orange3.9stang

Look at the spec sheet again ...

the M/T & A/T are both listed as 3750 lbs. for coupe,

the M/T & A/T for convertible is 4000 lbs.

Doug

Boomer

And neither of them is true.

Comeon.. you think it'll gain 2010 GT/2010 GT500 weight in swapping to a SMALLER/LIGHTER engine?
The 6 speed isn't THAT heavy...and neither are the GT components.

2010MustangGT

So just for the heck of it... I thought I'd drive the "normal" EPA standard today and see what MPG I got. So I went ahead and did 58mph (in a 55mph zone) for a 25-28 mile stretch.

I got 30.3mpg...

Conditions: flat road, 4,1xx miles. Half tank of gas. RPM's were at 1,700. A/C was at 2 o'clock (near the warmer side). 38 degrees. Air flow was on the first nub. I even had an extra 20-30lbs in my trunk...

Sooooooo... IDK should I be impressed that the 2011 v6 get's a PROJECTED 30mpg when meanwhile I can attain it in my 2010 GT??? I know it's "neither here nor there" sorta info when talking about it... But figured I'd just throw it out there.

stangfoeva

Lol @ people who think the V6 will weigh 3750lbs

jsaylor

Considering that Ford is projecting what the epa highway rating will be and not what you will actually get on cruise down I40 West yeah, I would argue that we should be impressed.

SpOnkey21

Either way, the weight is not accurate. Nit pick, whatever, Ford has stated in their press release that it will be 300 lbs less than the Camaro, so put it a lil over 3400. Bet on it. There is no way that switching in a lighter motor, a new six speed trans, and a few beefier suspension bits ads 350 pounds to the V6 curb weight.

bob

LMAO, Camaro fans are begging for that press blurb about a 4,000 pound V6 to be true.

GTJOHN

We are officially in the beginning stages of killing off the V8!
Its not going to happen over night, but this is how it starts. Price, Performance & Fuel Mileage. You can't have all three with a V8, but you can with a V6.

People who want a V8 are going to have to pay an arm and a leg for the top dog Mustang - Shelby, Boss etc.

Boomer

People said the same thing years ago.
I wouldn't worry.

They may get smaller,but we'll still have an 8.
At least..for a WHILE

WeinerDog

Is the 305HP rating?

rhumb

Notta chance. What you are likely to see is the making of the V6 into a viable performance model in its own right rather than the cheap, pretty-poser secretary's special its always been. Why?

• EPA
• CAFE (and a fallback if oil/gas prices surge again)
• Appeal more to import buyers
• Boost performance image of the Mustang line as a whole

The V6 may now assume some of the role of being the standard performance model now fully filled by the GT. This will then free the GT to move slightly upmarket a bit in price, cache, etc. Some of what has held back the GT has been the need to hew to an ostensible $25K base price, hence the current 5 speed, mediocre brakes, neolithic rear suspension, etc. What we might see, instead, is an Ecoboost 4 banger filling in the current V6s role with power in the low 200hp range but even better mileage and emissions.

Also, the competitive effect of the Camaro, especially the V6 version, is not to be underestimated either as it frankly made the 4.0 Stang look pathetic in comparison. Ford may have eventually offered a Duratec V6, but it was likely the Camaro that forced Ford to make it a genuine 300+hp, 6 speed, uprated suspension and brakes performance car. And that the Camaro SS has a 400+ motor, six speed tranny and big Brembos is not coincidental that the 5.0 will be similarly spec'ed.

Bringing the chassis fully out of the 19th century into the 21st may have to wait to the next full redesign, however, given Ford's new aggressiveness in updating the Stang to meet the competition (in contrast to their lackadaisical attitude heretofore) might mean the back door of the development and engineering department creaking open to finally release the IRS to the light of day and track.

Perhaps "good enough" is no longer the management mantra for the Stang, being replaced by true overall world-class excellence. The developments of '10 and '11 sure are strong, concrete indications of that.

xlover

its seems good enough is no longer the mantra for ford in general. ill be expecting a world class chassis in the 2013/2014 redesign when i am planning on getting my next one.

orange3.9stang

I never said I believed these weights, just corrected poster that the "convertible" weighed 250# more than the "coupe" rather than "M/T" being heavier than "A/T".

If the 2011 V6 M/T Mustang is 3750 lbs. it would only be 30 lbs. lighter than the much bulkier 2010 V6 M/T Camaro (3780 lbs.) ... this just can't be possible !!

A 2010 V6 M/T Mustang supposedly is 3401 lbs. so there is no way the V6 Mustang put on 350# with added Dual Exhaust, a 6-Spd trans, and a few other changes.

I would also guess that the all aluminum 3.7 would be lighter than the old iron block 4.0 and the EAPS may even offer some weight savings over the old hydraulic steering set up too.

Doug

orange3.9stang

Since all the gear ratio & tires specs were mentioned in the spec sheet, I did some gear ratio vs. speed calculations.

2011 V6 M/T w/ 17" tires in O.D. @ 75 MPH = 1798 RPM (opt. 18" = 1823 RPM)

vs.
2010 V6 M/T w/ 17" tires in O.D. @ 75 MPH = 2282 RPM (opt. 18" = 2274 RPM)

other V6 Mustangs from my past:
2004 3.9L M/T w/ 225/55-16 tires = 2246 RPM
1998 3.8L M/T w/ 225/55-16 tires = 2013 RPM
1994 3.8L M/T w/ 225/60-15 tires = 2022 RPM

Really makes me want to see the torque curves for this 3.7L as it will be ******* down under 1500 RPM @ 60 MPH !!

The slowest speed I can go "******* down my 2004 3.9L in O.D." is around 35 MPH (1000 RPM = 33 MPH) ... for comparison, the 3.7 in O.D. will be doing 42 MPH at 1000 RPM !!

Doug

Dixie_Flatline

It's been in several of the auto press writeups that the 3.7 clocks in 40 lbs lighter than the 4.0.

Anyone have any idea what the weight difference is betwixt the 3.7 4v V6 and the 4.6 3v V8? Would be interesting to know since it looks like the 2011 6 will get all the 2010 8's equipment.

1trickpony

Believe it or not, I think the 4.0 was only 10 or 20 lbs lighter than the 3v V8. Maybe 50 or 60 lbs? My other question is the rear end. I think the 8.8 weighs 40 to 50 lbs more than the 7.5 so that could add a lot of weight.

Ministang

IIRC the base curb weight of a 2010 GT was up around 40 lbs according to Ford, and they said much of that was from the larger (heavier) wheels. Curb weight on my minimally optioned 2008 GT was 3491 lbs, so curb weight on a base 2010 GT with no options should be in the neighborhood of 3530 lbs or so. I'm guessing that the 2011 V6 will come in around 100 lbs lighter than the 2010 GT, but options can add a lot of weight (to either one).

PTRocks

Relax, man. If Audi can make a sweet sounding kick-*** 4.2L V8, Ford can do the same when the time comes.

eci

Is the Audi $28k?

metroplex

The Audi RS4 was about $50k-$60k IIRC. The same engine was then used in the $120k Audi R8.