I really love the s197 Mustang, but I think everyone would agree it could stand to lose some weight. I think Ford would like to see that as well, since CAFE standards are going up.

How could they shave some weight off? Maybe they could use some of the tech they learned with the Sport Trac bed, which is composite plastic, and use plastic for the trunk lid ,front fenders, and doors. The hood is already aluminum, correct?

Some other weight saving ideas:

• Aluminum bumper beams under the front and rear fascias
• lighter seat frames (aluminum maybe? The current power driver's seat mechanism and frame look heavy)
• smaller spare tire
• Aluminum driveshaft
• lighter wheels

It would be great if they could get it down to ~3000 lbs.

 

I do too, it would be nice to see manufacturers tackle the power to weight ratio equation from the other end than is now typical these days - ever bigger, more powerful motors. While that may be a cheaper approach initially (purchase price), in the long run (fuel/operating costs), I think that will cost more in the end. And less mass also pays big dividends in all the other areas of performance envelope too, beyond just straight line acceleration. Better handling and shorter braking and overall agility stand to reap big gains from less deadweight sloshing about.

Maybe when gas is, or was, less the two bucks per gallon, simply plopping in ever bigger motors and horsepower made for a quick, cheap and easy solution. Now with gas at well over three bucks a gallon and climbing, perhaps other, better approaches need to be taken.

 

How about weight & size.

Given the physical size of the S197 Mustang, 3000 lbs is a pipe dream within the Mustang's price envelope.

The S197 is a pretty large car given that it can only comfortably seat 2 adults. The only practical way to drop its weight and hold the price is to make it smaller.

 

Just for fun, I did a comparison of some 2 door coupes in the $25K -$35K
range on Edmunds.com. The current Mustang is not too bad weight wise. The suprising one is the 350Z : it sure is heavy for a two seater.

 

I work for Boeing in the Aerospace field (where minimizing weight is first priority), so I can say first-hand that getting weight down is not easy. There are a lot of ways to do so, but they're often expensive and/or difficult to do. Aluminum is not easy to weld and isnt nearly as strong as steel, so it generally needs to be larger in size to match the strength of steel, which can be a problem in some areas. Such applications would also add a bit of new design and engineering to the car which would probably increase costs as well.
Still, the Mustang could stand to lose some weight. My 2000 GT weight 3280 without me in it, so you can see the fairly substantial increase since then.

 

As I said, the easiest way to make it lighter is to make it smaller.

First place I'd start is with the wheels, some of them are insanely heavy. Going to nice aluminum forgings would offer a substantial weight savings over the heavy cast wheels in the most important place, un-sprung weight.

 

One of the reasons the 350Z is so heavy is that the platform is shared with the Infiniti FX45. Every part that is shared between the two has to be heavy enough for use in an SUV. Hence, it's a pretty porky sports car.

The other problem is that cars in general are getting bigger, and have a lot more crap put into them. : Huge stereos, stupid big wheels, airbags, side impact beams, sound insulation, 64-way power seats, and all manner of electro-crappery all add weight.
A '64 Mustang was what, 2400-2500 lbs? Now Honda Civics are pushing 3000, and the new GT-500 is getting close to the 2 ton mark.

 

The cars get heavier as the federal government requires more and more safety features. Air bags in the seats, dashboard... lets not leave out the traction control and all of the wiring that goes along with it.

A great goal would be 200 pound weight reduction by use of lighter weight body panels (if they don't already) and dropping the 2 piece drive shaft.

 

If the mustang were smaller, would it appeal to as many people? They need volume with this car (especially since it has its own dedicated chassis right now) and a smaller mustang might not appeal to as many people?

 

Quick question. Why is the mustang soooo big? I mean L x W x H wize. Comparing the older mustangs to the present and you are talking about several inches in all directions. While I don't mind the wider at all. the length and especially the height bug me. Even my 00 Roush stage two was taller then my Father's 72 mach. I would not have a problem with a smaller mustang. I am not sure where all the size goes in the present model. the interior is not necessarily spacious. The trunk is great, but when do I need to fit three golf bags in the trunk of my mustang. It's not like I can take two buddies with me to the course, they would never fit in the car. The trunk lid is way High on the present model. These are just some of my thoughts. The mustang must remain muscular, but I agree a diet is necessary. http://bradbarnett.net/mustangs/time...gt-h/GTH15.jpg I think this is a chop, but it dispays what I am talking about very well. (I know I will get scorched for this, but the vette went smaller and actually gained more followers, from what I understand).

 

If Ford can get the Mustang or GT 500 down to the same weight as a Vette, then with the added horsepower, there will a night and day difference in the two, since, the last article I saw showed the GT500 in 2nd place behind the standard 400HP Vette. I am sure ALOT of that is weight. Clear up the weight, increase the speed.

 

Alright, so I got interested and pulled the numbers on a 67 ( outdated technology, I know) and the 06.

In 1967 the mustang was 51.8" tall, 70.9" wide, and 183.6" long with a wheel base of 108".

The 2006 Mustang is 54.5" tall, 74" wide, and 188" long with a shorter 107.1" wheel base (ie. btwn the front and rear overhang you have a total of over 80"

I know that safety measures have driven a lot of changes, but there is no reason the mustang needs to be this big, IMHO. Shave 3 inches from the height and 5 inches of the length and I imagine you could save some weight.

 

Back in late 2002 or early 2003 Ford did extensive studies and very thorough customer surveys. For once Ford listened to its customers and a lot of weight was given to their opinions for desired performace, cosmetics, and design with emphasis on better leg and head room. The result was a totally improved platform, a longer and wider vehicle.

So, now shorter and thinner is better? How long does it take you guys to pick the dresses you wear?

 

I think most people wanted more room for the back seat passengers and that is where all of the growth comes from... Another thing that Ford asked about during the survey process was the insturments. I remember asking for numbers instead of letters on the indictators. However, I don't think that the S197 is too overly large but like another post suggested, lose some of the trunk space, drop the 2 piece drive shaft, less glass area will save some weight and maybe make use of more aluminum.

I love my old car, it had a purpose when it rolled off the assembly line. It didn't need anything fancy, just a big engine and that is all a Mustang should really be about.

 

Ford can and should put the Mustang on a diet, lightweight panels, more composite materials, etc. However, there is a real cost to doing this in terms of R&D and raw materials. Rather than trying to make 400 - 500 lb reductions, Team Mustang should approach it in stages, making a couple of 200 lbs reductions over two model years to spread out the cost. Just a thought...

 

Composites are really great in terms of weight reduction, but like you said, it's insanely expensive to research and produce. When you have a homogonous material like aluminum or steel, the properties (like strength) are constant through out the material. But with a composite like graphite or carbon fiber, the orientation of each ply has to be determined, and each carbon fiber ply is about .0075 inches thick, so it takes a lot of time and money to build up an entire panel.

 

I agree about the strength issue. But I believe there are non-structural components that could benefit from them. The outer skin of the car is very little more than that. That is why all the body workers have to wear kevlar gloves... so they don't slice their hands on the razor thin steel. Also door assemblies in general are very heavy. I had to replace my power window motor in my 98. I could not believe how heavy the motor assembly was. There are many ways of reducing the weight through engineering and design that do not reduce the strength and crash resistance. Granted these reductions are not going to net 500 lbs. I personally think there is room for improvement.

 

Thinner is not better. The new width is great, but I don't think people wanted size for the heck of it. Ford increased the wheel base by 6 inches for '05, but where did it go? the front leg room gained an inch, up to 42.7 from 41.8, and the rear leg room got an inch too, up to 31.0 from 29.9. So where did the other four inches go? Why is it an inch and a half taller then '04? anyone with more than a 42" inseam can't drive the car anyway, so head room shouldn't have been a problem. My father at 6'3" never had trouble fitting into his '67 that was three inches shorter then the present model and had more ground clearance (Not that more ground clearance is a good thing, but dimensionally that makes less room inside the body of the car). I agree that the mustang needs to be muscular and to a degree that demands some size, but the '04s already dwarfed almost all other two-doors out there.
And it usually only takes me five dresses to figure out which one I want! If my wife isn't already wearing my favorite one!

 

 

Your forgetting about the United Lazy of Fatmerica! Ever try to stuff 500 pounds of crap in a two pound bag.