can ALL agree that ford has made some questionable(not in a good way) decisions in the past, that either cost them large amounts of money directly, or or indirectly in loss of sales. One word -- Pinto. There are plenty of others -- some of them being missed opportunities, that while did not impose a direct cost, may have cost increased profit.

I am NOT saying there aren't up front costs involved because there absolutely are, whether it is a few bucks per car, or $500. Hell, they could have lined the gas tank of the Pinto for $5.08(yes the decimal is in the right place) but they chose not to. They looked at it purely as a direct cost to make it right, or pay lawsuits and they took a gamble. It cost them far more than $5.08 per car. If we are talking direct, up front expense, I completely understand what you are saying. But this is almost the year 2014. It is not the 70's anymore. There are so many factors to take into consideration in addition to direct cost. Additionally, when designing a new car, you can't single out the cost of a weight reduction goal and say in and of itself it is too expensive, because some percentage of the cost will be absorbed by the development costs regardless of whether you meet that goal or not.

Lets use the cost of a car as an example(good example me thinks...). If Ford simply built cars based on whether or not they sold the car for more money than they had into it at a certain profit margin, they would not survive. Period. First, you are killing innovation. A car company is going to lose money at SOME point on SOME cars -- some for just part of the cycle, and in the case of cars like the GT-R or LFA, possibly for the entire product cycle. They have to in order to evolve and innovate at the same pace as the rest of the world(unless they are Hyundai or Kia and just steal ideas), and to create new technology and design or manufacturing processes that trickle down to their volume cars. Second, by making decisions on profit margin only, you are not taking into account how the decisions you make on each model affect your employees, shareholders, customers, brand perception, future costs, etc.

It is really as much about cost benefit analysis, indirect costs and future profits or earnings, as it is up front or direct cost.

Let's assume the car has to shrink in length 4", width 1", and use aluminum for the doors, hood, and front fenders to meet Ford's "goals". Pretend Ford spent an additional $500(almost twice what I will have paid at retail, to drop 450lbs) per car for weight loss and did the same thing to EVERY 2015. If they sold 200,000 2015s, that comes at an additional up front cost of $100,000,000. Damn, that is a lot of money, right?!?! But is it really a lot of money? Maybe not... it is 0.5% of their 2012 profits of $20,200,000,000. Okay, its still one hundred million dollars *insert Dr. Evil smirk here*. It's a lot of money to us.

Remember the $100,000,000. Its important. Also, lets say Ford averages $5,000 profit per vehicle. I think it is significantly higher than that, but let's be conservative.

Tomorrow Ford announces the EB 2.3 is 3200lbs, the V6 is 3250lbs, and the PP GT($20,000 less than a Corvette, and probably $40,000 less than the Z28) is 3300lbs(about 350 lighter than the current GT?). Damn that's light!! But if their goal of 700 - 900 lbs. on the F150 with Aluminum is realistic, this definitely is with size reduction.

What does that have to do with whether or not it is "cost" effective, you ask? This -- If Ford played their "suspension design cards" right, Ford now has a car that could very well be able to handle the C7, and is knocking on the door of the Z28. The significantly cheaper, Mustang GT. Still not sure how it makes it "cost" worthy?

- Some of guys out there that want a Corvette but can't afford one just decided to buy a Mustang
- The guys that were dead set on an M4 just heard the news. Some of them just decided to buy a Mustang
- Some Camaro and Challenger owners just decided to buy a Mustang
- Now you just made the Mustang enthusiasts, that were not buying due to weight, HAPPY. Some of them just decided they WILL by a Mustang
- 91z28350 Just decided the car was too small, and is buying a Camaro
- Some of the guys that can't afford a Mustang GT just decided to buy a EB Mustang
- Some guys that never considered a Mustang got their interest piqued. They don't want a ton of power, so they just decided to get a V6.

Oh yeah, that is just the Mustang, and that is in addition to what was already going to sell.

- Some of the guys that always wanted a Mustang GT but it hasn't fit their budget or lifestyle -- they just decided to by a Focus ST
- Etc.
- Etc.
- Etc.
- People are in the doors of the Ford dealership because the Mustang drew them in -- now they may be buying Fusions, Foci, Edges, Tauri, etc. when they wouldn't have before.

Remember that $100,000,000? If you talk ONLY about increased sales, at $5000 average net income per vehicle(which again, I think is low), Ford needs to move 200,000 additional units per year worldwide, or about 8% growth. Well, they have grown 14% in 2013 YTD just because. So none of the above even has to happen on a grand scale. Even if this up front cost was solely responsible for only 300,000 units over 9 years, it is still income they would not have seen. They would most likely benefit for the indefinite future on brand perception and excitement alone.

And the sales portion of it is before even considering stock value, which you know will go up by some amount, brand perception which will go up some amount driving sales now, in 2014, 2015, and beyond, and employee satisfaction which is going to REALLY go up with this badassery.

Oh yeah, AND now you have technology that trickles down to your volume models, and starts the process over for some aspect of their segment.


After ALL of that, back to your point that us car guys are just missing SOMETHING, I don't think we are. IMO it can be chalked up to Ford just being a little to conservative, and having to much executive management, with too many people involved in making decisions. That, and guys like us buy the car anyways, so why spend the "up front" dollars, when SOME of all I just typed out will happen anyways with the car not losing any weight.

Keep in mind, NONE of that is 100% guaranteed -- it is a gamble, but it stands to reason SOME benefit will be had, and the reality is that 0.5% for a multi billion dollar company is pocket change when you are growing over 10% per year. Some increased costs due to increased supply and demand have to be factored in as well, but I think that fits into the overall costs(which we could say is accounted for in the profit margin number since I was conservative). I know what I would do if I was in charge -- and regardless of whether or not I made money, broke even, lost $5000 from the car 91z28350 didn't buy, or lost $50M, I would have had a hand in creating the awesomest car in the history of awesome, and the company would ultimately be better off in some way because of it.

Would it be smart to do this with the Fusion? Probably not. But smart with your Halo car? ABSOLUTELY. And it is something not many have the balls to do.

The most extreme example of this principal would be the GT-R and the LFA. I believe the GT-R LOOSES a lot of money per unit -- too much.

Am I surprised Ford is not ballsy enough? No. Aside from this car which will do fine regardless, the conservative mentality is also the reason Lincoln is in the position it is in.

And since I made you read all that, I could be COMPLETELY wrong, and this "all new" Mustang Ford talks about could have come out of the D2C platform like Fox II came out of the Fox platform, in which case there really is just nothing they can physically take out -- size OR weight. That would be even more disappointing.

Or I am crazy which I hope isn't the case.

For all we know, the GT is 3300lbs, and we just all typed to much in this thread. I would then agree that arguing over or debating the hypotheticals has been satisfying.

 

[SStormtrooPer]

I bought one new in 1975.

...

The point of this long winded diatribe is that the Mustang II was a reflection of the times in which it existed -- nothing more, nothing less. And in my case, it was an immediate solution to my transportation problem. The little car helped me get back on my feet again, and I'll always remember it fondly for that. It never broke down and stranded me, but served me well instead until I could afford to purchase an '85 Volvo Turbo. But that's another story (and a $140 speeding ticket)...

Wow, that's quite the story -- thanks for sharing.

 

[pacettr]

This is going to be long, but it is a VERY interesting angle to look at this from -- hopefully. I do this for a living to an extent, so it is interesting to me I guess...

First lets be honest here -- I think we can ALL agree that ford has made some questionable(not in a good way) decisions in the past, that either cost them large amounts of money directly, or or indirectly in loss of sales. One word -- Pinto. There are plenty of others -- some of them being missed opportunities, that while did not impose a direct cost, may have cost increased profit.

I am NOT saying there aren't up front costs involved because there absolutely are, whether it is a few bucks per car, or $500. Hell, they could have lined the gas tank of the Pinto for $5.08(yes the decimal is in the right place) but they chose not to. They looked at it purely as a direct cost to make it right, or pay lawsuits and they took a gamble. It cost them far more than $5.08 per car. If we are talking direct, up front expense, I completely understand what you are saying. But this is almost the year 2014. It is not the 70's anymore. There are so many factors to take into consideration in addition to direct cost. Additionally, when designing a new car, you can't single out the cost of a weight reduction goal and say in and of itself it is too expensive, because some percentage of the cost will be absorbed by the development costs regardless of whether you meet that goal or not.

Lets use the cost of a car as an example(good example me thinks...). If Ford simply built cars based on whether or not they sold the car for more money than they had into it at a certain profit margin, they would not survive. Period. First, you are killing innovation. A car company is going to lose money at SOME point on SOME cars -- some for just part of the cycle, and in the case of cars like the GT-R or LFA, possibly for the entire product cycle. They have to in order to evolve and innovate at the same pace as the rest of the world(unless they are Hyundai or Kia and just steal ideas), and to create new technology and design or manufacturing processes that trickle down to their volume cars. Second, by making decisions on profit margin only, you are not taking into account how the decisions you make on each model affect your employees, shareholders, customers, brand perception, future costs, etc.

It is really as much about cost benefit analysis, indirect costs and future profits or earnings, as it is up front or direct cost.

Let's assume the car has to shrink in length 4", width 1", and use aluminum for the doors, hood, and front fenders to meet Ford's "goals". Pretend Ford spent an additional $500(almost twice what I will have paid at retail, to drop 450lbs) per car for weight loss and did the same thing to EVERY 2015. If they sold 200,000 2015s, that comes at an additional up front cost of $100,000,000. Damn, that is a lot of money, right?!?! But is it really a lot of money? Maybe not... it is 0.5% of their 2012 profits of $20,200,000,000. Okay, its still one hundred million dollars *insert Dr. Evil smirk here*. It's a lot of money to us.

Remember the $100,000,000. Its important. Also, lets say Ford averages $5,000 profit per vehicle. I think it is significantly higher than that, but let's be conservative.

Tomorrow Ford announces the EB 2.3 is 3200lbs, the V6 is 3250lbs, and the PP GT($20,000 less than a Corvette, and probably $40,000 less than the Z28) is 3300lbs(about 350 lighter than the current GT?). Damn that's light!! But if their goal of 700 - 900 lbs. on the F150 with Aluminum is realistic, this definitely is with size reduction.

What does that have to do with whether or not it is "cost" effective, you ask? This -- If Ford played their "suspension design cards" right, Ford now has a car that could very well be able to handle the C7, and is knocking on the door of the Z28. The significantly cheaper, Mustang GT. Still not sure how it makes it "cost" worthy?

- Some of guys out there that want a Corvette but can't afford one just decided to buy a Mustang
- The guys that were dead set on an M4 just heard the news. Some of them just decided to buy a Mustang
- Some Camaro and Challenger owners just decided to buy a Mustang
- Now you just made the Mustang enthusiasts, that were not buying due to weight, HAPPY. Some of them just decided they WILL by a Mustang
- 91z28350 Just decided the car was too small, and is buying a Camaro
- Some of the guys that can't afford a Mustang GT just decided to buy a EB Mustang
- Some guys that never considered a Mustang got their interest piqued. They don't want a ton of power, so they just decided to get a V6.

Oh yeah, that is just the Mustang, and that is in addition to what was already going to sell.

- Some of the guys that always wanted a Mustang GT but it hasn't fit their budget or lifestyle -- they just decided to by a Focus ST
- Etc.
- Etc.
- Etc.
- People are in the doors of the Ford dealership because the Mustang drew them in -- now they may be buying Fusions, Foci, Edges, Tauri, etc. when they wouldn't have before.

Remember that $100,000,000? If you talk ONLY about increased sales, at $5000 average net income per vehicle(which again, I think is low), Ford needs to move 200,000 additional units per year worldwide, or about 8% growth. Well, they have grown 14% in 2013 YTD just because. So none of the above even has to happen on a grand scale. Even if this up front cost was solely responsible for only 300,000 units over 9 years, it is still income they would not have seen. They would most likely benefit for the indefinite future on brand perception and excitement alone.

And the sales portion of it is before even considering stock value, which you know will go up by some amount, brand perception which will go up some amount driving sales now, in 2014, 2015, and beyond, and employee satisfaction which is going to REALLY go up with this badassery.

Oh yeah, AND now you have technology that trickles down to your volume models, and starts the process over for some aspect of their segment.


After ALL of that, back to your point that us car guys are just missing SOMETHING, I don't think we are. IMO it can be chalked up to Ford just being a little to conservative, and having to much executive management, with too many people involved in making decisions. That, and guys like us buy the car anyways, so why spend the "up front" dollars, when SOME of all I just typed out will happen anyways with the car not losing any weight.

Keep in mind, NONE of that is 100% guaranteed -- it is a gamble, but it stands to reason SOME benefit will be had, and the reality is that 0.5% for a multi billion dollar company is pocket change when you are growing over 10% per year. Some increased costs due to increased supply and demand have to be factored in as well, but I think that fits into the overall costs(which we could say is accounted for in the profit margin number since I was conservative). I know what I would do if I was in charge -- and regardless of whether or not I made money, broke even, lost $5000 from the car 91z28350 didn't buy, or lost $50M, I would have had a hand in creating the awesomest car in the history of awesome, and the company would ultimately be better off in some way because of it.

Would it be smart to do this with the Fusion? Probably not. But smart with your Halo car? ABSOLUTELY. And it is something not many have the balls to do.

The most extreme example of this principal would be the GT-R and the LFA. I believe the GT-R LOOSES a lot of money per unit -- too much.

Am I surprised Ford is not ballsy enough? No. Aside from this car which will do fine regardless, the conservative mentality is also the reason Lincoln is in the position it is in.

And since I made you read all that, I could be COMPLETELY wrong, and this "all new" Mustang Ford talks about could have come out of the D2C platform like Fox II came out of the Fox platform, in which case there really is just nothing they can physically take out -- size OR weight. That would be even more disappointing.

Or I am crazy which I hope isn't the case.

For all we know, the GT is 3300lbs, and we just all typed to much in this thread. I would then agree that arguing over or debating the hypotheticals has been satisfying.

Because Ford doesn't know how the market works. :doh:


Let me ask you this: you keep hailing the Corvette for its ability to maintain its weight throughout the years, yet defend the fact that while a two seat sports car and smaller than the Mustang, is barely lighter. How is this justified? By your logic the Corvette should be able to shed weight and REALLY be able to perform.

 

[xlover]

Not quoting the exact weight loss figures or even if it did lose weight is the exact same thing BMW did with the M4. They hinted throughout development and at the cars soft launch in the fall but they did not reveal any specifics until yesterday when they released the official specs for the car. Result was 176lb weight reduction vs the previous M3 which was a dimensionally smaller car.
Ford is working with roughly the same size vehicle as well as 10+ years of engineering and metallurgy improvements since the S197 platform was developed.
The way ford seems to be operating now i think we will see at least 100lbs reduction for a similarly equip 2015 GT vs 2014 GT. With lighter stronger steel alloys ford is using in all its vehicles as a start plus the aluminium parts they have already talked about. Plus improvements in the geometry of crash structures and the frame design itself to use less material.

 

[Rob]

Because Ford doesn't know how the market works. :doh:


Let me ask you this: you keep hailing the Corvette for its ability to maintain its weight throughout the years, yet defend the fact that while a two seat sports car and smaller than the Mustang, is barely lighter. How is this justified? By your logic the Corvette should be able to shed weight and REALLY be able to perform.

Let's just do an apples to apples here.

The curb weight of the current S197 2014 Mustang GT is 3675 lbs with an automatic (heaviest).

The curb weight of the all new C7 Corvette is 3298 lbs.


That's a difference of 377 pounds or 1 NFL lineman.

Now keep in mind that the Vette people have gone all out to try and save weight while also not using expensive exotic materials that would drive the price of the Corvette up to 911 territory. So, things like balsa wood floor panels and doors with no handles and so on have all been fussed over by the GM engineers to save weight on the Vette.

Now the Mustang has a back seat, is bigger, and still only outweighs the much more expensive Vette by 377 pounds. That's not at all bad all things considered so even if the current S550 hasn't lost any weight it's still pretty close to the Vette. Heck the current 300 hp V6 Mustang weighs in at 3523 pounds. A difference of only 225 pounds from the Vette. I think debating about how much the Mustang weighs in many respects is a tempest in a teacup. Cars in general are heavy now thanks to the government regs, but at the same time you are much safer in a crash.

 

[williamwally]

...The way ford seems to be operating now i think we will see at least 100lbs reduction for a similarly equip 2015 GT vs 2014...

I sure hope your right!

 

[Tony Alonso]

The curb weight of the all new C7 Corvette is 3298 lbs.

If you include the Z51 option, the curb weight is reported as 3444 lbs, although someone weighed it and got just under 3400 lbs. The Z51 option is characterized as THE option to have for handling improvements. Again, a tradeoff for sure, but one I think some would say "worth it".

 

[VIN666]

z51 for the win!
Buying a C7 without it, is like getting a GT without the PP...

 

[SStormtrooPer]

Because Ford doesn't know how the market works. :doh:


Let me ask you this: you keep hailing the Corvette for its ability to maintain its weight throughout the years, yet defend the fact that while a two seat sports car and smaller than the Mustang, is barely lighter. How is this justified? By your logic the Corvette should be able to shed weight and REALLY be able to perform.

Sorry, but you obviously didn't read ALL of what I wrote. I NEVER said Ford doesn't know how the market works, thank you. I said:

IMO it can be chalked up to Ford just being a little to conservative, and having to much executive management, with too many people involved in making decisions. That, and guys like us buy the car anyways, so why spend the "up front" dollars, when SOME of all I just typed out will happen anyways with the car not losing any weight.

Listen, it is REALLY easy for a company to get very concerned about up front costs, especially when the returns exists, but are not easily measurable -- sometimes almost impossible to measure.

And regarding the Corvette, no, I don't think it can shed as much weight. It can shed some, but not what I think the Mustang could. Three reasons. 1. It is already the same size as the mid 60's Vettes, It didn't get significantly larger like the Mustang to begin with. 2. It didn't increase 35% in weight. 3. It already uses a lot of lightweight materials that Mustang does not(that we know of yet) in it entire body. Its a heavy car, but it is also a completely different structural design exercise.

Again, I only used the Vette comparison to show if GM could keep it the same size without a huge weight increase, it was reasonable to think Ford could do the same.

 

[Rob]

Sorry, but you obviously didn't read ALL of what I wrote. I NEVER said Ford doesn't know how the market works, thank you. I said:



Listen, it is REALLY easy for a company to get very concerned about up front costs, especially when the returns exists, but are not easily measurable -- sometimes almost impossible to measure.

And regarding the Corvette, no, I don't think it can shed as much weight. It can shed some, but not what I think the Mustang could. Three reasons. 1. It is already the same size as the mid 60's Vettes, It get significantly larger like the Mustang to begin with. 2. It didn't increase 35% in weight. 3. It already uses a lot of lightweight materials that Mustang does not(that we know of yet) in it entire body. Its a heavy car, but it is also a completely different structural design exercise.

Again, I only used the Vette comparison to show if GM could keep it the same size without a huge weight increase, it was reasonable to think Ford could do the same.

Anyone want to take a guess at how much weight the Mustang would lose if all of the body panels were fiberglass? Think that might eat up a good bit of that 377 pound difference between the two?

 

[VIN666]

It sure would help. I'd totally be down with that btw.

 

[91z28350]

LOL, your probably right, but even with the sweet body design, it is still a toss up between the Cobra(if/when) and a Z06.

Enjoyed the discussion.

 

[SStormtrooPer]

Anyone want to take a guess at how much weight the Mustang would lose if all of the body panels were fiberglass? Think that might eat up a good bit of that 377 pound difference between the two?

Not sure on fiberglass but it would be lighter -- how much is the questions.

Now, carbon fiber is where it is at. While it has come down significantly, it is still pretty expensive in a structural application, but it is not AS expensive anymore in regards to body panels and such.

 

[pacettr]

Sorry, but you obviously didn't read ALL of what I wrote. I NEVER said Ford doesn't know how the market works, thank you. I said:



Listen, it is REALLY easy for a company to get very concerned about up front costs, especially when the returns exists, but are not easily measurable -- sometimes almost impossible to measure.

And regarding the Corvette, no, I don't think it can shed as much weight. It can shed some, but not what I think the Mustang could. Three reasons. 1. It is already the same size as the mid 60's Vettes, It get significantly larger like the Mustang to begin with. 2. It didn't increase 35% in weight. 3. It already uses a lot of lightweight materials that Mustang does not(that we know of yet) in it entire body. Its a heavy car, but it is also a completely different structural design exercise.

Again, I only used the Vette comparison to show if GM could keep it the same size without a huge weight increase, it was reasonable to think Ford could do the same.

I read it. You're just wrong.


In order for Corvette to maintain its relative weight GM has had to resort to using entirely different materials. These materials COST MORE to maintain an overall vehicle weight that now includes airbags, ABS equipment, crash sensors, door beams, etc etc.

For the Mustang to do the same it can be reasonably concluded that Ford would need to take similar costly measures. As it stands it's pretty amazing that given the Mustang's size relative to the Corvette that it's so close in overall weight, AND that we're all comparing the Mustang to the CORVETTE and not the CAMARO, further proving my point.

Sponsored