"expected" weight gain

[VIN666]

That kind of power? Please. Dodge 2.4s get driven with 500 hp crank all over the country and last just fine while getting 25 mpgs.
Don't worry about it. 300 hp out of a turbo 4 is old news these days.
Oh and the EB has a forged crank I'm told. Just wait what the aftermarket will do to that thing... *evilgrin*

Sponsored

 

[Tony Alonso]

I thought it was balsa compressed between two sheets of something, etc etc. Could be the C6.

This was changed with the C7. See this article.

"The unique balsa-wood-sandwich floor construction of the C6 Corvette has been superseded on C7 by a new carbon nano-composite floor pan that is lighter while maintaining strength and stiffness, said Chief Engineer Tadge Juechter."

 

[Rob]

This was changed with the C7. See this article.

"The unique balsa-wood-sandwich floor construction of the C6 Corvette has been superseded on C7 by a new carbon nano-composite floor pan that is lighter while maintaining strength and stiffness, said Chief Engineer Tadge Juechter."

Thanks Tony.

 

[Rob]

Oh and the EB has a forged crank I'm told. Just wait what the aftermarket will do to that thing... *evilgrin*

Probably true. I think I will still stick with the V6 though, call me old school.

 

[SStormtrooPer]

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.

Considering you only take into account up front cost, I don't think you even know what you are saying I am wrong about...

 

[Josh Painter]

Porsche Flat Farts are around 500 lbs, LS1s are 400.
Yeah... German engineering my sweet behind.
I know this is a Ford forum. I guess the Coyote is a little heftier than the LS with all those cams and valves? Either way, nothing beats USDM. Simple as that.

As crate engines, both the Coyote and LS1 are listed at an identical 444 pounds.

 

[VIN666]

That's surprising to say the least. Good info.

 

[SStormtrooPer]

Comparing weights/weight loss with the Corvette is kind of silly to me.

One is absolutely not comparable to the other.

Agreed -- there should be no direct comparison. I know I have not been comparing them directly, I didn't see any one else either.

 

[All-Or-Nothing]

Agreed -- there should be no direct comparison. I know I have not been comparing them directly, I didn't see any one else either.

Plenty people have been directly comparing them in this thread.

 

[SStormtrooPer]

Ok, since we are comparing them now -- here is a fun fact:

My 1988 Mustang weighs ~400lbs less than the smaller 1988 Corvette at less than half the price new. Weird.

25 years later, technology has increased 10 fold, and that price gap has closed some, yet some have still been tricked into believing it is impossible to even think Mustang could be the SAME weight as a Corvette now.


Thanks for the debate all. Its been a good one. ;)

 

[Dirk McGurck]

I don't even know what to make of this thread anymore. I didn't honestly think I was in the minority with what I wanted from the new Mustang. Regardless, it looks like the brand will live on. If it doesn't line up with what I want now, maybe it will in the future.

 

[SStormtrooPer]

I don't even know what to make of this thread anymore. I didn't honestly think I was in the minority with what I wanted from the new Mustang. Regardless, it looks like the brand will live on. If it doesn't line up with what I want now, maybe it will in the future.

You aren't in the minority. The majority does WANT a lighter mustang, and most of that majority would like to see the size drop a little bit.

Its just that no weight loss or 100lb gain is not a deal breaker for most.

 

[Taneras]

My 1988 Mustang weighs ~400lbs less than the smaller 1988 Corvette at less than half the price new. Weird.

Why is that weird? It was a match box with wheels. No way Ford could build that with today's safety restrictions. It was cheaply put together and not very safe.

I'm going to spend my 35kish on a V8 that's safe and well put together. If you want to drop 35k on a V8 that's unsafe and a rattle trap you're in the minority and aren't Ford's target audience. I wouldn't even consider a GT today if it was built like the fox bodies. Hell my 2004 was crap. It rattled and creaked almost from the showroom. Mine and my friends were so bad I swore to never buy another mustang as long as I lived. Thankfully Ford improved and my 2013 is much better.

The C7 vet has accomplished its weight only because its a 2 seater and its nearly 60k. No way Chevy pulls that off with half the cash and has to add a back seat to the car along with all the extra safety regulations that go with it.

Why anyone thinks Ford could pull hundreds of pounds of weight without increasing the cost and not compromising safety or build quality but has decided not too is beyond me. Yea, they're slaving over how to improve MPG's to meet increasingly strict government standards but they overlooked 300lbs of fat...

 

[nametoshowothers]

I could be wrong of course.
Regarding the engines, that's a common misconception as well.
There's a reason 90% of swapped cars use LSxs...
And it's not power. Lots of ways to make that happen.
What makes the LS sand out, is it's incredible compact and lightweight package!
It weighs almost exactly the same as the turdy cast iron I4 of a Miata!!!

Can you point to the JD Power Swap Survey Statistics indicating that 90% of persons use LS..... or did you just make it up

 

[nametoshowothers]

I'm not real critical of the Porsche flat six motors. You have to give props to a 3 . something liter that cranks out that kind of power. But I hear they are very maintenance intensive and if you don't pour a lot of maintenance into it the motor will pretty much kill itself. Again, just word of mouth stuff, who knows if that's true. On the other hand I have seen 4.6 Mustangs with 160K on the clock that still pull hard and have never had much done other than changing the oil and spark plugs etc etc. The old 4.0 Mustangs, although only 200 hp, it was a motor that would last forever with minimal maintenance. I haven't heard anything bad about the new 3.7 motor. As far as I know its reliable. I worry about this new ecoboost engine. Anytime you're getting that kind of power out of that small an engine I just worry about long term reliability.

in the track day circles, porches are considered bullet proof. the instructors i know use porsche 911 as there person track day car as they are so reliable. I am not a porsche fan. Porsche builds very good motors. I am a ford fan.

There are many ways to design an engine, pushrods, overhead cams, small rev happy, big and low RPM's - there is no real correct engineering answer it is the complete package that matters and what the design is attempting to do. Corvette and Mustang have different design and cost targets and therefore are different. Who cares. Corvette vs 911 is much closer - they are designed for the same goal, but different ways to get to the same goal. When $ are considered, the corvette is competitive, when $ are removed from the equation, it is pretty much porsche all the way - not surprising - which would you rather have free - a $150K car or a $50K car.

Sponsored