8 89jrs50 New Member Mar 28, 2016 9 0 1 Apr 10, 2016 #1 Apr 10, 2016 #1 factory weight of 89' 5.0 lx hatchback
grnhays Member Sep 21, 2015 63 21 18 Green Bay, WI. Apr 10, 2016 #2 Apr 10, 2016 #2 If its a manual, 3102lbs. Weight distribution, front 1796lbs, rear 1306lbs If its a automatic, 3162lbs. Weight distribution, front 1835lbs, rear 1327lbs
If its a manual, 3102lbs. Weight distribution, front 1796lbs, rear 1306lbs If its a automatic, 3162lbs. Weight distribution, front 1835lbs, rear 1327lbs
Boosted92LX It's only an inch or two. What's the big deal? 15 Year Member Dec 19, 2010 5,721 4,244 224 Apr 10, 2016 #3 Apr 10, 2016 #3 So... About a thousand pounds less than your typical hellcat. Reactions: grnhays
elarm1 10 Year Member Dec 17, 2010 1,428 652 154 N.Va Apr 11, 2016 #4 Apr 11, 2016 #4 And about a thousand pounds less than the 07 M5 6 speed my Mustang had for dinner last night!!! Reactions: Boosted92LX and FoxMustangLvr
cleanLX Founding Member Jan 17, 2001 976 537 144 Apr 11, 2016 #5 Apr 11, 2016 #5 I'd agree with the weights posted above... for a low/no option car. My coupe weighed 3080 bone stock. I thought the hellcats were getting up around 4400lbs? Reactions: A5literMan
I'd agree with the weights posted above... for a low/no option car. My coupe weighed 3080 bone stock. I thought the hellcats were getting up around 4400lbs?
Jason 302 10 Year Member Aug 9, 2003 685 71 68 Newark, Ohio Apr 11, 2016 #6 Apr 11, 2016 #6 cleanLX said: I'd agree with the weights posted above... for a low/no option car. My coupe weighed 3080 bone stock. I thought the hellcats were getting up around 4400lbs? Click to expand... 4449lbs according to google. Holy crap, I didn't know they were such a fat pig. And here I was putting down the new stangs for weighing 3700ish.
cleanLX said: I'd agree with the weights posted above... for a low/no option car. My coupe weighed 3080 bone stock. I thought the hellcats were getting up around 4400lbs? Click to expand... 4449lbs according to google. Holy crap, I didn't know they were such a fat pig. And here I was putting down the new stangs for weighing 3700ish.
FourEyed Active Member Jan 9, 2011 93 44 39 Apr 12, 2016 #7 Apr 12, 2016 #7 Jason 302 said: 4449lbs according to google. Holy crap, I didn't know they were such a fat pig. And here I was putting down the new stangs for weighing 3700ish. Click to expand... ..700hp and about 3 secs 0-60..so yeah, I'll take the little extra weight. Lol
Jason 302 said: 4449lbs according to google. Holy crap, I didn't know they were such a fat pig. And here I was putting down the new stangs for weighing 3700ish. Click to expand... ..700hp and about 3 secs 0-60..so yeah, I'll take the little extra weight. Lol
Bullitt347 I have been doing it wrong this whole time 15 Year Member Mar 23, 2007 3,997 2,984 194 Middle of Maine Apr 12, 2016 #8 Apr 12, 2016 #8 If I had the choice of loosing 100 lbs off of the race car or gaining 100 HP, I would take the HP every time
If I had the choice of loosing 100 lbs off of the race car or gaining 100 HP, I would take the HP every time
A5literMan At least it is lumpy... 5 Year Member Jul 30, 2011 4,674 2,343 194 Illinois Apr 12, 2016 #9 Apr 12, 2016 #9 Bullitt347 said: If I had the choice of loosing 100 lbs off of the race car or gaining 100 HP, I would take the HP every time Click to expand... Well with that math who wouldn't lol. 100vs100=1sec vs .1sec in et Reactions: cleanLX
Bullitt347 said: If I had the choice of loosing 100 lbs off of the race car or gaining 100 HP, I would take the HP every time Click to expand... Well with that math who wouldn't lol. 100vs100=1sec vs .1sec in et
cleanLX Founding Member Jan 17, 2001 976 537 144 Apr 12, 2016 #10 Apr 12, 2016 #10 yep, and in a race car that already has weight restrictions and ballast to move around... bad example... just saying...
yep, and in a race car that already has weight restrictions and ballast to move around... bad example... just saying...