Purported "official" 2015 Mustang weight specs - via dealer manual source book

[Wild Stang]

Not to be an ass, but, then why keep hanging around and posting? Just to rain on everyone's parade? Start shopping for something else then.

For all but the hardcore straight line guys, I doubt 50 pounds will make or break a purchase when it will probably walk all over a standard 2014 GT around a track.

Must want others to agree with him and go looking elsewhrre as well.

Sponsored

 

[genericuser1]

Glad the weight isn't as high as feared. I had hoped a soft top wouldn't come in near a hardtop weight. Hopefully there are impressive HP/TQ numbers to offset the bloat.

 

[thePill]

These number are a load of crap. No way the EB has the same weight as the V6, no way the differences between automatics are this inconsitent and no way the differences between coupes and convertibles are this inconsistent.

Could be early estimates that will be adjusted later. With quick math, these numbers look pretty close compared to other vehicles and what they had done.

 

[Ericc B]

There is no 420i in the US. That is the European weight which goes by completely different standards. The lightest 4 Series you can get in the US is the 428i (which is still the 2.0L turbo), which weighs 3470lbs with the automatic and 3420lbs with the manual.

The 420i is the exact same car with the exact same engine and the exact same turbo as the 428i, the only difference is the engine software (and therefore the horsepower and torque output). It weighs exactly the same as well.

But you must be right about the different measuring standards. 3420lbs is 1551 kilos, which is 126 kilos more than the base car weighs here. There might be more standard equipment in the US car though, but 126 kilos of additional equipment sounds like a whole lot to me.

Does the US measuring system perhaps include average driver weight?

 

[thePill]

I think it's time somebody starts a thread with the Bimmer forums EU vs. US Curb weight standards.

This was explained in detail on the Steeda Thread by OppLock.

EU: 90% fuel, full fluids, no cargo, no passengers and standard equipment.

US: full fluids including fuel, no cargo, no passengers, standard equipment and ALL options expected to be on 33% or more expected to be sold. Special Orders are a small percentage and Ford loads Em up for dealers. They make money on options and the Mustang is option heavy.

This more than likely is close to loaded or loaded, steel wheels, NO Track Pack and spare tire and tire jack.

Overall, it's probably light base for base and Track pack for track pack.

 

[5.0GT]

I own a 2013 GT Auto it doesnt feel like a fat pig to be honest but I wish it was lighter. For those that are concerned, just find ways to improve performance and weight reductions....or you can do what I did and throw on a Paxton Novi Supercharger ;) Weight problem went away ;)

 

[williamwally]

Supposedly from the 2015 source book, power still TBD.

From a dealer manual:

These number are a load of crap. No way the EB has the same weight as the V6, no way the differences between automatics are this inconsitent and no way the differences between coupes and convertibles are this inconsistent.

Why not? do you know what is physically installed on each car?
You really think weight numbers between models should be consistent?
What if one car has more or less bracing?

After the whole steeda fiasco, why is no one questioning the validity of these numbers?

Just wondering fdjizm where did you find these numbers, and is there any way you can try to verify them?

Seems to me it would be very easy for anyone to change or insert their own numbers into this picture of a dealer manual...

 

[KZStang]

After the whole steeda fiasco, why is no one questioning the validity of these numbers?

Just wondering fdjizm where did you find these numbers, and is there any way you can try to verify them?

Seems to me it would be very easy for anyone to change or insert their own numbers into this picture of a dealer manual...

Because these numbers were provided by Ford to dealers (as estimates) on their proprietary website meant for their eyes only. I'm sure many missed this thread, but as you can see, a member of the forum already confirmed these are the figures shown after logging in.

http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php/esourcebook-2092.html

As for the V6/EB figures that some seem to think looks fishy, the 2.3 weighs similar to the 3.7, and the EB has more standard features. There is a nominal difference between the two as it stands. It would not surprise me when the final numbers come out if Ford managed to get the EB down by a fraction to claim it as the lightest and most fuel efficient of the lineup.

 

[Seabee1973]

This is really funny because everyone is spiraling off jalopnik for mentioning a source and where he works at... everyone is following those figures... it makes me laugh... those numbers supposedly from Ford could have easily been published with a car completely loaded your true weight of your vehicle or the more accurate one will be found on the inseam of your driver door.
Why is it just around the weight which everyone is so fixated on? An image can easily be modded and photoshop.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

[trogdor007]

This is really funny because everyone is spiraling off jalopnik for mentioning a source and where he works at... everyone is following those figures... it makes me laugh... those numbers supposedly from Ford could have easily been published with a car completely loaded your true weight of your vehicle or the more accurate one will be found on the inseam of your driver door.
Why is it just around the weight which everyone is so fixated on? An image can easily be modded and photoshop.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

Well the dealer in question from Jalopnik likely got the info from the eSourcebook posted by TopNotch yesterday (https://web.esourcebook.dealerconnection.com/car/2015/mustang/images/15_Mustang_SB.pdf). The images I've posted on this forum were from that pdf which is available officially through Ford. I agree with you about fixation on the weight - the power and looks alone do it for me.

 

[GTsquid]

Actually it was posted here last night before Jalopnik. I bet the numbers are accurate, or very close to it. What I'm curious about is what the dealer manuals say for the 2014 weight. That could be a way to compare how they are measuring these.

trogdor, would you happen to know?

 

[xlover]

I think it's time somebody starts a thread with the Bimmer forums EU vs. US Curb weight standards.

This was explained in detail on the Steeda Thread by OppLock.

EU: 90% fuel, full fluids, no cargo, no passengers and standard equipment.

US: full fluids including fuel, no cargo, no passengers, standard equipment and ALL options expected to be on 33% or more expected to be sold. Special Orders are a small percentage and Ford loads Em up for dealers. They make money on options and the Mustang is option heavy.

This more than likely is close to loaded or loaded, steel wheels, NO Track Pack and spare tire and tire jack.

Overall, it's probably light base for base and Track pack for track pack.

I have seen the exact same threads on bimmerpost.... I think the curb weight thing throws many people off

comparing curb weights from 2014 to 2015 is not fully apples to apples, as ford significantly changed the option mix... now we get 14inch rotors similar to last years brembo's standard, there are more 19 and 20 inch wheels probably increasing 19s to 33% of the mix.

I could see ford projecting 33% ecoboost manuals going out as premiums but possibly not 33% of the autos which would push the manual curb weight up.

we would need a full option breakdown to be able to back calculate a full apples to apples with the 2014 car. i think 80ish lbs falls right within that grey area of option mix driving the increase as much as actual structure

 

[Dirk McGurck]

Yeah...I don't know about spending $45k on a RWD coupe that weighs more than my AWD sedan.

 

[trogdor007]

Actually it was posted here last night before Jalopnik. I bet the numbers are accurate, or very close to it. What I'm curious about is what the dealer manuals say for the 2014 weight. That could be a way to compare how they are measuring these.

trogdor, would you happen to know?

Here are the numbers I pulled from the 2014 Mustang esourcebook.

 

[GTsquid]

Thanks for posting. On a side note, just realized the 2015 one is missing the weight distribution %. Wonder why that was left off...

Sponsored