2015 Mustang to gain 300lbs.!?!

[PowerUp]

Pericak said the S550 "could" lose 200 pounds? Maybe the GT350 will be the one that loses that 200 pounds.

If watching the whole 6:56 is too taxing a task, start @ 4:29: "DEFINITELY on a crusade to lose weight...200 lb is within reach". That is what the man said.

IF (that word again) the 200 disappears only on a GT350, all you folks that ragged on the $75K price for the Z/28 are in for a BIG awakening!

Again, I think Dave stole Al O's "ZL1 beats a GT500 in the 1/4-mile" faulty slide rule...and believed the weight answer he got...

 

[svtfocus2cobra]

Well stick me in that 1% that does care. And rest assured, I'd push those limits (on the track). If you don't care, that's ok with me.

However, it doesn't mean I can't bitch about it here any less than you, you, you, or you can bitch about people bitching about it.

Ok, but you sound dumb in the process because you have not even let the car come out yet before making judgement. The GTR and Z/28 performance numbers have both defied their weight disadvantages so what grounds do you have to stand on to say that the Mustang will not be a capable car?

 

[svtfocus2cobra]

If watching the whole 6:56 is too taxing a task, start @ 4:29: "DEFINITELY on a crusade to lose weight...200 lb is within reach". That is what the man said.

IF (that word again) the 200 disappears only on a GT350, all you folks that ragged on the $75K price for the Z/28 are in for a BIG awakening!

Again, I think Dave stole Al O's "ZL1 beats a GT500 in the 1/4-mile" faulty slide rule...and believed the weight answer he got...

You sound more like a political hack. Take a man's words and interpret them only in the way that fits your agenda and let no other explanation be presented. You may be right, I don't really care, but reading your posts are like fingernails on a chalkboard. Maybe because it's so reminiscent of liberal strategy.

 

[GT Premi]

Do you even know what you are saying? I don't peruse Whipple's site either but I definitely took notice of it when it was posted in this section. 8hp? You just quoted me the 662hp of the GT500 and apparently that number subtracted from 700 is 8. Hmm, I'm not familiar with that math. Anyways, GT500s make around 590-610whp and I would guess that the 700hp that came from Whipple is very likely to be whp on their test car. If not then the difference at minimum is approximately 40hp and a maximum of about 100.

My finger mis-pressed a number. Sue me. So yeah, like I was trying to say, 38 HP is a lot. But what was the torque figure? Anyway, though, I doubt that's at the wheels. Most aftermarket shops quote flywheel HP. That way it's easier for them to discount customer dyno results when their products under-deliver. (sketchy and speculative "driveline loss" figures, different brand dynos, different conditions, different dyno calibrations, etc.)

 

[Darth Racer]

You sound more like a political hack. Take a man's words and interpret them only in the way that fits your agenda and let no other explanation be presented. You may be right, I don't really care, but reading your posts are like fingernails on a chalkboard. Maybe because it's so reminiscent of liberal strategy.

How do you know he's a liberal? Calling someone a liberal is character assassination, IMHO. Anyway, your continued defense of the overweight '15 stang reminds me of an Obama supporter who fails to see his many shortcomings. Plus, your posts are like 'fingers on a chalkboard'. You can keep your hoggish, IRS-equipped ZL1 'stang. The 13/14s are more suited to what I need.

 

[Bob Cosby]

Ok, but you sound dumb in the process because you have not even let the car come out yet before making judgement. The GTR and Z/28 performance numbers have both defied their weight disadvantages so what grounds do you have to stand on to say that the Mustang will not be a capable car?

You're right. I'm dumb. A car that weighs 3500 lbs with 440 HP (guestimate) wouldn't be any more capable than a car that weighs 3700 lbs with the same 440 HP. Nor will it be less prone to breakage (I tend to break things when I'm racing...most racers do). Nor will it get better gas mileage (yes, I care). You're right, I'm dumb.

And for the record, I never once said that the 2015 Mustang won't be a capable car. In fact, I have little doubt it will outperform the outgoing model in pretty much ever way. It certainly better, or 90% will be pretty disappointed too (the other 9% won't care, as they just want the latest and greatest).

Hey, if you and the vast majority of potential buyers like it, great! That is what Ford is trying to do - sell cars to as many people as possible while making as much money as possible. But it doesn't do it for me, primarily because it continues to put on more and more tonnage, and for what I'd do with it, that's a deal breaker. To each their own.

Or continue believing you're smart and I'm dumb. It matters not to me.

 

[PowerUp]

Ok, but you sound dumb in the process because you have not even let the car come out yet before making judgement. The GTR and Z/28 performance numbers have both defied their weight disadvantages so what grounds do you have to stand on to say that the Mustang will not be a capable car?

You're defending to the death an iconic simple car that has been TOTALLY re-engineered for left-wing socialist-leaning EUROPEANS with it's "performance" I-4 engine and GAINED 100 lbs. instead of LOSING the "within reach 200" the "no bull shit" Chief Engineer STATED. And that's the wholly-respected Bob Cosby's problem?! I see...

You sound more like a political hack. Take a man's words and interpret them only in the way that fits your agenda and let no other explanation be presented. You may be right, I don't really care, but reading your posts are like fingernails on a chalkboard. Maybe because it's so reminiscent of liberal strategy.

Let's see..."Break out the shotguns" and you live in the "always-wet-state". I'd say the humidity has got to you, son... The man SAID what the man SAID! If you passed Grade 10 English (you DID get into High School, didn't you?), no "interpretation" is required. "Gee, maybe he meant a $70K+ GT350 with all its available [optional and '$pensive] features". Now THAT took "interpretation".

Me? I'm just a plain-spoken guy, who tries to avoid excessive humidity. It leads to corroded conclusions...

 

[Voltwings]

You're defending to the death an iconic simple car that has been TOTALLY re-engineered for left-wing socialist-leaning EUROPEANS with it's "performance" I-4 engine and GAINED 100 lbs. ...

Wow ... not sure if theres a little sarcasm thrown in there, but really? So every car that isnt a live axle V8 is for left wing socialists? Come on, thats just a little bit ridiculous. The camaro has IRS, the corvette has IRS, the Dodge challenger / Charger have IRS, the damn Ford GT has IRS ... So obviously we've established having IRS makes a car no less American right, we're not talking muscle car here, we're talking American?
Lets move onto the next point in your arguemnt, the "performance" I-4. I fail to see why you put that in quotes, because that "performance" I-4 makes more power than ANY previous model GT (5.0 excluded). Is it just because its a 4 cylinder that its now for European Socialists? For God sake the new V6 outperforms the 4.6 v8 without too much effort and still gets 25-30 mpg! Apparently Ford has been sneaking its secret agenda in since 2011! Lawd have mercy.

If a 1 trick pony sn95 - s197 is all you think the mustang is good for, then yes, its the death of a simple car that can only go in a straight line... and barely at that. The rest of us live in not only the present, but the real world, where we're excited to see our platform pushed forward into the modern era.

 

[ON D BIT]

You're defending to the death an iconic simple car that has been TOTALLY re-engineered for left-wing socialist-leaning EUROPEANS with it's "performance" I-4 engine and GAINED 100 lbs. instead of LOSING the "within reach 200" the "no bull shit" Chief Engineer STATED.

He lied. He knew at that time the platforms were gaining weight. The only one thats not is the new SVT Mustang. And that is only because it started off at 3850lbs.

 

[svtfocus2cobra]

My finger mis-pressed a number. Sue me. So yeah, like I was trying to say, 38 HP is a lot. But what was the torque figure? Anyway, though, I doubt that's at the wheels. Most aftermarket shops quote flywheel HP. That way it's easier for them to discount customer dyno results when their products under-deliver. (sketchy and speculative "driveline loss" figures, different brand dynos, different conditions, different dyno calibrations, etc.)

Yep! Eight more HP is gigantic!

Did your finger mistype the obvious sarcasm in this post too? Someone isn't telling the truth!

I don't know the answer to your other question but we know traditionally the hp/trq relation with twin screws. They usually aren't too far off each other.

How do you know he's a liberal? Calling someone a liberal is character assassination, IMHO. Anyway, your continued defense of the overweight '15 stang reminds me of an Obama supporter who fails to see his many shortcomings. Plus, your posts are like 'fingers on a chalkboard'. You can keep your hoggish, IRS-equipped ZL1 'stang. The 13/14s are more suited to what I need.

If the 13/14 is all you need then why are you and the others trying so hard to justify the car against the S550? That usually implies one thing: You're jealous of something. You wish you could have the IRS, transmission upgrades, and upgraded 5.0L in the 13/14s, but you want to magically shed the weight. I would like to see you guys point out what Ford should specifically do to build a Mustang that would please you guys. Tell us how you'd drop the weight.

And it wasn't an attack on him but rather his arrogant, bull-doggish posts. This isn't SD and I don't have any intention or need to make personal insults as your guys' posts are entertaining enough to pick apart. I'm not the one making broad, unfounded claims about the new Mustang, why? Because I don't know anything about it's real world performance, but I don't doubt it will be very capable.

You're right. I'm dumb. A car that weighs 3500 lbs with 440 HP (guestimate) wouldn't be any more capable than a car that weighs 3700 lbs with the same 440 HP. Nor will it be less prone to breakage (I tend to break things when I'm racing...most racers do). Nor will it get better gas mileage (yes, I care). You're right, I'm dumb.

And for the record, I never once said that the 2015 Mustang won't be a capable car. In fact, I have little doubt it will outperform the outgoing model in pretty much ever way. It certainly better, or 90% will be pretty disappointed too (the other 9% won't care, as they just want the latest and greatest).

Hey, if you and the vast majority of potential buyers like it, great! That is what Ford is trying to do - sell cars to as many people as possible while making as much money as possible. But it doesn't do it for me, primarily because it continues to put on more and more tonnage, and for what I'd do with it, that's a deal breaker. To each their own.

Or continue believing you're smart and I'm dumb. It matters not to me.

I didn't say you ARE dumb, I said you SOUND dumb in that last post. I get your concerns as you actually race, but you still don't know the capabilities of the car. We also don't know the engineering efforts that went into the car. Like I pointed out, there have been some major surprises in recent engineering efforts into cars such as the GTR and Z/28, and it gets even crazier as you go up the ladder. Now I don't expect to see that carry over into a $40k Mustang but as we know things tend to trickle down and things are learned and picked up from other examples. This is why I am with-holding my judgement on the car. You can say things will break but you also can't tell me how much track testing Ford has done. Maybe they tracked the car extensively and beefed up all the weak points to prevent breakage. Can you tell me they didn't?

You're defending to the death an iconic simple car that has been TOTALLY re-engineered for left-wing socialist-leaning EUROPEANS with it's "performance" I-4 engine and GAINED 100 lbs. instead of LOSING the "within reach 200" the "no bull shit" Chief Engineer STATED. And that's the wholly-respected Bob Cosby's problem?! I see...



Let's see..."Break out the shotguns" and you live in the "always-wet-state". I'd say the humidity has got to you, son... The man SAID what the man SAID! If you passed Grade 10 English (you DID get into High School, didn't you?), no "interpretation" is required. "Gee, maybe he meant a $70K+ GT350 with all its available [optional and '$pensive] features". Now THAT took "interpretation".

Me? I'm just a plain-spoken guy, who tries to avoid excessive humidity. It leads to corroded conclusions...

There's little to no humidity in Seattle or Wa state for that matter, and "Break out the shotguns" is just part of a song. Where were you going with that again? You're not "plain spoken" by the way, you're all over the place like an overly excited keyboard warrior. The rest of your post isn't even worth responding to, and it was addressed anyways.

This is the same kind of posts we saw during the introduction of the Raptor. You had a majority of the members saying it was cool and they were looking forward to it, and then there was the naysayers saying it would be a sales flop and no one would use it the way it was intended. The naysayers have traditionally always been wrong on this site in regards to Ford products. By knowing as little as you do about the car you've already put yourself on the losing side. Enjoy your Crow.

 

[onlya302]

It's just funny because the GT is no heavier than the current GT500 yet they act like it's tipping the scales like a Challenger does. Is the GT500 not impressive? Throw a Whipple on a new GT and you're looking at more hp than a GT500 but with an IRS and a slick auto trans. It's going to be a better car, and I'm betting the SVT will come in lighter

The thing is, for a Mustang the GT500 is a PIG. I loved the 2011 Mustang when it came out and almost purchased one, however after spending quite a bit of time in one I couldn't get over the weight of the car. It was awesome at the drag strip, but once you throw a few turns into the equation it negated all the improvements IMHO. The 2011 Mustang does handle well, but you definitely notice the extra mass. I would much rather have a lighter car with less HP than a heavy car with more HP which unfortunately rules out the 2015 for me... I was leaning towards a C7, it is very impressive and quite fun, but after driving a BRZ, I'm thinking one of those with an LS7 swap would be pretty phenomenal AND under 3000 lbs...

 

[Bob Cosby]

I didn't say you ARE dumb, I said you SOUND dumb in that last post.

My apologies. I should pay much closer attention to the strictest interpretation of the grammar and less to what it 'sounded' like. Even so, I stand by my dumb 'sounding' post, or by my 'sounding' dumb, or whatever.

I get your concerns as you actually race, but you still don't know the capabilities of the car.

You might 'get' that I race, but it seems rather obvious that you don't 'get' either racing or racers. You are correct that I don't know the capabilities of the car. What you don't seem to understand is what my concern is.

We also don't know the engineering efforts that went into the car.

Nope, nor do I care about the 'engineering efforts'. Ford Engineers might have made this the most spectacular $25k-$40k car in the world. Good for them! I do hope it sells. But that changes nothing for me.

Like I pointed out, there have been some major surprises in recent engineering efforts into cars such as the GTR and Z/28, and it gets even crazier as you go up the ladder.

Ok. Irrelevant to my point, but ok. I will say this - the Z/28 is a great example of engineers making a pig go around a track with authority. Once again, does nothing for me (as a drag racer), but kudos to them for working miracles on said pig.

Now I don't expect to see that carry over into a $40k Mustang but as we know things tend to trickle down and things are learned and picked up from other examples. This is why I am with-holding my judgement on the car.

Good for you. Withhold your judgment. I'll pass mine now, thanks. Is that ok?

You can say things will break but you also can't tell me how much track testing Ford has done. Maybe they tracked the car extensively and beefed up all the weak points to prevent breakage. Can you tell me they didn't?

LOL. See comment above about racing and being a racer - nothing else really needs to be said. That said...(see the pun?).... I have no idea how much track testing Ford did. I'm sure they beefed up weak points....they had to, with the added power and weight. Of course, beefing up parts generally adds weight, which means we need to beef it up more, which adds weight, which means......eh, nevermind.

Bottom lane....for a RACER....weight is the enemy. Don't care if you drag race, road race, or autocross. Weight is bad. I can handle a properly engineered IRS (my Vette has one), I can live with engine power curves that require me to shift well above where a street style tranny should be shifted, and the new body style is fine with me (I'm not floored by it, but its ok). What I can't handle is the car getting any more porkier than it already is. If you don't like that, or can't understand how a '1 percenter' can have such an opinion, then oh well. I'm over it. Hopefully you are too.

Have a great day!

 

[Darth Racer]

Cosby is correct. Weight is the 'enemy'. I'm a mass properties engineer and can tell you weight is huge factor in design. Now, weight isn't the only factor. Weight distribution, suspension, tires, etc., etc. play a role in how a car can navigate a road course. Kudos to GM for getting their fat pony cars to get around a road course. However, does anyone deny if GM had managed to pull 200 lbs. out of those vehicles that they wouldn't have had much quicker lap times? Weight is even more critical in drag racing. What seems to be obvious to me and others is apparently lost on those who think weight is only a minor nuisance.

Based on current developments, I will not purchase a '15 mustang or '16, or '17 as long the as the weight 'creep' continues. I'm a drag racer. So, even with the 'old' SRA equiped, 'heavy' '13/14 models, they offer significant power that I can manipulate down a 'strip. Plus, weight reduction is not a problem you can't overcome with those models, IMHO.

It just comes down to what you want in a car. If you're a die-hard road racer, then buy an IRS 'stang. If you're a die-hard drag racer, buy an SRA model.

 

[Voltwings]

Cosby is correct. Weight is the 'enemy'. I'm a mass properties engineer and can tell you weight is huge factor in design. Now, weight isn't the only factor. Weight distribution, suspension, tires, etc., etc. play a role in how a car can navigate a road course. Kudos to GM for getting their fat pony cars to get around a road course. However, does anyone deny if GM had managed to pull 200 lbs. out of those vehicles that they wouldn't have had much quicker lap times? Weight is even more critical in drag racing. What seems to be obvious to me and others is apparently lost on those who think weight is only a minor nuisance.

Based on current developments, I will not purchase a '15 mustang or '16, or '17 as long the as the weight 'creep' continues. I'm a drag racer. So, even with the 'old' SRA equiped, 'heavy' '13/14 models, they offer significant power that I can manipulate down a 'strip. Plus, weight reduction is not a problem you can't overcome with those models, IMHO.

It just comes down to what you want in a car. If you're a die-hard road racer, then buy an IRS 'stang. If you're a die-hard drag racer, buy an SRA model.

I'd like to touch on what you said about weight distribution a bit. Just kinda spit balling here, but i think we all know what the ideal weight distribution is right? 50/50 or thereabouts for a neutral car. ALL of the mustangs weight is centered in the front with the big engine / transmission, even though some of that weight ends up towards the middle. We know the IRS added some more weight to the rear, and i am not suggesting Ford added weight for the sake of better distribution, but maybe someone took a look at it and went .... well this seems to work pretty well.

Most of the new weight is in the interior as well, and the cockpit basically sits in the middle of the weight distribution ( i realize this does not directly apply to you with drag racing), so i dont see the added 100 lbs really effecting handling that much. 100 lbs off the nost of a car and 100 lbs smack dab in the center are two completely different things when it comes to handling charactoristics. Same logic can be applied to any car on the street now. Just pulling random weight out wherever you can will not nevessarily translate into better track performance, the whole suspension needs to be designed around where that weight is going to be ...

 

[PowerUp]

Wow ... not sure if theres a little sarcasm thrown in there, but really?

One of the shortcomings of the internet is that there are emoticons for EVERYTHING...except a sarcasm button...

He lied. He knew at that time the platforms were gaining weight. The only one thats not is the new SVT Mustang. And that is only because it started off at 3850lbs.

See, was that so tough to admit?

Your ultimate candor, unlike Pericak's "version" of candor, is appreciated.

 

[PowerUp]

There's little to no humidity in Seattle or Wa state for that matter

According to these charts, you get 80% of your rainfall in 6 months..."ALL wet"...and LOTS of sunshine in 4 months, which from the sun would have you BAKED.

http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/seattle/washington/united-states/uswa0395

So, you're fully half WET and a third BAKED (instead of half-)? Got it.

"Break out the shotguns" is just part of a song.

Can you bang out a few bars, for me?

 

[Voltwings]

One of the shortcomings of the internet is that there are emoticons for EVERYTHING...except a sarcasm button...

.

Ahh, i'll appologize for my previous statement then. I just feel theres a lot of unwarranted hate towards the new Ecoboost, while i myself am actually pretty excited for it.

 

[PowerUp]

Ahh, i'll appologize for my previous statement then. I just feel theres a lot of unwarranted hate towards the new Ecoboost, while i myself am actually pretty excited for it.

Well, Ford sez it's a "performance upgrade" and, as this thread has proven, what Ford sez is FACT...usually...

 

[Klay]

allow me to sum up the last few pages of this thread:

starts with:

Fanbois: 'Camaro and Challenger are fat overweight pigs.'

Everyone else: 'well they have the power/and or handling to make up for it.'

Fanbois: 'doesn't matter, it's still an overweight pig.'

Everyone else: 'the Mustang is gaining weight.'

Fanbois: 'that's ok, teh IRS and MOAR power make up for it.'

:dw:

then goes to:

Everyone else: 'the new Camaro should lose considerable weight'

Fanbois: 'no it won't, because Mustang.'

Everyone else: 'but the Camaro is moving to a new platform that has proven to significantly reduce the weight of the CTS while making it larger, and produced the ATS with AWD and obligatory luxury appointments.'

Fanbois: "it won't.'

Everyone else: 'why is that?'

Fanbois: 'because Mustang.'

:dw:

I'm not following your summary because that isn't what people are saying here. There are those that are disappointed with the weight gain, some who are waiting to see how it performs before judging and others who aren't bothered by the extra weight. There is no consensus that its OK for the mustang to gain weight but not OK for dodge or Chevy.

Sure people picked on the weight of the camaro and challenger but those same people are the ones who are most bothered by the mustang gaining weight. The complete opposite of what you are insinuating.

 

[rrg9946]

Cosby is correct. Weight is the 'enemy'. I'm a mass properties engineer and can tell you weight is huge factor in design. Now, weight isn't the only factor. Weight distribution, suspension, tires, etc., etc. play a role in how a car can navigate a road course. Kudos to GM for getting their fat pony cars to get around a road course. However, does anyone deny if GM had managed to pull 200 lbs. out of those vehicles that they wouldn't have had much quicker lap times? Weight is even more critical in drag racing. What seems to be obvious to me and others is apparently lost on those who think weight is only a minor nuisance.

Based on current developments, I will not purchase a '15 mustang or '16, or '17 as long the as the weight 'creep' continues. I'm a drag racer. So, even with the 'old' SRA equiped, 'heavy' '13/14 models, they offer significant power that I can manipulate down a 'strip. Plus, weight reduction is not a problem you can't overcome with those models, IMHO.

It just comes down to what you want in a car. If you're a die-hard road racer, then buy an IRS 'stang. If you're a die-hard drag racer, buy an SRA model.

I am a die hard drag racer. I always have been. I have ordered a '15 GT. So does that make me NOT a die hard drag racer? Yes weight is the enemy of a racer. Bob is perfectly ok stating his opinion. Hell when him and I used to run Factory Stock, that was the name of the game. We worked hard on getting the weight down to the rule book requirements. Knowing Bob, he would throw some drag radials on , max bolt ons, get a hell of a tune and drive the piss out of it until he tapped all of the potential of that combo. I want the car for the same. The weight doesn't bother me, but it does him. To each his own. I don't think he's knocking on the car, just stating that for what he would use the car, it doesn't suit his needs. I on the other hand love the way it looks and want to make 1,000whp with a little mustang. We all have our likes. I can tell you this, don't underestimate what "racers" can contribute as far as critique to this conversation. Especially guys that have run classes like Factory Stock, which "used" to require a whole lot wiggling within in the rules to put a virtually bolt on car deep in the 11's with little hp. So I understand perfectly Bob's point.

Hey Bob, I'll let you know what times I get pushing it down the track with old school FS methods. Should be a blast.