Weight gain is less than 100 lbs., trim for trim
6/21/14, 01:13 PM
#61
Member
Join Date: April 24, 2011
Location: Yorba Linda, CA
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taking a wait and see approach right now. I love the new M4 but I love V8s and normally aspirated. So I am going to wait and see what the SE Mustangs will bring ala GT350 and such. To get a regular Mustang GT really doesn't get me anywhere. I love my E92 M3, its right under 400rwhp and I just got it a little under a year ago.
I also want to see what the LCI F82 brings with its competition package.
Dave
I also want to see what the LCI F82 brings with its competition package.
Dave
completely agree with you. i was going to lease the f80 and buy a competition package in 3 years but something about it didnt make me happy. if the 2013 e92 m3 that i've been looking at doesnt go well i'll for sure be getting the mustang.
6/21/14, 01:30 PM
#62
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: September 23, 2008
Posts: 879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My 2011 M3 was identical to my 2013...
6/21/14, 02:52 PM
#63
A Man Just Needs Some....
I think Ford learned their lesson about building a mustang that is too light a long time ago. The new platforms since '05 are just stable and so much safer. I'm sure this helps save on insurance and helps sell more cars. If the new one outperforms its predecessor, weight gain shouldn't be an issue for anyone. Better stability and performance is win win. If you're buy a car to race, it won't come race ready from the factory. You guys will be disappointed regardless. 
6/21/14, 03:13 PM
#64
Cobra Member
I think Ford learned their lesson about building a mustang that is too light a long time ago. The new platforms since '05 are just stable and so much safer. I'm sure this helps save on insurance and helps sell more cars. If the new one outperforms its predecessor, weight gain shouldn't be an issue for anyone. Better stability and performance is win win. If you're buy a car to race, it won't come race ready from the factory. You guys will be disappointed regardless.
6/22/14, 11:52 AM
#65
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
Join Date: November 14, 2007
Location: Pacific NW USA
Posts: 3,652
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
6 Posts
...I'm old (55), and I'm giving up correcting people who call the Mustang a "muscle car", and telling them it's a "pony car". Back in the day, the muscle cars (Chevelles, GTO's, 442's, Road Runners, Torinos, etc.) weighed in at or just under 4,000 lbs. So muscle car it is...
Rick
Rick
Right there with you, Rick. I've owned Muscle Cars back in the day. My '68 Pontiac GTO was 3750 lbs. My '14 Mustang GT is 3620 lbs. That's only 130 lbs difference. So, both are 2-door V8 rear drive Muscle Cars.
My earlier Mustangs were Pony Cars. My first one was a 2900 lb '75 Mach 1. Then my '89 5.0L that was just over 3000 lbs. My '00 GT weighed just 3180 lbs. Even my '03 Mach 1 with the heavy 4V 4.6L V8 and Shaker hood assembly only weighed 3380 lbs. I'm not sure whether to include my '07 GT as a Pony Car as it weighed over 3500 lbs and my '11 GT was a little more than that.
6/22/14, 12:12 PM
#66
ATS on the Alpha platform weights at around 3300, thats with a 4 banger and a 4 door car.
Next Camaro on that platform, plus a V8 which should add around 200 pounds( comparing numbers from difference between the 5.0 and the ecoboost from the spec list) , you might see 3500-3600 would be my guess. For that future car, it should be possible to weight less then 2015 mustang at least by 100-200 pounds if they really try.
Next Camaro on that platform, plus a V8 which should add around 200 pounds( comparing numbers from difference between the 5.0 and the ecoboost from the spec list) , you might see 3500-3600 would be my guess. For that future car, it should be possible to weight less then 2015 mustang at least by 100-200 pounds if they really try.
Throw in the fact that the LT series V8 is going to require a stouter transmission, differential, drive-shaft, half-shafts, etc, etc. Unless GM spends a rather significant amount of money that they really can't afford, there is no way the Camaro V8 comes in appreciably less than the Mustang GT.
6/22/14, 04:09 PM
#67
Legacy TMS Member
That isn't especially likely. First, while the prevailing wisdom here is that the transition from sedan to coupe saves weight, that is almost never what actually happens. Take a gander at the weight of a 3 Series coupe and then look at what the same year sedan weighs, more often than not the coupe will weigh slightly more despite relatively similar proportions. A long hood, short deck redesign intended to allow for a V8 in the Camaro will only serve to add weight to that equations.
Throw in the fact that the LT series V8 is going to require a stouter transmission, differential, drive-shaft, half-shafts, etc, etc. Unless GM spends a rather significant amount of money that they really can't afford, there is no way the Camaro V8 comes in appreciably less than the Mustang GT.
Throw in the fact that the LT series V8 is going to require a stouter transmission, differential, drive-shaft, half-shafts, etc, etc. Unless GM spends a rather significant amount of money that they really can't afford, there is no way the Camaro V8 comes in appreciably less than the Mustang GT.
Much truth spoken here. I just to don't see the 6th gen Camaro getting seriously light either for the same reasons you cite.
The ATS is light because its light duty and starts 8-10k above where the Camaro starts in pricing. The Camaro like Mustang is a value proposition, it packs a lot of performance for a relatively good price point and that means having to use more conventional materials not only to save cost but outright brute strength.
6/22/14, 08:22 PM
#68
Member
Join Date: March 3, 2012
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right there with you, Rick. I've owned Muscle Cars back in the day. My '68 Pontiac GTO was 3750 lbs. My '14 Mustang GT is 3620 lbs. That's only 130 lbs difference. So, both are 2-door V8 rear drive Muscle Cars.
My earlier Mustangs were Pony Cars. My first one was a 2900 lb '75 Mach 1. Then my '89 5.0L that was just over 3000 lbs. My '00 GT weighed just 3180 lbs. Even my '03 Mach 1 with the heavy 4V 4.6L V8 and Shaker hood assembly only weighed 3380 lbs. I'm not sure whether to include my '07 GT as a Pony Car as it weighed over 3500 lbs and my '11 GT was a little more than that.
My earlier Mustangs were Pony Cars. My first one was a 2900 lb '75 Mach 1. Then my '89 5.0L that was just over 3000 lbs. My '00 GT weighed just 3180 lbs. Even my '03 Mach 1 with the heavy 4V 4.6L V8 and Shaker hood assembly only weighed 3380 lbs. I'm not sure whether to include my '07 GT as a Pony Car as it weighed over 3500 lbs and my '11 GT was a little more than that.
6/22/14, 09:09 PM
#69
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: September 23, 2008
Posts: 879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That isn't especially likely. First, while the prevailing wisdom here is that the transition from sedan to coupe saves weight, that is almost never what actually happens. Take a gander at the weight of a 3 Series coupe and then look at what the same year sedan weighs, more often than not the coupe will weigh slightly more despite relatively similar proportions. A long hood, short deck redesign intended to allow for a V8 in the Camaro will only serve to add weight to that equations.
Throw in the fact that the LT series V8 is going to require a stouter transmission, differential, drive-shaft, half-shafts, etc, etc. Unless GM spends a rather significant amount of money that they really can't afford, there is no way the Camaro V8 comes in appreciably less than the Mustang GT.
Throw in the fact that the LT series V8 is going to require a stouter transmission, differential, drive-shaft, half-shafts, etc, etc. Unless GM spends a rather significant amount of money that they really can't afford, there is no way the Camaro V8 comes in appreciably less than the Mustang GT.
Dave
6/22/14, 09:47 PM
#70
6/23/14, 09:31 AM
#71
V6 Member
Join Date: October 13, 2013
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
6/23/14, 11:28 AM
#72
Cobra Member
6/23/14, 11:30 AM
#73
Legacy TMS Member
6/23/14, 11:37 AM
#74
Cobra Member
6/23/14, 12:31 PM
#75
Member
Join Date: April 24, 2011
Location: Yorba Linda, CA
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my 335i started at 3560 pounds. with a few mods ive done probably dropped a solid 100-150 pounds from that. ive driven a 2014 roush stage 2 and a stage 3 mustang over at ken grody ford and i felt a lot safer in it if that makes sense. something about it made me feel like i was in a sturdy tank. still launched like a light weight car if not better than one of the cars i recently tested out (yea thats you 2015 m3)
6/23/14, 01:07 PM
#76
I guess some people like myself notice weight more than others lol. I put about 90lbs of garden rocks from Home depot in the trunk of my Mustang the other day and i noticed the difference immediately! The rear felt sloppy un settled and bouncy, plus i needed a tad more throttle off the line, i couldn't wait to get that stuff out of my car lol! Im kind of **** about weight though, i hate having people in my sports cars and i removed my spare tire and jack and plan on doing a rear seat delete as well! I came from a sub 2700lbs sport compact though. Im sure Ford will distribute the weight throughout the car and not all in the trunk lol! The passenger argument is usually used by fan boys! Fanboys will make excuses no matter if it weighs 1000 lbs more! Example: " Well if you strapped a refrigerator to the roof of your car then there goes the weight difference right there".
6/23/14, 01:15 PM
#77
Legacy TMS Member
A passenger is not the same as 90 pounds in the trunk. A passenger is actually helping your weight distribution...90 pounds in the trunk - well, being that the Mustang is nose heavy, it's also helping the weight distribution, but your springs aren't tuned for that much weight out back, which is why you felt the bigger difference.
6/23/14, 02:48 PM
#79
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: September 23, 2008
Posts: 879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
6/23/14, 02:50 PM
#80
A Man Just Needs Some....
I've owned a '99 and '01, and I'm just wondering where all of the weight gain is coming from. Aluminum block should save some weight and sheet metal seems to have gotten thinner over the years. As it is, the '14 stang weighs what my '79 T/A does, and it's a tank. Slowly catching up to my 442 vert.