yeah it took them a while to run outta cash.

 

the 50th yr anniversy edition will be something special, I don't know about the 45th. The 35th and 40th were the same thing and not impressive at all. Yeah the 35th redesign was nice but the se package stunk

 

If you say so, however for alot of people, those cars are "the quentissential" mustang.

Hard to believe, I know, but the fact is, until about 1982, factory performance for regular folk, and factory performance with a manual transmission was pretty much dead. Then along comes this cheap coupe with a 4 barrel coupled to a manual tranmission and a sporty suspension and a bit of style for a pretty cheap price. Fast forward to 1987 when the HO motor put out 225hp and 300 ft/lbs in a car that could be configured for a weight of about 3,000 to 3,100 lbs form the factory and was still cheap as hell compared to brand X.... opps gotta split for work... see you folks later.

 

I think we are talking styling standpoint here. there is no argueing the fox body value for performance.

Ford really needs to cut some fat off the new one to bring weight down.

 

As this relates to models like the GT I think a serious weight reduction is very unlikely. Realistically the car is no worse than average for the class it plays in in this respect, and it appears that most of the easy/cheap roads to weight savings have already been taken (aluminum engine, etc) Add in a future IRS setup at some point and any tricks they may still have up their sleeves to drop a few pounds will likely be offset by implementation of the same. However, it is worth mentioning that an IRS equipped car which weighs roughly the same as the current SRA equipped model would seem likely to possess better f/r weight balance.

The only alternative I can see to drastically drop weight on Mustangs like the GT would be to make the car smaller. And given the success of the current model I seriously doubt you'll see this unless gas prices creep up a good bit beyond where they are right now, and stay there for some time.

However, I don't think the prospect of weight reduction for se models like the GT500 or a future Boss etc is as unrealistic as it is for the GT due to the flexibility a higher msrp allows. But at this size I still wouldn't expect anything below about 3200-3300lb without seriously gutting the car to get there. Frankly, I'm very happy with a 3500lb GT in this day and age and would be astounded if they could get any well equipped Mustang with a V8 to weigh in at 3,200lb without taking the price tag into the stratosphere.

 

With all the plastics & light weight metals being used today, I am still surprised that the Mustang GT is 3500lbs.

 

they need to make the car smaller. you could practicaly fit a fox mustang inside the S197.

They dwarf my sn95. No reason for the car to be that big.

and just cause it is at industry standard doesn't mean it has to be...look at the vette. that car has not gone up in weight in what? 15-20 years? heck is prob lighter today then it had been in the past.

 

A 1967 Vette coupe weighs about what a new one does, typically just a little less to be accurate but not enough to write home about. Interestingly a new Mustang GT happens to weigh just about what a decently equipped 1967 smallblock Mustang fastback did as well. Again the 67 typically coming in just a bit less, but it is still nothing to write home about. (looking at decently equipped cars were looking at about 100-150lb or so in both instances..and actually equipment to equipment, smallblock to smallblock the Vette has arguably put on just a bit more weight than has the pony)

As for the new car dwarfing the SN95, that is true only in terms of wheelbase. To qoute a post from over at DFW stangs

the S197 is:
0.9" wider
1.4" higher
4.4" longer
5.8" more wheelbase (a good thing)
3.2" wider front track (another good thing)
1.4" wider rear track
than the SN95's

And unless you care nothing for driving dynamics, and I know this isn't the case, I don't think you would seriously want Ford to consider taking wheelbase back out of the new car. The current Mustang could stand to lose a bit of rear overhang which would likely improve the weight equation somewhat.... but not by much. And it could stand to be just a bit lower as well.....but again reducing both of these to SN95 numbers likely wouldn't get you 100lb. Beyond these changes, well, the best Mustangs have always been proper GT's and any serious reduction in overall size would change that. IMO this is really no different than advocating a 4-door Mustang to improve practicality. Technically it would work, but the curb weight (which is hardly porky in the GT) is a side effect of what this car is.

And to be blunt the car would be well served if wheelbase grew about an inch increasing the distance between the front wheelwell and the leading edge of the door. This, along with a rear overhang trim, would improve the balance equation further, especially when an IRS finds it's way under the car, which is far more important than 150lb in an enthusiasts ride.

Also, I find it curious that people somehow find logic in comparing the Mustang to the Vette in this respect anyway. As it is the now beefier 2007 Mustang GT only has about 300lb on the standard Vette coupe which is a far smaller and far more expensive car. Nothing remotely similar in size to the Mustang GT weighs significantly less and nothing with a V8 in anything like this size segment weighs less at all.

If Ford can add an IRS to the mix and maintain the current cars weight I will be impressed beyond description. I'll argue that Ford needs to find a way to engineer more rear seat space without increasing size, or that the lack of a tilt and telescope steering column is becoming a rather large oversight, or that mileage needs to improve, or even that IRS needs to appear sooner than later and preferably without a weight increase. But the weight argument against the base and GT S197's has never made sense on any level and frankly just takes away from other areas that could realistically be improved IMO.

I'd much rather have a next gen Mustang GT that offers tilt-telescoping steering, a 6-speed manual, and IRS for about the same weight as the 2007 GT than end up with a near sub-compact or a car where so much was spent on trying to keep weight down other truly needed improvements don't appear. And I would say that just about covers the lineup of realistic future alternatives as it pertains to the weight debate.

If this is truly the case I would hate to hear what you think of the weight of say, a base 350Z coupe which is a 3300lb+ car despite it's far smaller size and V6 engine. Decently equipped a 350Z weighs almost what a Mustang GT does. Or BMW's base 3-Series coupe which is likewise a roughly 3400lb car despite a relatively small six cylinder engine and similar overall size. (no 'luxury quipment' debate applies here either since base BMW's are amazingly austere)

Again, this debate really makes no sense.

 

Sure the performance on these cars finally came back, and a little upgrading and you were the talk of the town, but they had no styling. The refrigerators of the 1950`s were rounded corner rectangler boxes. Nothing of these years resembled any of the flavor of Mustang.

 

The Fox body was cheap because it was hardly changed in so many years and had nothing sophisticated about it.

Don't kid yourselves though. I lived in Detroit in the 80's and those little imports didn't last much more than one winter without rusting through. There was a lot of junk in the 70's and 80's. The new Mustang cannot be compared (in quality) with the older stuff as well as most cars today.

Weight...well, the Mustang weighs about what my sport Lincoln LS did, and is not as well balanced, so it's a little porker. The Vette is a two seat sport car that is double the price of a Mustang so it better be lighter and better balanced.

Size... I would not want to give up space as the last body style was just way too tight. The Mustang looks big as all these new cars are so darn tall (body panel wise). You just can't hang you arm out the window anymore. I had a Nissan Altima park next to my lowered SN95 once and I had to laugh at how small my Mustang looked next to that thing. Even a VW Bug (new thing) parked next to a sn95 or Fox car looks huge.

 

I think it sucks..i guess partly becaue at 5'7" 140lbs I don't need the car to be any bigger. So it is a waste for them to make it bigger and heavier for me.

 

Hmmmm.... I am not good enough at PS to add wheels. Not sure though. Might be time for another poll.

I will add that the stolen picture for the car below was on the nicest Fox bodies pics thread somewhere else and by no means am I downgrading their car. It is a fine example. Actually it looks like one here in Knoxville that wins car shows quite a bit.

 

Thank You:
I rest my case

 

That's part of the reason I like the Fox-bodies so much - they look nothing like the 'Stangs that came before them. "No retro here", thank you very much. Though I must admit I didn't like them at first (gasp!) when I was just "getting into" cars during the '87-'93 model years. I dunno, they just grew on me. They were the "perfect car for the times" plus they also became legends in their own time as well.
Anyway, back to topic - ALL vehicles, not only the Mustang could stand to lose some weight. If Ford can somehow pull that off while retaining the same interior space/capacity and at the same time shortening the overall length (w/out decreasing wheelbase) and height a bit - that would be most welcome news. What's the saying about telling an engineer " that you can't do that..."?

 

Let's also not overlook the fact that if the Vette body panels weren't constructed from fiberglass ? it would more than likely weigh even more than the current S-197 at 3,500lbs..Therefore if you look at it from that perspective ? the Mustang isn't really such a porker when compared to other cars in it's class such as the 350Z..

 

Say what you will, and disparage the fox cars for the different direction Ford used in styling (which wasn't out of step with the rest of the industry as it seemed like everybody was into "euro" styling in the late seventies/early eighties), but the cars were true to the mustang formula and are no less a Mustang than any previous iteration.

 

Soooo, to me, the future Mustang then should just lose the back seat, put in a storage shelf in its place, give the GT its long awaited 6 spd w/gears, IRS, and use some form of composite for all the paneling. Engineer's would love it, but the bean counter's, well, they'd have to be brought out behind the barn and whipped.

 

I had discussed this in a previous thread before, but I can't find it. The interior space of the new stang is almost the same as the SN95. They just grew the wheel base and overhangs without adding legroom (F42.7"vs41.8", R31'vs29.9'), headroom (F38.6"vs38.1", R35"vs35.5"). THe width is a good thing as shoulder room increased from 53.6 to 55.4, two much needed inches, but overall width only changed .9", no major weight gained there.

No offense but that seems like a big difference to me. Looking in terms of overall volume or amount of surface area increase that is a big difference. It's like adding a foot to your family room. seems like no big deal. instead of 15X17 it is now 15X18, but the area increase is actually a 15 square foot increase. In terms of the mustang, that is a lot of more surface metal on the car.

Just my 2 cents. Dont get me wrong. I am really loving the new wheelbase and width/track. I hate the overhangs and height, tho .

 

everyone stop comparing the vette to the mustang.

I brought up the vette in the disscussion not to compare those two together but how each car has changed in weights over the years.

The mustang keeps getting heavier and heavier while the vette is staying the same or lighter each year.

 

I will leave the #'s out of this argument (which I don't often do) and just say that at 6'4", there is ALOT more room in the s-197 than the sn-95/fox cars. I can sit MUCH more comfortably in the newer cars, which might be contributed to the extra room combined with a better seating position. Either way, there is definitely more of a difference than the hard numbers would suggest.

P.S. Foxes RULE!!!