In reply to mazdeuce:
The configurator is already up on Ford's website and one of the available options is a 19x9.5" wheel. Yeah, I'd say the S550 will be able to take a lot of tire.
I'd like an EcoBoost Performance Package with Recaros, same sexy blue as my S197. But I want to test-drive it first. Hmm, I wonder if the IRS can be adapted to fit the S197, seeing as it was tested in S197 development mules first...
As I said before, the thing looks like a new Hyundai and now we learn it weighs more than it should. Lame.
I'm guessing the front seats are heated power with a couple airbags in them, how much do those weigh? I'd figure replace those, the wheels and that would be a couple hundred there.
base model 2014 Chevrolet Camaro ZL1 is 4,120 lbs, stripped out Z28 is 3860 2013 Dodge Challenger SRT8 392 is 4,160 lbs
This still makes it the lightest pony car available. With 400+ HP and a sub-$30K price tag for the Ecoboost, I would say it is a winner.
Now when are the gonna fit the DI the heads are already cast for and the aluminum body...
GT with Perfomance Pack and Recaros is $37,015
Eco-Boost with Performance Pack and Recaros is $29,585
I had been worried that a 450-hp, 3250-lb Mustang GT was going to be a class-killer in ESP. This makes me feel better about keeping my LS1 Z28.
TeamEvil wrote: That Mustang is creaping dangerously close to looking like a Charger and already has the front wheel drive apprearance down pat. NOT liking the new styling one bit !
You do know the current incarnation of the Charger is RWD (or optional AWD) right? It is no longer a FWD car like in the 80's.
Oh and where are people pulling this 400+ hp from the Ecoboost for under $30k? The number I have seen has been a max of 305 and those weren't even official. So does that mean your basic GT with V8 is now going to be a 500 HP beast?
Yeah Mustangs are getting fat. All cars are think of all the freaking extra systems that are in cars now even over cars built 10 or 20 years ago. New regulations means more crap. More crap means more weight. More weight means more power to try and attain the same level of performance.
My E46 Is 3500 lbs with 225HP, and people here seem to love them. And it was built in 2001. Like Silverfleet pointed out,the Mustang is the lightest of the current pony cars, and that is a good thing. Hopefully Ford will see fit to do an aluminum body in the future, which should shave major pounds off of it. In the meantime maybe we should all just be happy its not 1975.
3500lbs. is heavy for a 4 cylinder sports car, no matter what year it is. To put it in perspective, it's almost the same weight as my 05' Legacy GT Wagon. It has power leather heated seats, lots of airbags, a huge sunroof, and oh yeah, did I mention that it is an all wheel drive friggin' station wagon?
rebelgtp wrote: Oh and where are people pulling this 400+ hp from the Ecoboost for under $30k?
Poorly worded sentence.
The actual sentence was, " With 400+ HP and a sub-$30K price tag for the Ecoboost,"
I should have wrote, "With the GT resonably priced and 400+ hp it's a great buy. The Ecoboost option brings the car in sub$30k with the all the performance goodies."
Sorry for your confusion.
In reply to Boost_Crazy:
The Mustang, whether 4, 6 or 8 cylinder, has to be built to live with 420hp or more, something the Legacy doesn't have to do. And the 4 cylinder makes 305hp. The 2001 GT was over 3400lbs with something like 275hp. The bottom line is that when compared with the cars it competes with, its the lightest of them all. It's easy to forget that the 68 Camaro weighed around 3400lbs. I had one and know this all too well, along with a 71 Firebird that weighed 3800lbs with a fiberglass hood. The Mustang isn't heavy by todays or yesterdays standards.
bravenrace wrote: In reply to Boost_Crazy: The Mustang, whether 4, 6 or 8 cylinder, has to be built to live with 420hp or more, something the Legacy doesn't have to do. And the 4 cylinder makes 305hp. The 2001 GT was over 3400lbs with something like 275hp. The bottom line is that when compared with the cars it competes with, its the lightest of them all. It's easy to forget that the 68 Camaro weighed around 3400lbs. I had one and know this all too well, along with a 71 Firebird that weighed 3800lbs with a fiberglass hood. The Mustang isn't heavy by todays or yesterdays standards.
Well put. I wouldn't be surprised if they did some weight savings on the next model, depending what happens with the aluminum F150. But currently, little to no weight gain is a very good thing.
Desmond wrote: Geez, 3700 lbs? That is ridiculous. Good thing MOST Mustang guys dont seem to care about weight, and just look at the horsepower numbers.
Insert joke about Mustang owners being fat and not caring about weight. 
In reply to bravenrace:
I said 3500lbs. is heavy for a 4cyl sports car. So what if the chassis was built to handle more power. It's still heavy for a 4cyl. sports car. My point was that Subaru built a station wagon, with AWD, (that was available with 300+ HP off the showroom floor in other markets) that weighs the same a a 4 cyl. Mustang. The mustang does a better job of keeping the weight down vs. the other pony cars because at least it doesn't share a platform with larger cars. But lightest of the heavy cars doesn't make it light. The Subaru is far from the best example, it's on the heavy side in it's own right, but there are plenty of others.
lmao didn't they originally say the cars would weigh less?
Javelin wrote: 3,500 for the EcoBoost manual is actually pretty damn good.
Considering a WRX is 3300lbs, maybe lighter, and you get AWD on top of it.....
I wonder how a Genesis V6 or Nismo Z, which typically both get the same 0-60 and 1/4 mile, with ~350hp and at a IIRC 3400lbs each stack up to this Mustang at this weight.
I bought a 2014 hoping the mustang wasn't going to be made with lighter materials and being a few hundred pounts less. Gambled and won.
kanaric wrote: lmao didn't they originally say the cars would weigh less?
No, Ford never said that. The talking heads and internet pundits said it based on nothing but passed through their sphincters and people attribute that crap to Ford!
kanaric wrote:Javelin wrote: 3,500 for the EcoBoost manual is actually pretty damn good.Considering a WRX is 3300lbs, maybe lighter, and you get AWD on top of it.....
You do realize the WRX is smaller, right? 3 inches shorter wheelbase, 8 inches shorter overall, somewhere in the neighborhood of three inches narrower both in body and track. It SHOULD be lighter. You also have the fact that the STi is the super be all and end all version of the platform with 305 HP. That's just barely more power than the bottom of the barrel secretary version of the Mustang.
One chassis is built to handle twice the power of the other. Which one should weight more?
3500# is the lightweight???
and I thought the IS300 Sport Cross was heavy.....
In reply to mazdeuce:
One chassis is built to handle twice the power of the other. Which one should weight more?
But it doesn't have more power. So all that extra weight is just along for the ride. Good engineering isn't just throwing more metal at a car. It's using as little as possible to get the job done. Rumor has it that people have been able to get a little more power out of turbo Subarus, and the cars could handle it just fine without an extra couple hundred pounds of reinforcement.
In reply to Boost_Crazy:
An affordable chassis cannot be optimized for every engine configuration. The Mustang is engineered to handle 420hp or more, not 305hp. It would be cost prohibitive to engineer two totally different platforms, one to handle a 305hp 4 cylinder and one to handle a 420hp V-8. Instead of slamming it because it's heavy for a 4 cylinder, we should all be glad that they offered an economical engine in this car.
bravenrace wrote: In reply to Boost_Crazy: An affordable chassis cannot be optimized for every engine configuration. The Mustang is engineered to handle 420hp or more, not 305hp. It would be cost prohibitive to engineer two totally different platforms, one to handle a 305hp 4 cylinder and one to handle a 420hp V-8. Instead of slamming it because it's heavy for a 4 cylinder, we should all be glad that they offered an economical engine in this car.
Assuming there will be a GT350 or the like, it means the chassis was built to handle 600+ hp.
mazdeuce wrote:kanaric wrote:You do realize the WRX is smaller, right? 3 inches shorter wheelbase, 8 inches shorter overall, somewhere in the neighborhood of three inches narrower both in body and track. It SHOULD be lighter. You also have the fact that the STi is the super be all and end all version of the platform with 305 HP. That's just barely more power than the bottom of the barrel secretary version of the Mustang. One chassis is built to handle twice the power of the other. Which one should weight more?Javelin wrote: 3,500 for the EcoBoost manual is actually pretty damn good.Considering a WRX is 3300lbs, maybe lighter, and you get AWD on top of it.....
Yes, but size of the car wasn't in the person's post who I replied to. Just performance of the engine vs weight. If you want a better power to weight ratio or just a lighter car the WRX might be the better choice. Especially since it has the extra AWD ability which if in a mustang would probably make the car weigh a few hundred pounds more. You are not sacrificing room at all, in fact the larger car might make it more inconvenient especially since it doesn't translate to interior room.
I have a '14 GT and had a WRX. The Mustang is very cramped in the back and barely holds luggage. The WRX had room in the back and had ample space. The size of the car is deceiving the functionality is less if that's what you are trying to discuss.
I went on a 1000+ mile road trip with both the WRX and the Mustang at different parts with my parents when they came to visit. They enjoyed the trip in the WRX. Anyone who sat in the back of the Mustang hated it. I like the mustang more because I have a GT with track package of course.
kanaric wrote:mazdeuce wrote:Yes, but size of the car wasn't in the person's post who I replied to. Just performance of the engine vs weight. If you want a better power to weight ratio or just a lighter car the WRX might be the better choice. Especially since it has the extra AWD ability which if in a mustang would probably make the car weigh a few hundred pounds more. You are not sacrificing room at all, in fact the larger car might make it more inconvenient especially since it doesn't translate to interior room. I have a '14 GT and had a WRX. The Mustang is very cramped in the back and barely holds luggage. The WRX had room in the back and had ample space. The size of the car is deceiving the functionality is less if that's what you are trying to discuss. I went on a 1000+ mile road trip with both the WRX and the Mustang at different parts with my parents when they came to visit. They enjoyed the trip in the WRX. Anyone who sat in the back of the Mustang hated it. I like the mustang more because I have a GT with track package of course.kanaric wrote:You do realize the WRX is smaller, right? 3 inches shorter wheelbase, 8 inches shorter overall, somewhere in the neighborhood of three inches narrower both in body and track. It SHOULD be lighter. You also have the fact that the STi is the super be all and end all version of the platform with 305 HP. That's just barely more power than the bottom of the barrel secretary version of the Mustang. One chassis is built to handle twice the power of the other. Which one should weight more?Javelin wrote: 3,500 for the EcoBoost manual is actually pretty damn good.Considering a WRX is 3300lbs, maybe lighter, and you get AWD on top of it.....
It's a pony car, they aren't designed for packaging efficiency. Let me ask you this: In most people's opinions, which one is the better-looking car?
Flight Service wrote: GT with Perfomance Pack and Recaros is $37,015 Eco-Boost with Performance Pack and Recaros is $29,585
300+ hp, rear drive, 30+ mpg (assuming), track pack and recaros for less than 30k?
berkeley yeah!!!
You'll need to log in to post.
