The Internet’s been rife with speculation and navel-gazing of the first order since a blog post from Mustang tuner Steeda claimed that the “S550” platform would gain hundreds of pounds over the already-Grande current model. According to Mustang6G.com, however, a “dealer source book” lists the official curb weights for the new car, and the results are more a DeNiro-in-Raging Bull than a full Carnie Wilson bounce-back.
The forum lists weights from a sourcebook like so:
2015 Ecoboost Manual: 3517 (conv. 3642)
2015 Ecoboost Automatic: 3512 (conv. 3661)2015 V6 Manual: 3526 (conv. 3644)
2015 V6 Automatic: 3529 (conv. 3654)2015 GT Manual: 3704 (conv. 3825)
2015 GT Automatic: 3727(conv. 3852)
So much for saving weight with the four-cylinder, huh? The biggest weight gains over the current model are posted by GT models, between 52 pounds (automatic convertible) and 86 pounds (manual coupe). V-6 cars will gain 25 pounds or less. Compared to the last four-cylinder turbo Mustangs, which were Fox SVOs and GT Turbos, the Ecoboost models are heavier by approximately the weight of an adult Stegosaurus wearing a fully-loaded diving belt.
It would have been nice to see Ford pursue weight-watching with a Porsche’s worth of effort, but just to put this in perspective, the “lightweight” Camaro Z/28 reviewed by your humble author on the cover of Road&Track this month snaps the triple beam to the tune of 3,876 pounds. We won’t even talk about what the Challenger weighs; if Chrysler wanted to send the Challenger SRT-8 into space they’d need to duct-tape three Saturn Vs together to do it*.
* strictly speaking, this is far from true; the mighty Saturn V could easily send sixty Challengers into low earth orbit, assuming you could scrunch them into the payload bay.
The ecoboost may still help depending on “where”, but thats just internet bench racing for ya… But overall, the weight savings are a disappointment.
The interesting thing will be if/when in a few years they decide to F1-ize the EcoBoost v4: Use an ERS-H (mate a motor/generator to the turbo to scavenge energy from the exhaust, and also to keep the turbo spun-up at low speed to eliminate lag), and put their electric hybrid motor to allow more drive (an extra 100hp would be ideal). Combine it with a rather small couple kWh battery pack (or even better, about a kWh of capacitor)
I doubt they will, but as an Internet Geek, I’m allowed to dream, no?
Audi S5 prototype is doing just that with a turbo. I think it has has at least two design cycles before it trickles down from racing to the exotics to the domestics though.
I was in a bike shop a few weeks ago getting my kid a new bike. Nearby, a dude is trading in his $1,200 bike for a $2,500 bike because it weighed 2 pounds less.
The dude was about 5’8 and weighed 300 pounds easily.
Half of all people are of below average intelligence.
Wealth and intelligence are necessarily correlated.
Or not.
D’oh! “not necessarily” is what I thought I had typed.
What I thought I typed and what I actually typed are not necessarily correlated.
I fail to see how owning an expensive bicycle is any different from owning an exotic four-wheeled vehicle.
I was at a bike race last weekend and met an overweight, wealthy gentleman who was proud to show off his $7,000 toy. He couldn’t use the thing to its potential but he obviously got a great deal of joy from it. What’s wrong with that?
My vision is failing so I’m unable to drive or cycle at high speeds. I do like standing in my garage, however, and admiring my tiny collection of “objets d’art”.
C-Box,
People can buy what they please. My only point was that the dude in the bike shop could have saved $2K by skipping desert that week.
Half of all people are dumber than the median intelligence. The average is not the exact middle. Nitpicking on the internet, I get it, but it’s a little thing that bugs me when I see it. Damn you, Mr. Carlin, for that quote. Perhaps it’s a final joke for him to make fun of everyone trying to point out last intelligent people?
That’s why intelligence is roughly a bell curve. But don’t let that get in the way of your own ego.
actually, the central limit theorem explains why the distribution of intelligence is a “bell curve” and this isn’t about my ego, but go ahead and try me if you like…
in reference to median and average, half of all people don’t know the difference – average is close enough to median for the widest possible audience and in a zero-skew normal distribution, they are equivalent.
Oh, I hit your nerve. Well if it makes you feel better I was merely pointing out that there is no intellectual point in making a half is below/above the median. It’s why we call it the median or average (though in math they aren’t technically the same). It’s a truism masquerading as a relevant point.
No harm no foul in this respect but remember next time you want to put down somebody on a subjective point you shouldn’t use that one.
If you saw it, I’ll believe it, but from what I know about bikes, $1,200 bikes are pretty lightweight to begin with, and to get a weight savings of 2 lbs you’d have to spend a lot more than $2,500. More like $5K or $6K. I doubt there are many bikes you can buy from a bike shop that weigh less than 17 lbs. They start getting squirrelly when you get below 17 – also even with titanium and carbon fiber it’s hard to make a bike that’s stiff enough for competition and a featherweight. I believe the racing federations don’t allow anything lighter than 7 kg, 14.4. That’s to prevent bikes that are so lightweight they aren’t strong enough to be safe, but it’s almost moot because you do need at least a little road-hugging weight on a bike.
Also, that guy might have started at 350 lbs, has found out that he likes cycling and wants to get a better bike. It’s not just about weight you’re carrying around, a lighter bike handles better and corners faster (to a point). You never know. I started cycling to lose weight. After a week I bought a used French touring bike, which I rode until the frame broke, then I bought my Litespeed. Mostly from cycling and a little bit of watching my diet I took off 50 lbs and I’ve kept 40 of it off.
I was pretty fat when I upgraded from a $100 garage sale bike to a $1,900 low end of the high end bike.
Props to you for getting your kid a bike shop bike. It will be properly fitted and probably worth upgrading components when you need to fix them. Would you play golf with clubs from Kmart?
OK, Ronnie,
I see your point. I should think twice before judging others.
I agree with Ronnie on the bike shop. They are becoming a thing of the past. Which is too bad. A bike is not like buying sheetrock – Home Depot or the lumberyard, it is irrelevant. But fitted items, specialty items, or just high(er) end stuff? No Walmart.
(1) the weight-weenie rule of thumb is $1 per gram, so that actually sounds about right;
(2) “squirrelly” is a lot more about geometry than weight and 17 pounds isn’t exceptionally light by today’s standards;
(3) $1200 is still low-midrange enough that even a semi-serious recreational cyclist would probably notice the difference between that and a $2500 bike; but
(4) if dude really is rolling three bills he’d probably be better served putting more time on the bike he has.
But for all that, compared to what people spend “modding” street cars, probably not a bad ROI.
ETA: +2 on the props on supporting the LBS.
From what I’ve seen lately, $1200 in a bike shop doesn’t get you half of what it used to. I spend much more attention on mountain than road bikes, and in that camp I can definitely believe there being a 2 lb difference from $1200 to $2500.
I don’t know all the reasons, and it’s just an impression more than data-based fact, but for mountain bikes the emphasis seems to have moved away from weight to either smoothness (suspension travel, 29″ wheels) or robustness (light shocks for casual riders like Indy or Mars just don’t seem to exist anymore). Personally, 29ers suck for the offroading around here, but I can’t find a single high-end 26er anymore.
Yeah- going from $1200 to $2500 will save at least a couple pounds of weight and get you much smoother-operating parts.
Non-racers seemed to have setteled on 26-31 pounds as the ideal weight and generally, as you said, add smoothness or other features in lieu of dropping weight (like dropper posts- those cost a pound!). Not that dropping weight isn’t still awesome. I know people with Santa Cruz 27.5 FS bikes in the low 20 pound range, although that usually requires running a single front chainring. Again, I’ll take the weight penalty to run a triple as it’s necessary when you spend all day climbing hills where you can barely keep the wheel down at 10,000′ for 20 miles wearing a 20 pound pack. 29ers are awesome if you ride on lots of rocky ledges or loose traction. There are plenty of good 26ers and 650b; get a Santa Cruz Blur! I’m sure you can pick up a used high-performance 26er for a song these days, too.
Me…I’m on a Santa Cruz Tallboy LT carbon- a 5.5″ travel 29er. I weight-weenied with Ti Bolts and Carbon wheels, but other than that I went robust. Bike Fork, dropper post, 2.3 Schwalbe tires, and a Cane Creek double-barrel air (which adds nearly half a pound). All that and I’m still under 28 pounds!
Neighbor kid spent something like $1,500 on titanium bolts for his 250lb dirt bike. I think he said it saved something like 2 lbs too.
I told him to quit eating so much pizza and drinking beer.
It’s quite possible that super-lightweight bikes are specialized machines, made for racing; in which case, they wouldn’t even build one for a 300 lb person. But, there are many heavy athletes that participate in triathlons, so maybe that’s the niche market.
When I worked as a bike shop mechanic I quickly learned that the most expensive bikes sell to those with the deepest pockets, not the best riders. Those who can actually gain an advantage from the features offered on a bike that expensive are usually sponsored or too young to be able to afford them.
The first time I was asked to put a high-rise stem and springy cruiser seat on a very expensive carbon-fiber road racing bicycle I thought it was a prank but soon realized it was a semi-routine occurrence. Rich folks were often insulted when I would steer them towards a more comfortable (and cheaper) bike that would be better suited for tooling around the neighborhood than a Lance Armstrong Tour de France replica bike.
A dollar per gram saved is a general rule of thumb on where to save weight on a high-performance bicycle. That’s generally what it costs to upgrade steel bolts to titanium for instance.
Of course, by that standard the dude had about $64,000 worth of weight to lose for free!
It’s a pork chop. But these days, if a car is under 4000 pounds you have to be happy I suppose.
With all the extra luxury stuff I expected this. Adaptive cruise control, heated and cooled seats, etc. the mustang is more like a poor mans e550 these days.
Cruise control and heated seats don’t add much weight. Adaptive cruise is a few sensors made of lightweight plastic and some programming. Seat heaters are pretty thin units and probably weigh less than a pair of work boots (that a mustang owner may keep in the trunk…)
electric motors for power everything, multiple airbags, power sunroofs, ever-increasing crash safety standards requiring stronger structural components… these are some of the things that add weight.
A 2015 WRX has to conform to the same regulations, has awd and yet still weighs around 3200-3300 while being a 4-door. A coupe this heavy makes no sense to me.
Basing it off a compact sedan would likely save 500 lbs, like say a Focus platform Mustang. But then it wouldn’t be a pony car that you can stuff a longitudinal V8 into anymore.
Then you wouldn’t need the V8
And Ford tried that once before; after the blowback they received from the Mustang faithful; it became the Probe instead.
Many won’t care if it weighs a few pounds more; especially if they get the IRS in return.
Pony cars don’t “need” V8s to pull the extra weight of their platforms. But they wouldn’t be “pony cars” without their available V8s. A 400+ hp V8 is far more than any modern coupe needs. But that’s not even the point of pony cars.
They already tried that. It was called the Probe. A-al probe, LOL!!!!
Most of the blowback on the Probe was because it was “wrong wheel drive”. I hate to sound all BigTruckish here, but a Mustang needs an available V8. It just does.
“Cruise control and heated seats don’t add much weight. Adaptive cruise is a few sensors made of lightweight plastic and some programming. Seat heaters are pretty thin units and probably weigh less than a pair of work boots (that a mustang owner may keep in the trunk…)”
Sometimes the wiring harnesses weigh more than the stuff they connect (seat heaters are high current devices requiring heavier gauge wire).
Every little bit adds up.
I’ve heard that changes to run multiple controls through common wires & letting a chip sort it out saves 70 lb in a normal car compared to unique wiring for every device.
The BMW 435i weighs 3,610 lbs, it’s twin scroll turbo charged 3 liter I6 is rated at 300hp and 300LB/FT, with the auto trans it does 0-60 in 5 seconds flat. The Ecoboost Mustang weighs 98lbs less is expected to offer higher HP and torque ratings (rumors are 330/330) and essentially every technological convenience available in the Bimmer. The BMW starts at $47K while the Ford starts at under $25k. It won’t have the interior materials of the BMW but irrespective of brand allegiances we must admit that this fast Ford is quite a feat and a true gift to the enthusiast community.
AWD would add weight to the Mustang but for comparison sake the Audi S5 weighs 3,858lbs, it’s supercharged 3 liter V6 is rated at 329HP and 325 LB/FT. The Audi starts at $52k. It’s worth noting that the number 1 conquest for the Fusion titanium (2 liter Ecoboost AWD) is none other than the Audi A4 upon which the S5 is based. I’m sure Ford would love to beat the Camaro in sales again but I suspect Fields and his colleagues have their eyes on the Germans and it appears they may be winning. With the planned small displacement turbo 6 on the horizon I see a lux trim 2.7T Mustang (perhaps Bullitt?) in the near future to truly eat the Germans lunch. To steal a line from Chrysler it truly is half time in America…
The base Ecoboost Mustang starts at $25,995 with delivery. The Ecoboost Premium (which you’d need to get all those conveniences) starts at $29,995, and undoubtedly weighs more than the table in the article, but that’s still seems an insanely good deal for what you get.
So disappointing. I had such high hopes that the Mustang would go on a diet this time around. The Coyote is excellent. I guess it’s back to “Miata” for the answer to the fun, light tossable sportscar question. I’m not really interested in building another E30.
Obesity is a threat and a health risk. Likewise, sky high curb weights are a serious drag on performance and fuel economy…
Will the roads and bridges be able to handle so much weight?
Well played, sir.
I agree.
…assuming you could scrunch them into the payload bay…
I’m sure a compactor at a wrecking yard could arrange that.
Heh.
A 1965 289 equipped hardtop came in at just a tad under 3,000 pounds. Considering all the extra safety and convenience features a 2015 V8 model has, the 700 pound weight diff isn’t that big a deal.
And that 289 only had (at most) 225 gross horsepower.
Damn the future for being a golden age of performance and luxury!
The Hi-Po 289 was rated at 271hp gross, about 220 net. The standard 2 barrel 289 probably squeezed out 160hp net on its best day.
But god even the two-barrel 289 is smooooooooooooooooooooootttthhhhhhhhhhh mo’ fo’ and put true dual exhaust on it and the exhaust note makes you forget the car has a radio or that you might want to turn it on.
Especially since it was an AM radio playing through one very crappy speaker!
The literature I’ve seen says a 1965 Mustang weighed closer to 2,500 lbs.
So 1,000 to 1,200 lbs in weight gain over the years is nothing to sneeze at.
Think of the fuel economy and performance if you had that curb weight with a modern engine.
Straight 6 stripper models came in at around 2,700 pounds. The 200 cube straight six made all of about 85hp net.
Specifications for the 1965, 1966 Ford Mustang:
Wheelbase, inches: 108.0
Length, inches: 181.6
Curb-weight range, pounds: 2,445-2,800 (1965); 2,488-2,800 (1966)
Width, inches: 68.2
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1965-1966-ford-mustang-specifications.htm
Just to make the point you’re both right. Also the Mustang was based off the Falcon in that era, thus was a compact car.
Course by 1969 the car’s curb weight at base was 3,122 lbs.
The 1971-73’s were 3,560 lbs.
This iteration isn’t exactly a lightweight but it isn’t outrageous in the history of Mustangs. They’ve long been a heavy boulevard cruiser that could be competitive if the right options were selected.
Neither is surviving just about any accident that would have killed you in that ’65 Mustang.
Maybe at some point in the near future carbon fiber and carbon ceramic materials will be cheaper than their iron and steel counterparts but until that day happens we will have to make due with heavy cars.
A lot of people are looking squarely at the IRS for the weight gain but this Mustang unlike the S-197 before it has to contend with not only being a vehicle subject to international standards but newly defined domestic standards as well (chief among them seems to be a new roll-over roof crush specification). As well as the affordable price of entry.
Ford has the configurator up for the new Mustang and GT fully kitted out is still a sub 50k vehicle.
( http://bp3.ford.com/2015-Ford-Mustang?lang=en#/MakeItYours/Config%5B|Ford|Mustang|2015|1|1.|401A.P8C..HN..88S.COU.91N.67G.44X.~YZKAA.GT.PRE.52S.77R.] )
I think they’re doing it on purpose, just so that they can make a ‘lightweight’ clubsport’ish version they’ll release later.
Not to mention, if they’re going to sell it in Europe is has to be heavy. Europeans hate lightweight cars.
“I think they’re doing it on purpose, just so that they can make a ‘lightweight’ clubsport’ish version they’ll release later.”
This makes no sense to me. If they could make it lighter with the same features/power/price, why would they choose to NOT blow away the competition with better FE and power/weight ratio? You don’t intentionally cripple your rather popular, not to mention iconic, performance oriented offering just to make some hypothetical special edition look better. For people who want a lighter “performance” car, they make the Focus ST (you may have heard of it).
They can, and will, make it lighter, for those willing to pay for it. But most people will prefer the heavier, comfier car.
TBH, ‘on purpose’ sounds a bit silly the way I wrote it, but I doubt that they couldn’t have made it lighter if they felt the needed it. As mentioned in the article, it is still a lot lighter than the Camaro.
I have to add, unlike the Camaro and Challenger, the Mustang is still somewhat of a ‘secretarys car’, even if there is no longer any ‘slow’ versions of it. (a 300+ hp v6 is stil ‘wild’ by european standards ) A lot of the buyers still just want a nice looking coupe/convertible that can seat 4.
Nah, they are trying to keep the price down. Light, cheap, strong–pick two.
I wonder how much of that gain is related to NVH improvements: sound deadening, insulation, suspension components, etc. When you consider the priority Ford has put on reducing NVH in most of its recent vehicles, maybe this isn’t that surprising. Not what enthusiasts want, but the market seems to be responding well enough.
Significantly more time was spent on NVH than any previous generation of Mustang. I don’t know the specific amount of weight that added though.
Lighter is better, but I’m honestly just fine with the 86 pounds if it means I can have a normal conversation in my car while doing 90mph on the toll road. The current cars are *loud* inside.
Then you will like the 2015 Mustang better than the 2014. It is MUCH better.
Sound deadening always gets the blame, but it’s a trivial amount of extra weight in my opinion versus what used to come on cars.
If you’ve ever pulled a car’s interior apart and seen the sound deadening under the carpet and in the door panels, if you put it all on a scale you’re probably talking about far less weight than the spare wheel/tire.
Seems reasonable, but I also wonder about cost. I know the aftermarket sound deadening stuff isn’t cheap, but that’s likely because sellers like raping their customers for all their worth. I’m also guessing that there’s more to noise than simple insulation. I’ve heard a car maker hint that the body structure affects noise levels. That’s absolutely true for housing construction, so maybe it’s the case with cars, too.
I agree and I find it kind of a fascinating topic. With the prominence of monospace CUVs we’re getting a lot of very rigid and relatively light acoustic chambers as passenger compartments that can have a plethora of acoustically resonant frequencies driven by any vibrations the car generates.
My wife’s Fit makes a faint but interesting kind of ring-modulated, flanging drone at speeds <50 mph. She can't hear it but I do nothing other than try to pinpoint the source when I ride in it.
Swear to God it sounds like a flight of 4-engine bombers heard through a vacuum cleaner hose.
Yah… anyway, I think it's the muffler hangers driving that chamber like the sound post in a cello.
If you could snag a ride in a Fit EV, that question would be answered…
Excellent suggestion, thanks.
You should swing through our planetary system more often.
I find it fascinating too. I’ve gone far enough that I’ve considered seeing if there’s any SAE white papers about the subject, but then found out they were all like $30.
V-6 cars will gain 25 pounds or less.
So all forum fanboys should put down the Big Mac and start drinking Diet Coke. Oh and climb up the stairs from your mom’s basement more than once a day and you might drop that 25 lbs that the car gained.
You’re welcome.
I don’t believe in extremism.
I cut my Diet Coke with 1/3 root beer or Dr. Pepper.
I do need to drop 15 lbs to get back to a competitive weight, but losing 25 lb is just not going to happen.
Actually, we did send a vehicle named Challenger into space once, back in the eighties. I think we all remember how that turned out.
Actually, Challenger made it into space 9 times. The 10th launch was certainly less successful than the previous 9.
“The 10th launch was certainly less successful than the previous 9.”
Just slightly.
“The 10th launch was certainly less successful than the previous 9.”
UOTD
Since those brave souls were essentially the victims of a conspiracy (and not an unforeseen, terrible accident), I’ve reserved them a perpetual exemption from my “snark vault”. Just sayin’
Wholeheartedly admire your comment. Wish it were mine.
A bit of “pontificating” on my part. Still, the role of NASA as “Space Trucker” was a bit ill-conceived, and the final (desired) result (the International Space Station) cost 14 lives and 2 shuttles.
If you haven’t seen it, watch “Gravity” with Sandra Bullock and George Clooney – the best 90 minutes that I’ve spent in some time.
I’ve owned lots of Mustangs over the years from classics to Foxes and had hoped that this generation might be my first new one as I haven’t cared for the styling trend they’ve been on since 2010. I wasn’t encouraged by the intro pics and decided I needed to see one in person first, which occurred at a Mustang show a few weeks ago. While I find the weight disappointing I can now say with certainty that it’s also irrelevant to me since I will not be purchasing one. How they managed to style a car to be both hideous and design-by-committee bland is baffling to the extreme.
On a positive note, I have taken the money earmarked as a downpayment for a new Mustang and bought another Fox.
To my eyes, the 2015 is the best looking Mustang in a long time. The 2011+ Mustang was the first Mustang I would consider buying too. I’m waiting for a Lincoln sedan version, but I may just have to buy a Mustang instead.
I agree, Searcher. I LOVED the c 2006 redo, and it hit its peak a year or two later when they dropped the full-size secondary lights in the grille. But with each subsequent change (progressively trapezoidal grille, bulges all around), it just didn’t look as clean & beautiful.
I saw the 2015 at the local car show, and it’s just bad. There are elements that look cool by themselves, but overall, it looks like a dog dragging its ass.
Edit: when they dropped the full-size secondary lights FROM the grille.
Those lights are out of place. The smaller ones they put into the grille look much better.
The GT is still a full 500 lbs lighter than the morbidly obese Dodge Challenger SRT-8.
But the Mustang is built on a bespoke “pony car” platform. The Challenger is a family sedan wearing pony car clothes…a fat guy in a little coat, if you will.
The Challenger is done a disservice by comparing it to the Mustang. I don’t think its meant to compete in that space.
A good buddy has a 2012 Challenger R/T 6MT. It gobbles up miles in comfort, sounds great, looks even better. Its great at just having presence and I couldn’t care less about its acceleration and lap times.
Taken for what it is, the Challenger is a great car.
Nice.
It’s the only car being made that I secretly covet just for looks. Presence in spades.
This talk of Dodge Challengers makes me want to find a copy of “Vanishing Point”.
Not dissing the Challenger – its an awesome car. However, the LX platform is heavy and before the upgrade to the 6.4 and 8 speed ZF it simply didn’t have the performance to back up the good looks and the great soundtrack. Not that the 6.1 was a bad engine but there is only so much it can do fighting 4200 lbs. If ever there was a platform crying out for aluminum its the LX/LD/LC variants.
but there is only so much it can do fighting 4200 lbs.
Holy Crap. So my neighbors Challenger weighs roughly what my Highlander does?!?! Wow.
It is what the original was, what even the mustang was in higher trims. An American take on the continental touring coupe. Why people have wasted decades trying to convince them selves these things were poorly executed sportscars I will never get. I think that’s why some Europeans deride big American cars, we get for the Everyman what is reserved for royals and the like over there.
Yep, I think the driving force of European contempt towards us has been simple jealousy since at least the WWII days of “overpaid, oversexed and over here”. Cars have always been one of the most obvious manifestations of our commoners’ privilege over their commoners.
Can’t imagine that will last much longer, though, as Americans turn into uniformly pigmented and uneducated mounds of tattooed lard that only food, porn and egregious violence can rouse to a base level of consciousness.
…”as Americans turn into uniformly pigmented and uneducated mounds of tattooed lard that only food, porn and egregious violence can rouse to a base level of consciousness.”
Our Founding Fathers’ legacy of cheap labor, updated for the 21st century.
The Mustang can trace some of its roots back to Lincoln and Jaguar sedans.
“Can’t imagine that will last much longer, though, as Americans turn into uniformly pigmented and uneducated mounds of tattooed lard that only food, porn and egregious violence can rouse to a base level of consciousness.”
Why do you hate America?
{sarcasm/}
Well said.
I realize this is a popular meme in internet car circles, but the weight of the Challenger is distinctly average compared to other large coupes that are similar in size (not pony cars).
Why would you compare the Challenger to large coupes when it has 4 inches of rear seat legroom?
It’s the same length as most midsize sedans, just doesn’t have any room on the inside.
So, essentially the Challenger is a GTI minus the handling, quality and roominess, but with a certain style that only men over the age of 60 can relate to.
So, which demographic would *you* go after?
Good point, Kenmore,
Viagra money = deep pockets.
Might as well buy a Challenger; it’s the money that your widow will blow in the slot machines :-)
In defense of the Challenger’s weight, it has never pretended to be anything other than a muscle car/highway cruiser. Meanwhile, both the Mustang and Camaro seem to wish they were sports cars.
The Challenger is like Mae West to my W.C. Fields – for some reason, I can’t take my eyes off of it.
Any weight gain is unacceptable in this era. Manufacturers should be reducing the weight by 2%-3% each model cycle. Ford is going the wrong direction.
Any news on whether they plan to use the platform for a rear drive sedan?
If the weight gain adversely effects fuel consumption, Ford can just publish optimistic figures, confident that all the reviews will be written and early adopters’ cars bought before reality catches up with them. It isn’t like a reviewer will place any emphasis on the lousy real world consumption they experience during testing.
So, bottom line, the new Mustang is heavier than the old one.
Time for some competent engineers Ford. It would be a nice change to get some talent in there rather than these underperforming folks who can’t do the job.
Thank you! I was just about to ask if the trolls had the day off.
But I guess you haven’t see this yet:
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2014/06/gm-recalls-every-fifth-generation-camaro/
Or this:
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2014/06/nine-states-investigate-gm-ignition-switch-recall/
Or this and this from yesterday:
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2014/06/barra-valukas-to-meet-with-house-committee-next-week/
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2014/06/feinberg-a-modest-window-to-file-recall-related-claims/
Enjoy reading!
How is stating facts trolling?
And what does a recall from another manufacturer, an investigation, a house committee meeting, and recall claims have to do with the fact the Mustang is heavier than the car it’s replacing?
Clearly you’re the one who is trolling by bringing up items that do not pertain to the subject at hand.
hey at least they aint killing over a dozen people…
13 people out of 3 million cars sold.
You have better odds of being killed just by being in a car.
It’s a non-issue
@Z71_Silvy: 13 people out of 3 million cars sold. You have better odds of being killed just by being in a car. It’s a non-issue
In your “community service officer” job, when someone calls to report a rabid canine, do you quote them rabies statistics and hang up?
Not sure where you are pulling this from (well, yes I do, right where you pull your head out of in the morning)…
But I am not a community service officer. Not even sure what one of those is…
Well, for GM fans like yourself, a fatback Camaro is also available for an additional 400 pounds over and above this new Mustang. You know, for more road-hugging weight.
Let’s see in a couple of years when Chevy shrinks the Camaro whether the genius of GM will get it lighter than this new Mustang. I’ll make a prediction now – no.
I was looking back at the weight of the ’88 models. Mustang GT was about 3300 pounds, Camaro 3550, so the latter has been a bit of a fatty for decades.
Who told you I was a GM fan???
Tell them they are false.
Fine. You’re not a troll.
But OK, say something positive about Ford…
Or something, anything negative about GM…
Thaaaaaaat’s what I thought!
You can’t do it, can you???
The 1989-1995 Taurus SHOs and 7.3 Powerstroke trucks and vans had fantastic engines.
GM is bi-polar in that they can come up with some stellar vehicles (Corvette, (real) SUVs, Cadillac but at the same time come up with some real duds (Malibu).
Checkmate.
wmba: “a fatback Camaro is also available for an additional 400 pounds over and above this new Mustang. You know, for more road-hugging weight.”
Wait, you mean Ford stole “grounded to the ground”?
“…some real duds (Malibu)”.
Funny, I was reading the Altima review the other day, and it made me glad that I chose my ’13 Malibu.
It’s a bit of a “porker”, too, but it’s also not a tin can, either.
Since I only drive 3000 miles a year, the better MPG of the lighter, noisier cars was a non-issue.
Still, I’d like an even quieter car than the ‘Bu – if I still have a job in a year or so, I’d look into the next-gen of Volt (or Leaf or other EV).
Oh you and your axe to grind.
“Time for some competent engineers and Management at GM.”
Fixed it for you.
Seems like a non-story to me.
All the cars are doing it, thanks to regulation, competition, and consumers’ insatiable taste for gadgets.
The internet may be blazing over this ‘heresy’, but only purists buy a car based upon its weight (Lotus).
Personally, I prefer that ’79 Cobra shown in the photo.
Reg; “only purists buy a car based upon its weight (Lotus).”
Or build it. Sevenesque/Clubman/Locust. http://www.locost.ozcarnut.com/html/links.html
Unfortunately for Ford, the 79′ ‘Cobra’ further diminished Ford’s and the Mustang’s credibility. It took quite a few years for the Mustang to recover from the Mustang-2 generation and calling those and the early Gen-3 cars a Cobra that only had 140Hp or less, and anemic performance with 17+ second quarter mile times, made the car a joke among us who lived through the Muscle car era.
After excusing(why?) your cheap shot, Jack, at Carnie Wilson for some sort of elitist ‘smartest guy in the room’ cute humor, I can address the substantial weight increase of the new Mustang over what we were expecting or led to believe we would get with the new Stang. It is way too much and a big disappointment.
So an adult Stegosaurus weighed 600+ pounds.
It is looking doubtful that a new EcoBoost Mustang is in my future. Will have to wait and see what GM does with the new Camaro or end this hope of a new American Pony and just go down and pick up a new FRS or BRZ.
I hate weight in a sporty vehicle.
Hold on for one more day.
Reg; “It is looking doubtful that a new EcoBoost Mustang is in my future.” OK! Jumped the gun on that comment. After my initial disappointment about the weight, I checked the ‘Standard Equipment’ on the new Mustang ‘EcoBoost’.
While the IRS certainly added some weight, the standard features are considerable. Power seats for both driver and passenger, Rear view camera, Tilt-telescope wheel, 18″ wheels and tires, Dual zone air-conditioning, Full length console, Power windows and remote locks, Dual power mirrors, Dual exhaust, and many other std. features. If anything, the new Mustang has too much content to weigh less then it does. We need and EcoBoost ‘R’ and GT ‘R’ with reduced content for lighter weight and better performance.
Since I really need a grand touring car with a warranty, the new Mustang EcoBoost, with the Performance pkg. and Recaros, is still in contention for that role.
At least the Challenger makes somewhat good use of its weight; those things are nice solid cruisers. As for the Mustang, the weight is kind of a surprise. At some point Ford will start making them out of aluminum, I suppose.
” At some point Ford will start making them out of aluminum, I suppose.”
And then they’ll corrode…..again.
After a year of Ford declaring the “new” stang would be lighter, and better looking we get a Microsoft update and nothing more. I guess you cannot build a light car for the 4 cylinder and then put the monster V* in it. So Ford, how about a smaller, two seat, real sports car built around the 3 and 4 cylinder engines. Light, fast, fun. All the things the Mustang is not. Something like the Mustang I.
“So Ford, how about a smaller, two seat, real sports car built around the 3 and 4 cylinder engines. Light, fast, fun. All the things the Mustang is not.”
I think they call it the Focus ST, or Fiesta, one of those “F” names (seats 4 though, sorry, guess you can’t have everything)
Using NASA’s stated 118,000 kg payload for earth orbit and 45,000 kg payload for lunar launch and allpars 1892kg curb weight for an SRT8 Challenger, you could a theoretical payload of:
10 challengers to the moon
62 challengers into earth orbit.
Undoubtedly, these flights would’ve been volume limited, not payload limited. Assuming you custom built a special payload capsule roughly the same volume as the Apollo Command/Service Module and Lunar Module, I think you could probably get 3-4 challengers on top of the Saturn V for the moon. This is a rough guess. While I’ve stood next to both, they’ve obviously not been next to each other, as much as Chrylser probably would’ve wanted that photo op. For Earth orbit, you’d have to look at the size of Skylab, but I’m not that interested to go do all that math right now :-P.
It wouldn’t be the first time Chrysler has used the Apollo Command Module for a photo opportunity!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_gUs7utY_0
Thanks so much for your comment, I saw this video for the first time two nights ago and have been dying to somehow work it into a conversation ever since.
Not like Chrysler did anything for the space program…../sarcasm.
I think the Mustangs weight is at a minimum for what Ford considers it’s potential customers want.
If it could be lighter it would.
It’s all well and good to sit back in our ‘armchairs’ and be critical of the Mustang’s weight.
How many Mustangs are really sold for their performance? Most are probably an accessory to make someone think they are something they aren’t, like a handbag or ear ring.
Baruth made me laugh with his remarks but overall the story seems to be that the Mustang weighs roughly what it has historically always weighed. They’ve been hovering around 3,100-4,000 lbs since 1971. They’re traditionally fairly heavy cars and have long had an option’s list that made them in to fast heavy cars. They were never Sunbeam Tigers and while Lee Iaccoca envisioned that on paper they sold more as 2nd Gen T-Birds with the idea of a comfortable ride, a Blvd. cruiser that could handle a little jaunt if pushed.
That being said, if the Ecoboost can return mid-20s in combined fuel economy I’ll be satisfied. I believe it’ll return real world numbers towards the the upper-20s in most cases and that’ll make even the base car a decent get up and go machine.
When I first saw the article I was eating lunch out and there is a racing mustang with welded doors and a roll cage sitting across the lot from where I was. It’s got no front cowling but my guess is a 69 or 70. It is by all standards small and still relatively heavy. The backseat is long gone but just seeing where the driver would sit makes that backseat completely unusable. Maybe a bag of clothes could be thrown back there at most because of the fastback design instead of the notchback. The new car’s backseat is still useless for anybody bigger than a child but the car is noticeably bigger overall. The new car design gives somebody a chance to be much more comfortable as well. It just ends up being a huge improvement for what roughly amounts to be negligible weight gains between iterations.
I can only assume that required safety devises in cars today must add more pounds than people realize. 3800 pounds plus for a Mustang when a 57 Ford which was a much larger car 57 years ago weighed about the same or less.
1957 Ford: (all inches)
116/118 Wheelbase
203 overall length
65 wide
2015 6th Generation Mustang:
107 Wheelbase
188 overall length
75 wide
Total Difference: 11-13 inches in the wheelbase, 15 inches overall (Fairlane). 10 inches wider (Mustang) It would appear that the ‘much larger’ ford in 1957 was more wheelbase than anything else considering that platform normally supported 4 doors. Also the Curb weight of the Fairlane was 3,731, almost 214 lbs heavier than the base mustang.
Safety equipment be damned, old cars were heavier and slower. I can respect a subjective view of nostalgia but hard facts seem to undermine these views.
Who cares what a pickup weighs, yet Ford wants to use aluminum.
They would do better using it in a lightweight sportscar of modest price.
Al approaches $2000 / ton, I know. But if they didn’t make 500 different versions,and then change it every year, it could be done.
@mor2bz – CAFE – Corporate Average Fuel Economy.
Getting an extra 2 mpg out of a pickup normally getting 18 mpg is a huge fuel savings as opposed to gaining 2 mpg out of a 40 mpg car.
Ford sells over 600,000 F series of which 60% or 360,000 (roughly) are F150.
CAFE.
You also have to figure that the F150 tends to be the perennial #1 in total vehicle sales.
The Mustang sold around 70,000.
CAn you still say it makes no sense for Ford to lighten the F150 since no one cares?
Lou beat me to it.
It seems the general consensus is aluminum usage carries about a 30-40% weight advantage over steel. Assuming the Mustang uses as much aluminum as possible at around 60% curb weight, the different comes to 2112 in steel or 1478 in aluminum, it’s a huge savings but also would put the base price of an all-aluminum mustang closer to 30K for a 2900 lb sports car. Just for reference: Miata is still under 2500 lbs. It’s a weight fighting problem that aluminum is only going to get you so far for the price tag and it just isn’t a justifiable cost increase for the level of performance you would eek out not that the top models wouldn’t benefit from it but GTs don’t outsell the base models by any stretch.
Then CAFE weighs in….Yada yada yada.
Aluminum may not be as necessary though as the ‘Steel of the Future’ is starting to show up in real world applications and could compete with Aluminum in a pound for pound structural advantage. But that’s still a few years away.
Has anyone considered that perhaps the 300lb weight gain story was put out deliberately, in order to make the sub-100lb weight gain look good?
If so, it’s worked marvelously.
Any new model should sure as hell weigh LESS than its antecedent. Ford screwed up on this one, but a bit of clever disinformation now has everyone praising them for not THAT much bloat.
Ford has played everyone like a fiddle.
Reg; ‘antecedent’ Not to be pedantic, Kabayo, but antecedent is the wrong word/term in this context. It is a linguistic term used to describe parts of a sentence, in this case a word that gives meaning to a proform.
The devil is always at play, Kabayo, but I doubt that Ford used a tuner to ‘Play us’.
3Deuce27,
C’mon, maan.. don’t slap the young ‘un upside the head when said young ‘un is actually right.
You’re only accessing the strictly grammatical sense of “antecedent”, a quick google gives Merriam-Webster:
“something that came before something else and may have influenced or caused it”
Kabayo,
Keep trusting the dictionary over old guys who blog in the middle of the night. Gambatte!
COL! ‘Predecessor’ would have been a more appropriate term. Using the term ‘Antecedent’ is a reach even by the liberal uses of terms today.
And noon and the middle of the night is just about the only time I have to waste on this site, and I’m doing it watching the Le Mans endurance race which I started watching at 5:00am Pacific time Saturday, and I will be up till 4:30am today for the finish. Gotta do something while the race keeps me company.
And trying to diminish one by calling them and ‘old guy’, is pretty lame unless it is tongue in cheek, if not, it tells one more about you then about me.
OK… “…US old guys who blog in the middle of the night.”
“Any new model should sure as hell weigh LESS than its antecedent.”
Ford isn’t alone with the weight gain. A car like the latest GTI that loses weight compared to its immediate predecessor is the exception, not the rule.
A smaller, lighter Mustang was a combination of the hopes and dreams of internet car nerds, fueled by rumor and incorrect information from supposedly credible sources. Maybe a diet was an early goal for the development program and Ford had to abandon it due to budget, or maybe news of a diet was never from credible sources. Either way, if you want a laugh considering where the ’15 Mustang landed in size and weight, check out this old Edmund’s article – http ://www.edmunds.com/car-news/2015-ford-mustang-goes-on-a-diet.html
The idea that Ford could make a relatively low-volume car measuring 173″ by 68″ and weighing only 3100 lbs with a 3.7L V6, and then sell it for about $25k, never made sense.
TL;DR – Ford didn’t screw anything up; everyone’s expectations were unreasonable.
@ Raph Thanks for the configurator link.
My Ecoboost will run just under $30,000 with the Performance pkg. and Recaro’s. That is getting pretty close to a base BMW 228i.
The BMW optioned the way I want it would run $36,100, but that would include a sunroof that Ford doesn’t offer on the Mustang. It would also weigh some 300 pds. less the the Mustang Ecoboost
“Ford has the configurator up for the new Mustang and GT fully kitted out is still a sub 50k vehicle.
( http://bp3.ford.com/2015-Ford-Mustang?lang=en#/MakeItYours/Config|Ford|Mustang|2015|1|1.|401A.P8C..HN..88S.COU.91N.67G.44X.~YZKAA.GT.PRE.52S.77R.] )
I’m surprised that nobody’s commenting on the photo… 1979 Mustang Cobra, 142 hp 5.0 V8 with a four-speed, if I remember right. We’ve come a long way.