"expected" weight gain

[thePill]

Straight from a Ford employee.

This is going to cause a huge uproar...

It puts the GT at 3420lbs...

Edit: The GT lost a little more than 200lbs. Does the GT break 3399lbs?????

Sponsored

 

[Taneras]

This is going to cause a huge uproar...

It puts the GT at 3420lbs...

Edit: The GT lost a little more than 200lbs. Does the GT break 3399lbs?????

You think the GT will come in at less than the C7?

 

[Taneras]

I'm not saying trim the weight and throw the high ends parts on it. I'm saying trim the weight and let me add the high end parts.

How do you trim weight without taking off heavy pieces and putting on lighter, more expensive, pieces in its place?

My 03 Mach weighed 3450ish...a flimsy chassis designed in the mid 70's. You are telling me 40 years later we don't have the technology to build the same chassis stronger, but the same weight, for around the same price?

We do, but between the government wanting constantly wanting better and better CAFE scores and increase safety requirements you're going to have to pay more to get that weight.

Also the 03 Mach was cheaply put together, lots of cheap plastic pieces. If that's what I have to live with in order to get a light car I'll take the extra pounds.

That's like saying we can't expect a '15 5.0 motor to be more efficient, powerful, and smoother, than a '79 5.0 motor.

Apples and oranges.

 

[Pitch]

It really isn't....

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[thePill]

You think the GT will come in at less than the C7?

The C7 actually weighs 3298lbs, the Z51 package adds in the extra weight.

 

[Taneras]

The C7 actually weighs 3298lbs, the Z51 package adds in the extra weight.

So it does, I think I was looking at that extra package.

I guess we'll see, I just don't see the GT coming in around the C7's weight and still staying low 30's for a base. I'm still thinking 3550ish pounds.

Don't get me wrong, I'd eat my shoe for a factory 3400lb, 420+hp mustang that's in my price range. I guess we'll just have to wait and see

 

[Derk]

How do you trim weight without taking off heavy pieces and putting on lighter, more expensive, pieces in its place?

You're overlooking the point that because Ford has made the car lighter using more expensive panels AND a better chassis design (possibly even smaller...even though that doesn't appear to be the case) they now don't have to throw more expensive brakes, spend money revising the motor, and spend extra money putting bigger and better tires on the car to get the same performance as a lighter car designed car.

We do, but between the government wanting constantly wanting better and better CAFE scores and increase safety requirements you're going to have to pay more to get that weight.

I'll agree to that, but also EPA standards are going up. Weight does nothing but kick that in balls. So why not attack weight (with the design) instead of worrying so much about expensive performance parts just to combat an increase in weight while at the same time kicking the fuel mileage can down the road?

Also the 03 Mach was cheaply put together, lots of cheap plastic pieces. If that's what I have to live with in order to get a light car I'll take the extra pounds.

To get a light...cheap...performing...car. The mustang was originally built to be a cheap fun car for the masses. I can't afford at $35k, 3700 lb "sports" car that gets 17-23 MPG that I have to drive everyday. Well, I can, it cuts mods down, replacing those 6 piston 15" brakes, and 140 treadware 295mm tires to never...or at least until I get rid of the $650 a month payment. If you want spacious and luxuries interior maybe a SHO would interest you?

Apples and oranges.

Why becasue one was designed in the 70's and the other used technology of the 2010's to blow the other out of the water in every category, including, but not limited to, fuel economy, power, and smoothness? Sounds like what I'm hoping Ford has done with chassis design.

 

[Taneras]

You're overlooking the point that because Ford has made the car lighter using more expensive panels AND a better chassis design (possibly even smaller...even though that doesn't appear to be the case) they now don't have to throw more expensive brakes, spend money revising the motor, and spend extra money putting bigger and better tires on the car to get the same performance as a lighter car designed car.

I don't think the extra supporting hardware (tires, brakes, etc.) is as expensive as you're making it out to be.

Also, I think the motor revision was going to happen regardless. HP numbers do have an effect on car sales.

I'll agree to that, but also EPA standards are going up. Weight does nothing but kick that in balls. So why not attack weight (with the design) instead of worrying so much about expensive performance parts just to combat an increase in weight while at the same time kicking the fuel mileage can down the road?

Because looking at the car and seeing its dimensions, I don't see a lot of room to cut without going with lighter but more expensive materials.

Keep in mind the same sources that leaked the 300ish pound drop were also saying the car would be smaller, both in width and length. That didn't happen.

To get a light...cheap...performing...car. The mustang was originally built to be a cheap fun car for the masses. I can't afford at $35k, 3700 lb "sports" car that gets 17-23 MPG that I have to drive everyday. Well, I can, it cuts mods down, replacing those 6 piston 15" brakes, and 140 treadware 295mm tires to never...or at least until I get rid of the $650 a month payment. If you want spacious and luxuries interior maybe a SHO would interest you?

The choices aren't either luxury car or cheaply built car, there is a large spectrum of possibilities in between. Despite not being a luxury car, my 2013 Mustang GT is light years ahead of my 2004 Mustang with regards to interior build quality. I don't care how light Ford made the car, if it took a step back to the 2004 type quality I wouldn't buy it and I have a feeling most other people would feel the same way.

Why becasue one was designed in the 70's and the other used technology of the 2010's to blow the other out of the water in every category, including, but not limited to, fuel economy, power, and smoothness? Sounds like what I'm hoping Ford has done with chassis design.

It's apples and oranges because you can improve upon the design/technology of an engine quite a lot (as we've seen). You can't reinvent steel or aluminum. Weight is weight, and its tough to get around.

We've tripled the hp since 1979, I guess if your example of engines is a good comparison we should have also dropped weight since the 1979 GT? That's why I think its apples to oranges.

 

[Derk]

I don't think the extra supporting hardware (tires, brakes, etc.) is as expensive as you're making it out to be.

I may be looking into it too much, but a complete replacement break kit for my Mach is $1k...GT500 $1.8k. 245 PZeros are $1.1k for a set and 285 PZeros are 1.6k for a set. So there are $1.2k of improvements Ford isn't going to give away to make a heftier car perform. I may be over exaggerating, the total cost depending on trim level. But I'm basing my whole argument on the guy that said he could careless what it weighed as long as it performed well. So I'm sure it's loading it up with all the options.

Also, I think the motor revision was going to happen regardless. HP numbers do have an effect on car sales.

Which was the point I was trying to get across when I was asked why manufactures have yet to make this cheap lightweight car. Because they pour money into the motor to make the car marginally faster but have big HP numbers...which sells cars. Same as those big brakes and bigger tires on the options list seem more appealing, but only make it marginally faster because the car can't keep it's weight from going up.

Because looking at the car and seeing its dimensions, I don't see a lot of room to cut without going with lighter but more expensive materials.

That was a disappointment, I was hoping it would be a little shorter in length and height(which height did happen).

The choices aren't either luxury car or cheaply built car, there is a large spectrum of possibilities in between. Despite not being a luxury car, my 2013 Mustang GT is light years ahead of my 2004 Mustang with regards to interior build quality. I don't care how light Ford made the car, if it took a step back to the 2004 type quality I wouldn't buy it and I have a feeling most other people would feel the same way.

I don't have a problem with increased build quality. I really only have one squabble with the fit of my 03's interior though. Yes, it looks cheap compared to a new Mustang, but my Mach was cheap compared to a 2014 Mustang. Heck, I bought my first Mach while working at Wal-Mart...

It's apples and oranges because you can improve upon the design/technology of an engine quite a lot (as we've seen). You can't reinvent steel or aluminum. Weight is weight, and its tough to get around.

But prices on more exotic materials do come down. Also, design are constantly becoming stronger, with less material and/or lighter materials.

We've tripled the hp since 1979, I guess if your example of engines is a good comparison we should have also dropped weight since the 1979 GT? That's why I think its apples to oranges.

Well, there is the problem. Both those motors are 5.0 liters (what's .1 liter amongst friends?). The new Mustang isn't the same size as a 79. You're talking about a Mustang that is almost a foot longer, half a foot wider, and a hair taller. Now, I would go as far as to say if you told Ford to start building the Fox again, but make the chassis more rigid and meet current standards, that yes, the car could possibly weigh less. It almost definitely wouldn't weigh more.

 

[MustangDizzle]

The C7 actually weighs 3298lbs, the Z51 package adds in the extra weight.

The Z51 package adds 60lbs.

The upgraded interior options of stereo, hud, multiasjustable seats, etc adds the extra weight.

A fully loaded C7 is 3440lbs.

 

[Taneras]

I may be looking into it too much, but a complete replacement break kit for my Mach is $1k...GT500 $1.8k. 245 PZeros are $1.1k for a set and 285 PZeros are 1.6k for a set. So there are $1.2k of improvements Ford isn't going to give away to make a heftier car perform.

It doesn't cost Ford that much to put those parts on. They buy in bulk so they get a good deal, and they're going to charge you more to put those parts on. So they get a discount and still mark your price up.

I may be over exaggerating, the total cost depending on trim level. But I'm basing my whole argument on the guy that said he could careless what it weighed as long as it performed well. So I'm sure it's loading it up with all the options.

I'd love it to be light, but I just don't see it hitting the numbers some people are claiming seeing as they also have to deliver on lots of other areas.

Which was the point I was trying to get across when I was asked why manufactures have yet to make this cheap lightweight car. Because they pour money into the motor to make the car marginally faster but have big HP numbers...which sells cars. Same as those big brakes and bigger tires on the options list seem more appealing, but only make it marginally faster because the car can't keep it's weight from going up.

I disagree, look at the cars that are designed to be light weight cars which the manufacturers didn't care to throw money into its engine. BRZ and FRS have ~200ish hp and are light weight cars. What are their dimensions? They're a lot smaller than the mustangs, and also cost less. Yet they aren't impressive with their weight (imo). You could compare their current weight to some of the older light weight sports cars of the 80's and early 90's and these are considered pigs.

It's no coincidence that, across the board, cars have gotten heavier. I don't see how the mustang could be an exception to the rule.

But prices on more exotic materials do come down. Also, design are constantly becoming stronger, with less material and/or lighter materials.

I'm not so sure about that, I think aluminum and carbon fiber are quite expensive.

Well, there is the problem. Both those motors are 5.0 liters (what's .1 liter amongst friends?). The new Mustang isn't the same size as a 79. You're talking about a Mustang that is almost a foot longer, half a foot wider, and a hair taller. Now, I would go as far as to say if you told Ford to start building the Fox again, but make the chassis more rigid and meet current standards, that yes, the car could possibly weigh less. It almost definitely wouldn't weigh more.

No it wouldn't weigh more than the current cars, but it would certainly weigh more than the old fox bodies.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have a 420+hp 3300ish pound Mustang that's in the low to mid 30's. I just don't think Ford can do it. But if they can and do, I'll be the first in line with checkbook in hand! ;)

 

[Rickycardo]

At the risk of starting a (another?) controversy I worry that some are lamenting that Ford won't build a 3200-pound, stripped down, coyote powered, single-seat, heater-delete car for $28K. I don't think Ford is thinking that way nor would I want them too. I want the Mustang to be a world class sports car with speed, agility, tech and accoutrements.
Look, I bracket raced a 77 mustang back in the early 90s and I know what you mean when you talk of weight savings. I just don't think Ford is thinking solely along those lines. I'm more than willing to give up a tenth here or there in performance for powered leather seats, quality audio and improved driver tech.
I just hope the crowd doesn't become full of haters because the S550 didn't loose all (or any) of the weight rumors said it might.

 

[thePill]

The Z51 package adds 60lbs.

The upgraded interior options of stereo, hud, multiasjustable seats, etc adds the extra weight.

A fully loaded C7 is 3440lbs.

I am willing to bet a fully loaded '15 GT will be 3600-3700lbs.

At the risk of starting a (another?) controversy I worry that some are lamenting that Ford won't build a 3200-pound, stripped down, coyote powered, single-seat, heater-delete car for $28K. I don't think Ford is thinking that way nor would I want them too. I want the Mustang to be a world class sports car with speed, agility, tech and accoutrements.
Look, I bracket raced a 77 mustang back in the early 90s and I know what you mean when you talk of weight savings. I just don't think Ford is thinking solely along those lines. I'm more than willing to give up a tenth here or there in performance for powered leather seats, quality audio and improved driver tech.
I just hope the crowd doesn't become full of haters because the S550 didn't loose all (or any) of the weight rumors said it might.

All that matters really to me is the Mustang's ability to lose weight afterwards. The '05-'06 Mustang's could be taken down to 2900lbs in FIA, the '07-'14's were just under 3100... The S197 actually was a light chassis... I suspect the S550 will lose 200lbs in the platform alone and gradually stack that weight back on with performance and tech.

However, there is a possibility the Mustang has lost weight across the entire lineup. The word is the car lost weight... Ford is saving that for last. I am sticking with what Overboost suggested... "It will be close"

With a 12 speaker surround sound, I won't be surprised... I am still hearing that the car lost some weight, a decent chunk... This is from people that would know the GVWR...

 

[Stuntman]

The '05-'06 Mustang's could be taken down to 2900lbs in FIA, the '07-'14's were just under 3100... The S197 actually was a light chassis... I suspect the S550 will lose 200lbs in the platform alone and gradually stack that weight back on with performance and tech..

I don't think the FR500GT ever got that light. IIRC it was always a very heavy car and it's inability to shed weight was its biggest problem and reason it didn't succeed.

 

[Thed]

This is going to cause a huge uproar...

It puts the GT at 3420lbs...

Edit: The GT lost a little more than 200lbs. Does the GT break 3399lbs?????

If it did, I'd cream myself. I'm expecting more like 3450, personally. With bolt-ons I bet that this thing would send the Z51 packing. PACKING!!! How INSANE would that be!?!?!?!

Woops... there I go again.

Sponsored