Colors in 2011?

Top Speed · Sep 13, 2009

cougar_68 said:
I wonder how they are going to add 600 or so lbs, when there isn't even going to be a body change?

The GT is already a heavy car at around 35xx lbs. To meet 2012 safety regulations, additional bracing will be needed for the platform, plus the addition of side airbags. Additional bracing in the roof, plus the doors will be required, and I would assume the frame itself.

It's not going to be hard for them to add 300-400 lbs of weight with all the additional equipment.

Once I order my 2010 GT, I'm immediately ditching the rear seat, depending on the weight, the spare tire/jack, and also replacing the hood with a fiberglass variant.

Fast05 · Sep 13, 2009

cougar_68 said:
I wonder how they are going to add 600 or so lbs, when there isn't even going to be a body change?

The current 2010 weighs in between 3500 and 3600 I believe...so it'd only be about a 300lb gain. And when I say only I don't mean that lightly, that'd just turn it into another pig of a car that can go fast in a straight line. The new engine may weigh more but we don't know. Obviously they're probably going to need to throw in a beefier transmission and bigger brakes, other than that..who knows. If it came in around 3700 lbs I'd be happier.

cougar_68 · Sep 13, 2009

Fast05 said:
The current 2010 weighs in between 3500 and 3600 I believe...so it'd only be about a 300lb gain. And when I say only I don't mean that lightly, that'd just turn it into another pig of a car that can go fast in a straight line. The new engine may weigh more but we don't know. Obviously they're probably going to need to throw in a beefier transmission and bigger brakes, other than that..who knows. If it came in around 3700 lbs I'd be happier.

I see...I guess I was thinking the 2010 GT was only 3300lbs. After reading this and other publications I realize I was wrong. You are right though 300 is still a huge increase (~9%) and 3900 lbs is a heavy sports car.

Top Speed · Sep 13, 2009

Fast05 said:
The current 2010 weighs in between 3500 and 3600 I believe...so it'd only be about a 300lb gain. And when I say only I don't mean that lightly, that'd just turn it into another pig of a car that can go fast in a straight line. The new engine may weigh more but we don't know. Obviously they're probably going to need to throw in a beefier transmission and bigger brakes, other than that..who knows. If it came in around 3700 lbs I'd be happier.

You should find out what yours weighs, then report back. Just go through a weigh-station or to the track.

Fast05 · Sep 14, 2009

Top Speed said:
You should find out what yours weighs, then report back. Just go through a weigh-station or to the track.

Well, seeing as how I don't have to work all week...I just may do that

Top Speed · Sep 14, 2009

Fast05 said:
Well, seeing as how I don't have to work all week...I just may do that

Well, I'd sure like to know what it weighs! Then I'll know what I'm up against for removing a little bit of weight. If they weigh 35xx lbs as claimed, then it shouldn't be super-difficult for me to drop the weight down to under 3500 lbs with minimal removal/replacement of things. For me, 3400 lbs is the "magic number."

Also, that would help me to start making plans now so when I finally do get my 2010 GT, I can get started right away.

Fast05 · Sep 14, 2009

Top Speed said:
Well, I'd sure like to know what it weighs! Then I'll know what I'm up against for removing a little bit of weight. If they weigh 35xx lbs as claimed, then it shouldn't be super-difficult for me to drop the weight down to under 3500 lbs with minimal removal/replacement of things. For me, 3400 lbs is the "magic number."

Also, that would help me to start making plans now so when I finally do get my 2010 GT, I can get started right away.

I got a buddy that owns a Corvette shop and he's got a dyno so I'm gonna take it over there tomorrow, not sure if he can weigh it but I'm sure he knows where I can take it locally. I'll definitely keep ya'll posted...especially with the dyno numbers

Top Speed · Sep 14, 2009

Fast05 said:
I got a buddy that owns a Corvette shop and he's got a dyno so I'm gonna take it over there tomorrow, not sure if he can weigh it but I'm sure he knows where I can take it locally. I'll definitely keep ya'll posted...especially with the dyno numbers

Dude, that'll be awesome! What are the specs on your car? 5spd? Gearing?

Don't forget to turn the a/c off when you dyno LOL!

Five Oh Brian · Sep 14, 2009

Top Speed said:
The GT is already a heavy car at around 35xx lbs. To meet 2012 safety regulations, additional bracing will be needed for the platform, plus the addition of side airbags. Additional bracing in the roof, plus the doors will be required, and I would assume the frame itself.

It's not going to be hard for them to add 300-400 lbs of weight with all the additional equipment.

Side Airbags became standard equipment on all new Mustangs in 2008, FYI. Additional bracing was done on all new Mustangs in 2007 so that the same chassis could be used on the GT500's (cheaper to make them all identical, I suppose), so all models got heavier in 2007 from that extra bracing already.

I pulled up invoices for 2009 Mustang GT coupes and the shipping weight is 3377. I pulled up invoices for 2010 Mustang GT coupes and the shipping weight is now 3411. This is a base GT model before adding for optional equipment, so 2010's are only 34 lbs heavier than the 2009's. I just don't see 2012 adding much more since Ford is way ahead of the curve in having upcoming safety equipment made standard already.

Top Speed · Sep 14, 2009

Five Oh Brian said:
Side Airbags became standard equipment on all new Mustangs in 2008, FYI. Additional bracing was done on all new Mustangs in 2007 so that the same chassis could be used on the GT500's (cheaper to make them all identical, I suppose), so all models got heavier in 2007 from that extra bracing already.

I pulled up invoices for 2009 Mustang GT coupes and the shipping weight is 3377. I pulled up invoices for 2010 Mustang GT coupes and the shipping weight is now 3411. This is a base GT model before adding for optional equipment, so 2010's are only 34 lbs heavier than the 2009's. I just don't see 2012 adding much more since Ford is way ahead of the curve in having upcoming safety equipment made standard already.

Good to know, and thanks for the info. Of course, we do need to keep in mind that when these vehicles are shipped, it's more than likely dry weight, which means there aren't any fluids in the vehicles; gas, oil, antifreeze, windshield wiper fluid, etc. Once you add in all those fluids, you're probably talking about a 150 lb gain in weight. Gas in itself weighs 6 lbs per gallon.

Fast05 · Sep 14, 2009

Top Speed said:
Dude, that'll be awesome! What are the specs on your car? 5spd? Gearing?

Don't forget to turn the a/c off when you dyno LOL!

It's a 5spd manual, 3.73 rear end. Anything ELSE I should turn off? ha ha

SS02 · Sep 14, 2009

Five Oh Brian said:
Side Airbags became standard equipment on all new Mustangs in 2008, FYI. Additional bracing was done on all new Mustangs in 2007 so that the same chassis could be used on the GT500's (cheaper to make them all identical, I suppose), so all models got heavier in 2007 from that extra bracing already.

I pulled up invoices for 2009 Mustang GT coupes and the shipping weight is 3377. I pulled up invoices for 2010 Mustang GT coupes and the shipping weight is now 3411. This is a base GT model before adding for optional equipment, so 2010's are only 34 lbs heavier than the 2009's. I just don't see 2012 adding much more since Ford is way ahead of the curve in having upcoming safety equipment made standard already.

IN the Car and Driver test of the 5.0 it said Ford addressed the Bigger brake issues, that'll add a good 150lbs to the car. Hopefully they can keep it around 37-3800lbs.

Top Speed · Sep 14, 2009

Fast05 said:
It's a 5spd manual, 3.73 rear end. Anything ELSE I should turn off? ha ha

The traction control?

Top Speed · Sep 14, 2009

SS02 said:
IN the Car and Driver test of the 5.0 it said Ford addressed the Bigger brake issues, that'll add a good 150lbs to the car. Hopefully they can keep it around 37-3800lbs.

That's probably the worst place to pick up weight, because that's all unsprung weight. Even though the brakes are upgraded, because of the addition of all the extra unsprung weight, they may cancel each other out for the most part.

Unsprung weight will not only effect the handling of a car, but the braking and acceleration. As an example, a buddy of mine had a '05 STi and swapped the wheels for a larger set that weighed about 7 lbs more a piece than the stockers. He took the car to the track and ran a 13.8 @ 101 mph. He swapped his wheels to a set of stockers that a buddy of his had on his STi, and then he turned around and clocked of a 13.3 @ 105 mph.

The STi came with Bridgestone Potenza RE070 tires and they weighed 25 lbs a piece. When I needed new tires I swapped them out for a set of Continental Conti-Extreme Contacts, which weighed 20 lbs a piece. I immediately noticed quicker acceleration and better braking. I even picked up some better gas mileage! But, yes, I did lose some handling with the Continentals, which were an all-season performance tire, compared to the RE070, which is a summer high performance tire.

SS02 · Sep 15, 2009

Top Speed said:
That's probably the worst place to pick up weight, because that's all unsprung weight. Even though the brakes are upgraded, because of the addition of all the extra unsprung weight, they may cancel each other out for the most part.

Unsprung weight will not only effect the handling of a car, but the braking and acceleration. As an example, a buddy of mine had a '05 STi and swapped the wheels for a larger set that weighed about 7 lbs more a piece than the stockers. He took the car to the track and ran a 13.8 @ 101 mph. He swapped his wheels to a set of stockers that a buddy of his had on his STi, and then he turned around and clocked of a 13.3 @ 105 mph.

The STi came with Bridgestone Potenza RE070 tires and they weighed 25 lbs a piece. When I needed new tires I swapped them out for a set of Continental Conti-Extreme Contacts, which weighed 20 lbs a piece. I immediately noticed quicker acceleration and better braking. I even picked up some better gas mileage! But, yes, I did lose some handling with the Continentals, which were an all-season performance tire, compared to the RE070, which is a summer high performance tire.

Your completely right about the braking system. OrangechevyII, the guy who ran such great numbers in the Camaro, said after the Tire and Brake swap, it was like driving a different car...the difference down the 1320 was immediate. Hopefully Ford will find a way to counter such affect. Theres no hooray for a 5.0 if its running the same times as a 4.6......I really hope they dont screw this up.

Top Speed · Sep 15, 2009

SS02 said:
Your completely right about the braking system. OrangechevyII, the guy who ran such great numbers in the Camaro, said after the Tire and Brake swap, it was like driving a different car...the difference down the 1320 was immediate. Hopefully Ford will find a way to counter such affect. Theres no hooray for a 5.0 if its running the same times as a 4.6......I really hope they dont screw this up.

Well, I wish the best for all the domestic automakers, and nothing frosts me more than when you take an automaker with great potential, and then they release a dud on everyone. What irritates me so much about the new Camaro is that it could be soooooo much better than what it is.

People complained about the price and weight of the GTO. "It's too expensive, and it's too heavy." Basically, it was a heavier and more expensive version of an F-Body; slower, too. So, what did GM do? They simply gave us a heavier version of the GTO that was too heavy.

SS02 · Sep 15, 2009

Except the 05-06 GTOs...LS2 400hp versions...guys running 12.70s stock. Its just to bad they had to use the name GTO...that car could have sold big time.

Top Speed · Sep 15, 2009

SS02 said:
Except the 05-06 GTOs...LS2 400hp versions...guys running 12.70s stock. Its just to bad they had to use the name GTO...that car could have sold big time.

I'd have to see a stock GTO run those times to believe it, but you're right about the "GTO" name on that car. If Pontiac had called it the "GXP," or something like that, it would have probably sold very well. It was a good car with the wrong name.

Fast05 · Sep 15, 2009

SS02 said:
Except the 05-06 GTOs...LS2 400hp versions...guys running 12.70s stock. Its just to bad they had to use the name GTO...that car could have sold big time.

I agree with TopSpeed, I would have to see that to believe it. If I recall correctly, there was an article comparing the 05 Mustang to the GTO and the front cover of Car and Driver had a red one of each, and the stang was running high 13s and the GTO was running low 13s, but all the GM guys got mad when the stang won the overall contest because of the "Gotta have it" factor. GTO was a nice car on paper, but looked like something my grandmother would drive. The last year when they added the dual exhaust and hood scoops did help but I still think it looked pretty blah.

Top Speed · Sep 16, 2009

Fast05 said:
I agree with TopSpeed, I would have to see that to believe it. If I recall correctly, there was an article comparing the 05 Mustang to the GTO and the front cover of Car and Driver had a red one of each, and the stang was running high 13s and the GTO was running low 13s, but all the GM guys got mad when the stang won the overall contest because of the "Gotta have it" factor. GTO was a nice car on paper, but looked like something my grandmother would drive. The last year when they added the dual exhaust and hood scoops did help but I still think it looked pretty blah.

I liked the looks of the GTO, but the wheels looked a tad small on it. I thought they looked really hot in that sort of "rust-orange" color with black wheels.

All years of the GTO had a dual exhaust, but for 2004 they exited on the same side. I personally thought that looked absolutely stupid. For 2005 and 2006, the exhaust was routed with 1 pipe on each side. I thought that looked much better.

As for the "gotta have it" factor, these magazines shouldn't even take things like that into consideration. The "gotta have it" factor has NOTHING to do with the performance of a vehicle. IMO, if a magazine is going to test cars based on performance, then test them based on performance.

For the record, when I read a Car & Driver or Road & Track magazine and see that there's a comparison including a BMW, I don't even bother reading the article because I already know the BMW won. I've seen those idiots bash these "winning BMWs" up and down, but in the end they justify its victory either for its interior or something dumb like the sound of the engine.

...Which leads me to another rant. I just love how all of these magazines printed and written in the USA bash domestic cars, and then wonder why they don't sell. A few months ago Motor Trench wanted to pit a Hyundai Genesis Coupe against a Mustang GT and Ford refused to provide them with one. Motor Trench went off and printed that Ford was "scared." No, Ford wasn't scared of the Hyundai Genesis, they just knew that all Motor Trench was going to do was drag the Mustang GT through the dirt about its live axle suspension. Good for Ford for planting a big F-YOU on Motor Trench's cheek.

Colors in 2011?

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency