Wieght gain a big negative? - Ford Mustang Forum
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 105 (permalink) Old 09-22-2014 Thread Starter
Rookie
S197 Member
 
10grabber horse's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2011
Location: Bristol
Posts: 37
 
Angry Wieght gain a big negative?

How many true mustang enthusiasts are like me disappointed at weight going up ? Along with the loss of 1mpg & .1 in the 1/4 mile I am really bummed .

10grabber horse is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
RandomForumGuy
Guest
 
RandomForumGuy's Avatar
 
Posts: n/a
I know i am, thats why i took my donut tire, jack, and tire iron out. Now im planning on getting a rear seat delete kit with an x brace to.

PONY Member
 
Bgoins's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2012
Location: Chesapeake
Posts: 506
 
The 1964 Mustang was about 2500 pounds. If Ford really wants a retro design the Mustang needs to hit the gym. Take some cues from Mazda - the new Miata is shedding 200 pounds and is evidently going to be smaller than the original 1991 Miata.

2013 GT, automatic, Brembo brake package
Bgoins is offline  
 
F91
GT Member
5.0L Member
 
F91's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2010
Location: Port Orchard
Posts: 2,305
 
Garage
Very disappointed. Not interested if they can't do better than that. Don't care about styling, but performance has got to be better ALL around if you want me to sqwitch from my 2011.

2011 GT | MT82 | 3.73 | Brembos | Barton | Airaid | CDC chin | Corsa X pipe & Xtremes | DSS Aluminum Shaft | BMR Rear loop & LCA relocating brackets | J&M Extreme LCA | Koni Yellows | Steeda Sports | UMI Panhard | SCT & BAMA
"Yo, nutsack! Let me tell you something, man, muscle beats import every time. You know what I'm saying? Every time!" - Dwight
F91 is offline  
Banned
 
2012 IngotSilver 5.0's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2011
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 735
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bgoins View Post
The 1964 Mustang was about 2500 pounds. If Ford really wants a retro design the Mustang needs to hit the gym ...
C&D and MT tested the '64 1/2 - '65 Stang with the 289 V8 and manual trans. They reported a curb weight of 2861 lbs and 2930 lbs respectively.
2012 IngotSilver 5.0 is offline  
Banned
 
2012 IngotSilver 5.0's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2011
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 735
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10grabber horse View Post
How many true mustang enthusiasts are like me disappointed at weight going up ? Along with the loss of 1mpg & .1 in the 1/4 mile I am really bummed .
Yup, the new GT's extra 15 hp went right down to the tubes having to make up for it's additional 150-200 lb weight increase ...
2012 IngotSilver 5.0 is offline  
PONY Member
 
Bgoins's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2012
Location: Chesapeake
Posts: 506
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2013 R/Red 5.0 View Post
C&D and MT tested the '64 1/2 - '65 Stang with the 289 V8 and manual trans. They reported a curb weight of 2861 lbs and 2930 lbs respectively.
Oh man! That's what I get for referencing Wikipedia! Either way it's clear the Mustang is middle aged in years AND weight

2013 GT, automatic, Brembo brake package
Bgoins is offline  
Sean Reilly
Guest
 
Sean Reilly's Avatar
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bgoins View Post
Oh man! That's what I get for referencing Wikipedia! Either way it's clear the Mustang is middle aged in years AND weight
Now Thats Funny!!....ROTFLMAO!

Sean.
PONY Member
 
NoVa5.0's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2014
Location: Arlington
Posts: 704
 
Big issue for me. Especially because the engineers and designers working on the s550 project initially said it was going to be lighter and smaller in every dimension. How that all got changed is beyond me.

Really, they just needed to make a 9/10ths scale version of the 2011-2014 car, add IRS, and be done with it.

Whether it means anything for sales, remains to be seen.

2012 GT Premium, Brembo PP, MT82, 3.73s, Blk/Blk. Bama 93R, Koni Yellow Rear Shocks, Hawk Ceramic pads, Luxurious & Plush Floor Mats
NoVa5.0 is offline  
Apprentice
 
akwal07's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Location: milpitas
Posts: 104
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2013 R/Red 5.0 View Post
Yup, the new GT's extra 15 hp went right down to the tubes having to make up for it's additional 150-200 lb weight increase ...
also extra loss from an independent vs live rear right?
akwal07 is offline  
Sean Reilly
Guest
 
Sean Reilly's Avatar
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by akwal07 View Post
also extra loss from an independent vs live rear right?
Nah!....There must be a good 25+Lbs Extra Weight over the "Log" axle due to all the additional parts required for the IRS.....

Heck, the New "Double Knuckeled" Wishbone front suspension looks like it weighs an extra 100Lbs more then the outgoing setup! .....But Im ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that the Road Course Track Peeps will LOVE this New Setup, as it Supposedly Laps Faster than the '12-'13 Boss Stangs.......

Sean.
PONY Member
 
Bgoins's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2012
Location: Chesapeake
Posts: 506
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoVa5.0 View Post
Really, they just needed to make a 9/10ths scale version of the 2011-2014 car, add IRS, and be done with it
Couldn't agree more! If it was the same proportions as the '15 but smaller and about 3400 lbs I'd be pumped

2013 GT, automatic, Brembo brake package
Bgoins is offline  
PONY Member
 
midlife-stanger's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2013
Location: Bergen county
Posts: 256
 
The thing that gets me. Is they said they wanted to Make the car more a global car then one that only Americans will like. But in europe gas is like a billion $$ per gallon. So why make a car that is heavy with worse gas milage and will probably be slower for a market that seeks MPG's??
The last time I saw such sillyness was when we were begging Pontiac to make the GTO retro.
Instead they said we are doing it to apeal to people around the world and younger then you guys. so tough nuggies.
We all know how that turned out.

1987 5.0 LX ( sold in 92)
2011 GT/CS Convertible .Electronics package,
Security package,HID headlights,comfort package
midlife-stanger is offline  
Apprentice
 
14MustangV6's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2013
Location: Essex County
Posts: 154
 
The problem is, given the constant increases in safety standards and requirements, it's hard to make a car lighter without making it much more expensive or smaller.

As others have pointed out, the simple solution would have been to shrink the car (even 8/10 or 9/10 of the current size), but that may be complicated due to the size of the larger engines that need to fit.

Current: 2014 V6 Mustang Premium, Automatic Transmission, Oxford White, Safety & Security Package.

Previous: 2006 Chevrolet Cobalt LS, bone-stock except for automatic transmission.
14MustangV6 is offline  
PONY Member
 
konabluev6's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Location: Mexico City
Posts: 727
 
For me the problem is also the size. I was really hoping it was going to be a smaller car, like the new edge or even the size of the original 64 1/2.

When I drive my 2 mustangs one right after the other its just amazing how nimble and agile the new edge is compared to the hulking S197

The 2015 is as large as the 2014s...

I still like a lot though


2015 50 Anniversary Package GT
2014 Race Red Premium GT Convertible
2003 Silver GT
1981 Ford Mustang Fastback
1966 Mustang Coupe 289 4V
15 years ago 1984 Ford Mustang Hardtop
konabluev6 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
 

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Mustang Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a VALID email address for yourself, otherwise you will not receive the necessary confirmation email needed to confirm, validate and activate your new AFM member account.

Failure to provide a VALID email address, will result in the cancellation of your new AFM member account registration.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome
 


Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1