ZanatWork Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 http://jalopnik.com/the-2015-mustang-gains-less-than-a-hundred-pounds-1590194961?utm_campaign=socialflow_jalopnik_facebook&utm_source=jalopnik_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow A dealer sent Jalopnik a page from the dealer source book, apparently.Mustang GT-3704 lbs. The others weight less, naturally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevys Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 3500 + lbs for a 4 cylinder? They just keep getting heavier and heavier. Not good. What does a LS3 Camaro weigh? I have forgot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 The 1SS weighs 3908, per Chevrolet's site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevys Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Bigger brakes, IRS, just off the top of my head add up with everything else being equal. I was hoping it would at least stay the same but I guess that was not realistic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZanatWork Posted June 13, 2014 Author Share Posted June 13, 2014 Constant increases in safety regs and customer expectations of creature comforts make it very hard to make light cars, anymore. Lotus and Alfa Romeo can do it, but their lightest vehicles are cramped, largely devoid of comfort items, and otherwise impractical as hell. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 3500 + lbs for a 4 cylinder? They just keep getting heavier and heavier. Not good. What does a LS3 Camaro weigh? I have forgot. All the Mustang coupes still have about 200 lbs advantage over their respective Zeta Camaro competition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Do the new Mustangs have any aluminum panels on them? I'm guessing maybe hood, but anything else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Do the new Mustangs have any aluminum panels on them? I'm guessing maybe hood, but anything else? Fenders also Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
30 OTT 6 Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 Mustang Base Curb Weights (lbs) from the Product Guide. Fastback Covertable Trim Manual Automatic Manual Automatic V6 3526 3529 3644 3654 2.3L EB 3517 3512 3642 3661 GT 3704 3727 3825 3852 Some of the weight differances between the manual and auto equiped units don't seem right. The V6 Manual only weighs 4 lbs less than the Auto. Then the 2.3L Auto weighs less than the 2.3L Manual? I hope that Product Guide might is a rough draft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 There could be trim/option differences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 They should have started from scratch instead of forcing so much change onto an existing platform. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 (edited) Is Ford preparing the car for a future move to Aluminum when the time is right? Edited June 16, 2014 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 They should have started from scratch instead of forcing so much change onto an existing platform. What? Going back on a design that had IRS up until the last minute in 2003-4 before going over to a live axle? Its not like it they didn't already have a body of work to look at when they went back the future... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Not all cars are gaining weight: "...Mazda claims a weight-reduction target of 220 pounds for the next Miata. It’s been a while since we threw an MX-5 on our scales (the current automobile bowed for the ’06 model year, after all), but Mazda claims a 2480-pound curb weight for the most feathery 2014 edition, suggesting that the new car will be lighter than the second- and third-generation cars, but still a shade heavier than the original..." http://blog.caranddriver.com/mazda-shows-chassis-for-next-gen-2016-miata-calls-it-a-table-of-contents-2014-new-york-auto-show/ I thought the new Mustang is all new to include the floorpan. "...When did development of the new Mustang start? How clean was the sheet of paper? Dave Pericak, Chief Engineer: In late 2009. You always start off with kind of a clean sheet, but as you go through the process, you start to reduce that. What happened on this program was we ended up making the sheet of paper a little bit cleaner because we realized there were some additional changes we had to make midstream. Our design team was struggling to get the proper differentiation from the current vehicle. So we told them: “We’re untying your hands. Everything that we said was sacred from an engineering perspective is no longer sacred. If we need to do a new floorpan, we’re going to do a new floorpan. Give me a Mustang that we can put a 50th anniversary badge on and be proud of.” Joel Piaskowski, Design Director, Exterior: The advent of the project is when we started moving the hard points in the car. The new proportions have really progressed the car to this very advanced, almost exotic level. Pericak: Track width in the front is about 15 millimeters (0.6 inch) wider. Track width in the back is about 70 millimeters (2.8 inches) wider. But the sheetmetal went out only 40 millimeters (1.6 inches), really pushing those wheels out. The roof is down 38 millimeters (1.5 inches), the hood is down 32 millimeters (1.3 inches), the decklid is down 70 millimeters (2.8 inches). Another big constraint that was freed up was the A-pillar, which went rearward by 30 millimeters (1.2 inches). Moray Callum, Vice President, Design: We wanted to sort of shrink-wrap the car around its mechanicals and make it look lighter, make it look more efficient, make it look like it could handle better. So you really blew up the whole platform? Pericak: I would’ve said in 2009 that this was an evolution of the platform. I sit here in front of you today and say it’s an all-new platform. There’s nothing on there, other than the wheelbase, that is consistent from the previous year. From the floorpan to the rails, there’s nothing that we have not changed. http://www.caranddriver.com/features/2015-ford-mustang-in-depth-with-the-team-that-made-it-happen-feature-its-not-just-about-numbers-page-2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 I thought the new Mustang is all new to include the floorpan. Seems like platforms are a hot-button topic these days. You always have that one person that maintains that little has changed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 (edited) Mustang Base Curb Weights (lbs) from the Product Guide. Fastback Covertable Trim Manual Automatic Manual Automatic V6 3526 3529 3644 3654 2.3L EB 3517 3512 3642 3661 GT 3704 3727 3825 3852 Some of the weight differances between the manual and auto equiped units don't seem right. The V6 Manual only weighs 4 lbs less than the Auto. Then the 2.3L Auto weighs less than the 2.3L Manual? I hope that Product Guide might is a rough draft. People are really complaining about this??? My '97 Cobra coupe with its wet noodle fox-based platform, solid axle, and far fewer creature comforts has a published curb weight of 3391 (it weighed in at 3495 with me in it at MIR without a spare tire and a couple other tidbits) lbs if memory serves. I'd gladly tack on a couple hundred measly pounds to get all of the advantages of the new platform and body. The Mustang hasn't packed on the pounds over the years nearly as recently or in as large a quantity as people might think. Edited June 16, 2014 by NickF1011 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 The Mustang hasn't packed on the pounds over the years nearly as recently or in as large a quantity as people might think. To put it another way, a Taurus SHO weighs 4300+ plus and with just a tune and mods does 12.5 in 1/4 and still gets 18-26 MPG.... I think the obsession with weight with the Mustang is a bit ridiculous...I'd much rather have a car that is comfortable and composed then drive around in something that's the equivalent to a go-kart with some extra interior trim pieces on it with air bags. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 .I'd much rather have a car that is comfortable and composed then drive around in something that's the equivalent to a go-kart with some extra interior trim pieces on it with air bags. And, put in context, Mazda's trimming a lot of weight from vehicles, but is there evidence that this is a high priority with customers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 And, put in context, Mazda's trimming a lot of weight from vehicles, but is there evidence that this is a high priority with customers? I seem to remember some reviews of the newer Mazda products being louder then other cars in their class, mostly like due to the removal of sound deading on them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 And, put in context, Mazda's trimming a lot of weight from vehicles, but is there evidence that this is a high priority with customers? light weight is just a scribes hot button for whatever reason.....somehow the lack of sound-deadening and consequent road noise mysteriously only gets one sentence...the rest is ZOOM, ZOOM, ZOOM.....and also, theres no doubt in my mind the mustang could be somewhat lighter, either with less insulation, thinner glass and obviously more usage of exotic materials...but at what cost....? people are bitching about the MSRPS NOW.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pictor Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 If you want to understand that that look at the cost of Alfa Romeo 4C. Little tiny noisy engine in great drivers car but not usable as a daily driver starting at $59,000. Since they are selling only few (500 or so) of these in the US, how many do you think will go for MSRP? For that kind of money what kind of Mustang could you get? http://www.autoblog.com/2014/06/16/2015-alfa-romeo-4c-first-drive-review-video/ "As my first downtown stint behind the wheel proved, the 4C is not a car that will suit as a daily driver for anyone but the deeply masochistic. Yet driving it as intended is so magical – perhaps even improved thanks to the character of its most obvious flaws – that I think it deserves a rank among the very best sports cars one can buy today. Welcome back to the neighborhood, Alfa; now, show us more like this one, please." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 What? Going back on a design that had IRS up until the last minute in 2003-4 before going over to a live axle? Its not like it they didn't already have a body of work to look at when they went back the future... that's the thing SilverSVT they didn't use the Control blade design they went with an all new IRS design. this is disruptive and made it even more complex to adapt the chassis which is some cases retained the original hard points for the Control blade suspension. To acknowledge that the Scope of the project had changed more than they originally expected, and this added alot of risk to the program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 that's the thing SilverSVT they didn't use the Control blade design they went with an all new IRS design. this is disruptive and made it even more complex to adapt the chassis which is some cases retained the original hard points for the Control blade suspension. To acknowledge that the Scope of the project had changed more than they originally expected, and this added alot of risk to the program. which to me raises the question of why they didnt use it...superior alternative perhaps?.... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Integral Link IRS is the evolution of Control Blade IRS by replacing the control blades with integral Links Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 which to me raises the question of why they didnt use it...superior alternative perhaps?.... No doubt it is a superior alternative, but at what point to you say hey, we would prefer to meet weight than use to superior alternative. Ford can say we are going to shave weight from every product when you are unwilling to make sacrifices to actually save Weight, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.