GT350R Weight

[flaps]

Which equals how much?

Who knows, Ferrari doesn't like to give those details.

Sponsored

 

[Nataphen]

Who knows, Ferrari doesn't like to give those details.

Dang! Well, the Coyote weighs 444, so I wonder if they'll ever mention what it weighs in relation to that.

 

[Rob WH]

Not the "R" version. Also the z06 has to accommodate for the supercharger and beefed up parts to go along with it. Look at the weight difference between a base c7 and a z06.

Not that this matters, but the "R" and non R GT350 both have what I'd call beefed up parts. The fact it weighs less than the typical Mustang GT is actually quite a good sign. As an example, like you said here... ZO6 over standard C7. Hugely different(for all obvious reasons).

People also be like.....this guy:

:lol: You could... you could... you could tell... that dude done been to drivin' school!

or like this...corvettes so light cant even launch straight

Sadly, even idiots get to drive great cars. :doh:

Never said it should be lighter than a z06 just lighter than it is. Everyone compared the weight of the gt350 to the heaviest vette that's why I made the point of why it's heavier.

Why should it be lighter than it is?

Not everyone compared the GT350 weight to the heaviest Corvette either. Many just compared it to the most potent 'vette.

Hey, look at the bright side. They could all just be comparing it to Camaro and laughing incessantly.

400-600? Really? Last I checked a foxbody was pretty darn light and well within those numbers of a c4/5/6/7 vette. Even the s197's were working 200-300lbs of a base vette. Maybe if you compare a fully loaded gt500 to a c5 z06 but that's not the norm. Why is it that Chevy is having more of a problem when Ford lost that claimed 200lbs they were shooting for? Seems like all of them are going through the same struggles. I know you hate GM but remember every model of the new stang with a v8 has proved to be heavier than predicted. Ford is just as gulity as everyone else.:cheers:

Holy BACKWARD MATHEMATICS, BARTMAN! :headbonk: The 1978 (Mustang) chassis? Indeed it was light, but that's because rules didn't mandate heavy back then. Still, that was before the C4/5/6 and 7... and the Mustang never had an actual frame, which the Corvette did. Still, it weighed notably less than all but the 1st and 3rd gen F-body(which were quite close), pretty much across the board. Unlike Corvette, which, instead of Camaro, has regularly been pitted against the Mustang since 2002, the Camaro is a direct competitor.

As for that imaginary 200 lb loss you mentioned... Ford never made any such claim. Not ever. Only GM has made that claim and that was about the Camaro SS.

The company which never made the claim is simply enough, not guilty of the prediction. They didn't put it out there.
Going by your standard here, if you say that I'm going on a crash diet to lose 30 lb... then I actually gain 10 lb, does that mean that I lied about your claim? After all, you said I was going to do it and therefore, if it didn't happen, I lied(or otherwise got it wrong), eh? It just isn't so. :cheers:

 

[Nataphen]

As for that imaginary 200 lb loss you mentioned... Ford never made any such claim. Not ever. Only GM has made that claim and that was about the Camaro SS.

The company which never made the claim is simply enough, not guilty of the prediction. They didn't put it out there.
Going by your standard here, if you say that I'm going on a crash diet to lose 30 lb... then I actually gain 10 lb, does that mean that I lied about your claim? After all, you said I was going to do it and therefore, if it didn't happen, I lied(or otherwise got it wrong), eh? It just isn't so. :cheers:

As has been mentioned before, on Autoline After Hours, Dave Pericak personally said that he was figuring that they would be able to drop 200lbs. from the S197 to S550. I watched the interview live myself. Whether his head was in the clouds or whatever the reason he said it is unsure, but the weight loss claim was out there from the top guy.

What ultimately happened is that they developed a chassis that was actually that much lighter, but increased luxury and safety standards pushed weight 300lbs. over what they were hoping for. I expect a similar narrative with the Alpha Camaro. They're making the same 200ish lb. loss claim in the SS, but I expect it to weigh within just a few lbs. of the S550 GT, which would still be about a 100lb. drop from the Zeta Camaro.

 

[Rob WH]

As has been mentioned before, on Autoline After Hours, Dave Pericak personally said that he was figuring that they would be able to drop 200lbs. from the S197 to S550. I watched the interview live myself. Whether his head was in the clouds or whatever the reason he said it is unsure, but the weight loss claim was out there from the top guy.

"Would be able to" and "is going to" happen to have two completely different meanings. Nothing against you, but I'm really tired of seeing that phrase totally twisted from what it is, into something it isn't, just to "rub in" something that isn't true. Enough is enough.

Nobody who works in Ford engineering to build Mustangs, including Dave Pericak, ever said that the 6th gen Mustang was going to lose 200 lb. It simply never happened.

What ultimately happened is that they developed a chassis that was actually that much lighter, but increased luxury and safety standards pushed weight 300lbs. over what they were hoping for. I expect a similar narrative with the Alpha Camaro. They're making the same 200ish lb. loss in the SS, but I expect it to weigh within just a few lbs. of the S550 GT, which would still be about a 100lb. drop from the Zeta Camaro.

Indeed, what happened was a total product that weighed more than the hoped for weight. It could still be lighter, but it just isn't.

The Camaro 2SS would have to tip the scales around 3,735 in order for Al O's comment to be truly accurate. I don't see it happening.

 

[Nataphen]

No offense taken. However, you have to see that when the project leader announces something like that just a matter of days before order banks open, people would tend to put a lot of trust in that. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't really think that people were wrong for believing that claim either.

Forgive my ignorance, but who is Al O? Aaron Link is the only name I can think of remotely close to that. Also, what curb weight are you guessing on the new Camaro? I'm thinking around 3800 for a loaded 2SS coupe.

 

[thePill]

SVT said the R had Aluminum from the A-Pillar forward. I assume he means the front section. Maybe similar to what BMW is doing...

 

[thePill]

As has been mentioned before, on Autoline After Hours, Dave Pericak personally said that he was figuring that they would be able to drop 200lbs. from the S197 to S550. I watched the interview live myself. Whether his head was in the clouds or whatever the reason he said it is unsure, but the weight loss claim was out there from the top guy.

What ultimately happened is that they developed a chassis that was actually that much lighter, but increased luxury and safety standards pushed weight 300lbs. over what they were hoping for. I expect a similar narrative with the Alpha Camaro. They're making the same 200ish lb. loss claim in the SS, but I expect it to weigh within just a few lbs. of the S550 GT, which would still be about a 100lb. drop from the Zeta Camaro.

In April 2010 Dave said "200lbs is within our reach". He then went on to detail how our demands for content and performance equipment quickly offset that.

We just literally seen Ford's Power to Weight Ratio claim change from Janruary to now. It still competes with its two major competitors (GT-R and GT3) but something happened along the way. Either engine detuning or weight gain... and the reason that is happening is emissions and budget. The major selling point here is the MSRP, yes they got it to pass emissions but the MSRP is more impressive than the PtW, output and equipment changes.

I feel the 2016 Camaro is also going through this process. I think the sales threat and lawsuits changed their philosophy in an instant.

 

[ForTehNguyen]

our fenders and hood were already aluminum, or did they do aluminum framing too?

 

[Nasty99z28]

Not that this matters, but the "R" and non R GT350 both have what I'd call beefed up parts. The fact it weighs less than the typical Mustang GT is actually quite a good sign. As an example, like you said here... ZO6 over standard C7. Hugely different(for all obvious reasons).

:lol: You could... you could... you could tell... that dude done been to drivin' school!

Sadly, even idiots get to drive great cars. :doh:

Why should it be lighter than it is?

Not everyone compared the GT350 weight to the heaviest Corvette either. Many just compared it to the most potent 'vette.

Hey, look at the bright side. They could all just be comparing it to Camaro and laughing incessantly.

Holy BACKWARD MATHEMATICS, BARTMAN! :headbonk: The 1978 (Mustang) chassis? Indeed it was light, but that's because rules didn't mandate heavy back then. Still, that was before the C4/5/6 and 7... and the Mustang never had an actual frame, which the Corvette did. Still, it weighed notably less than all but the 1st and 3rd gen F-body(which were quite close), pretty much across the board. Unlike Corvette, which, instead of Camaro, has regularly been pitted against the Mustang since 2002, the Camaro is a direct competitor.

As for that imaginary 200 lb loss you mentioned... Ford never made any such claim. Not ever. Only GM has made that claim and that was about the Camaro SS.

The company which never made the claim is simply enough, not guilty of the prediction. They didn't put it out there.
Going by your standard here, if you say that I'm going on a crash diet to lose 30 lb... then I actually gain 10 lb, does that mean that I lied about your claim? After all, you said I was going to do it and therefore, if it didn't happen, I lied(or otherwise got it wrong), eh? It just isn't so. :cheers:

You clealry haven't paid attention to the discussion between me and pill. The 200lb weight loss claim was a claim pill made. I brought it up because he loves to make these claims but he leaves a wide enough window so that he's only off by a little in each way. And no adding track parts to a car when comparing na to na isn't the same as going from na to boosted. Shall I explain why? As for the foxbody comment that yet again was a response where pill said the mustang hasn't been close to a better weight. He said it's always been a 400-600 gap. That yet again wasn't true. Keep up next time. :cheers:

 

[DivineStrike]

weight distribution is a meh spec to me. Some of the best handling cars in the world are 41/59. WD probably going to be similar to the GT

Yes, because having more weight in the rear is a good thing. More weight in the front is not. It's definitely not a "meh" Spec... I am very much interested in seeing how much weight can be lost out of front in the coming years. Aluminum knuckles, subframe, k member and such. I know 908ssp moved his battery to the back, however I don't like how much he cut his truck out. Would like to create a nook for it in the back so the truck mat sits even with less cutting.

Edit: researched Alex's build a little more...

 

[ForTehNguyen]

Yes, because having more weight in the rear is a good thing. More weight in the front is not. It's definitely not a "meh" Spec... I am very much interested in seeing how much weight can be lost out of front in the coming years. Aluminum knuckles, subframe, k member and such. I know 908ssp moved his battery to the back, however I don't like that it sticks up in the spare well. Would like to create a nook for it in the back so the truck mat sits even.

i especially laugh at the 50/50 > * marketing. Sounds cool on paper but rear bias is superior under braking and acceleration. Its only 50/50 when its standing still and static, which doesnt happen on a track

 

[DivineStrike]

Laugh all ya want though, while it's not ideal, it is definitely preferred in most cars...as most cars have the engine in the front. trying to market anything better than a 50/50 is just kinda asinine in a front engined car lol

 

[thePill]

Laugh all ya want though, while it's not ideal, it is definitely preferred in most cars...as most cars have the engine in the front. trying to market anything better than a 50/50 is just kinda asinine in a front engined car lol

Why market 50/50 front/rear when you miss a left and right 50/50 distribution. 50/50 isn't balanced by any means. I'm sure I'd rather have a more neutral car from driver to passenger than a front rear balance. Does that vehicle always run on a full tank and no driver :lol:

What does a 50/50 front/rear get you if you have p@ssy rear rotors and 245 run flats on the front? Why does 50/50 matter when you carry a large footprint overall yet a shitty WB:T ratio?

 

[DivineStrike]

Why market 50/50 front/rear when you miss a left and right 50/50 distribution. 50/50 isn't balanced by any means. I'm sure I'd rather have a more neutral car from driver to passenger than a front rear balance. Does that vehicle always run on a full tank and no driver :lol:

What does a 50/50 front/rear get you if you have p@ssy rear rotors and 245 run flats on the front? Why does 50/50 matter when you carry a large footprint overall yet a shitty WB:T ratio?

My point is more weight to the rear is better than in the front...and 50/50 is better than 5X/4X

Clearly L/R ratio matters but most of the time it's not much different between cars...at least not that i've seen. Comparing both is rather pointless and a simple consumer understands front to rear better.

You should read my other post Pill before ya start going on on a tangent

and wtf are you going on about runflats for??


Edit: Saw another one of your posts in another thread...go figure, as I suspected, you're once again trying to bring the Camaro into the fight when it wasn't even brought up in the first place. I literally am not talking about the camaro at all but you just can't help yourself to bring it up because you hate the car so much

Sponsored