weight issues?

blazinsteed said:

where are you getting that mach 1 gw number the curb weight for a 5 speed is 3465 and is underated. That curb weight number is with a full tank of gas, 4 passengers, and a full trunk..... Don't think thats what everyone drives around with them full

Click to expand...

Wrong.. the curb weight includes any standard equipment, fluids, lubricants, etc., it does not include occupants or cargo.

Curb weight is as cronin49 said.

The weight with luggage and 4 passengers is GVWR ( Gross Vehicle Weight Rating ). GVWR on the '05 Stang is around 4,500 lb.

"where are you getting that mach 1 gw number the curb weight for a 5 speed is 3465 and is underated. That curb weight number is with a full tank of gas, 4 passengers, and a full trunk...." --- somebody's been smokin' somethin'....

MotorTrend's test of the new '05 listed a curb weight of 3520 lbs. With a 200 lb. driver and a tank of fuel, you guessed it, porky pig's back in town. Over 3800 lbs. I'll wager money the SVT/Cobra version will arrive in as-tested weight of right at 4000 lbs. I believe I hear the 'fat' lady singing...

feelthebreak said:

i am wondering what kind of issues all of the new weight will have on the cobra. the gt is already a very hefty 3,450 pounds .. if a cobra comes out with a bigger motor and blower, irs, bigger wheels, etc... it`s going to weigh way too much...

Click to expand...

I had the same concern a while ago when they just release the weight numbers, I didn't like the new weight, I was hoping for something lighter and smaller.

However, after making a list of the cars I would buy other than the stang this is what I found:

05 Mustang GT:
HP: 300 @ 5750 RPM
TQ: 320 @ 4500 RPM
Weight: ~3450 lbs
Length: 187.60 in
Height: 54.50 in
Price: ~$26k

04 BMW M3 Coupe:
HP: 333 @ 7900 RPM
TQ: 262 @ 4900 RPM
Weight: 3415 lbs
Length: 176.90 in
Height: 54.00 in
Price: ~$47k

04 Infinity G35 Coupe:
HP: 280 @ 6000 RPM
TQ: 270 @ 4800 RPM
Weight: 3435 lbs
Length: 182.20 in
Height: 54.80 in
Price: ~$32k

So, 05 Gt weight is about the same as the M3 and G35, the height is about the same and the Gt is few inches longer than the G35 and M3, and that is ok because both the M3 and G35 look small. The current 99-04 Mustang GT are faster than the G35, and the new 05 Gt is going to be a lot faster than the G35, and will run the 1/4 mile almost as fast or maybe faster than the M3.

We know the G35 and M3 have great handling, so the 05 Gt should be able to have good handling with the same weight.

The G35 and the M3 both have IRS and more attractive static front/rear weight distribution than the Stang - those are the 2 biggest things limiting it's handling. And all 3 are too heavy.

Michael Yount said:

The G35 and the M3 both have IRS and more attractive static front/rear weight distribution than the Stang - those are the 2 biggest things limiting it's handling. And all 3 are too heavy.

Click to expand...

According to C/D the F/R weight balance of the G35 coupe is 53.7% F / 46.3% R.

In their Mustang preview article the 2005 Mustang is listed @ 53% F / 47% R.

So you're telling me more weight on the front wheels is better for handling?

Interesting. Just for kicks here's info from an old 1995 SVT Cobra brochure:

HP: 245 @ 4800 RPM (underrated)
TQ: 285 @ 4000 RPM (underrated)
Weight: 3354 lbs
Length: 181.5 in
Height: 53.4 in ('04 cobra is 52.5!)
Price: $forgot !
What sucked was the wheelbase at 101.3 in., so the weight distribution was horrible (57/43) unless you stuck some fat rubber (265+) in the front ...

BTW, Nissan mentioned that having some front weight bias aids in shifting the weight forward for more grip (i.e. apex on a incline? Accelerating in a turn). Also, I'd be interesting on the braking as shorter wheelbases usually enhance braking (fast weight shift).

Weight, shmeight, whatever.

"It's too heavy! It's fat!"

For a fat lady, she sure is quick with a ET of mid-13s for an auto.

For 95% of Mustang drivers, that's excellent... and M/T reported that its handling is night and day better than the old Fox platform-derived predecessors.

For the rest of us that actually care about weight, I'm sure when we get our S197s we'll be eventually ripping out stereos, speakers, interior trim, the passenger seat, back seats, carpet, sound insulation, the spoiler, the A/C and horns in our search for ever-lower ETs.

SN95_XB331 said:

BTW, Nissan mentioned that having some front weight bias aids in shifting the weight forward for more grip (i.e. apex on a incline? Accelerating in a turn).

Click to expand...

To be more precise, they were talking that having a very slight front weight bias will help in corner exit. As the weight shifts back upon acceleration (as it will ALWAYS do), the weight distribution is supposed to be 50/50 and help the car turn as it accelerates at the same time. I personally think it is a whole lot of marketing hype as you are sacrificing turn-in and mid-corner grip.

If the GT is 53/47, the Cobras will be even worse as the sure-to be larger/heavier engine and lighter IRS will throw it way out of wack.

But, lets get real here. The mustang is NOT a road race car. Drag car, sure. Corner carver, nope. It is not supposed to be, it is not built to be, and it never will be. It is a cheap, big, burly v8, four seating, fun to drive car (in stock form). While on the track 200 pounds can make a difference, on the street it will hardly be noticed.

Also, look how Auberlein can keep winning races in the WC series, even with 200+ lbs. added to his car (granted at the center, apposed to the extremeties, but still).