what do 87-93 fox's weigh??

91 gt, 5spd, spare tire, ac, all original with 1/4 tank of gas =3180lbs

"My point is that it isn't neccessarily a bad thing to be heavier."

My point is they'd be even faster, stop even better, handle even better if they were lighter. Because F still equals M * A. Yes - I'm biased. I'd like them to be lighter. Sorry. I'm an auto enthusiast. And I'm generally willing to sacrifice quieter/more luxurious for better performance. When they get heavier - it takes more HP/torque, more tire, more brake, etc. to achieve the same or higher levels of performance. I'd rather get there with less weight.

Yup - Pig is pretty much how I'd describe a 4000 lb. 'sports' car (popular options, 220 lb. driver and full tank of gas with a suitcase in the trunk for a long weekend). And, Ford is not the only guilty party. The market (I'm in the minority) and safety regs have pretty much called for cars becoming porkier. Mitsubishi's new Eclipse is tipping the scales at the 3500 lb. mark too.

But, they'll both sell plenty of 'em. Just not to me.

I found a lighter curb weight! According to Car and Driver:

2005 GT 5 spd - 3523 lbs.
2005 vert automatic - 3673 lbs.
2005 6 cylinder - 3444 lbs.

Cars don't have to be light to handle well Mr Yount. Look at the AMGs... Heavyweights that handle like a Ferrari. It's all about weight placement.. how it is used, and center of gravity. Take 400 lbs out of a stock car, and it won't necessarily handle better.


As a cliff note... My 83 GLX 5.0 weighed 2754 lbs without me in it and a 1/4 tank of gas.

In any event, for those of you still following along - when it comes to weights, try to find sources that will list "Weight as tested" -- it means they put the car on scales with the driver and the fuel and any test equipment that was on board during the test. Much more realistic numbers in a world of 'curb weights' that often represent the lightest version of a car that's available from the manufacturer.

5spd GT said:

The newer cars are faster/handle better/quieter/more comfortable/brake better/safer/with other loaded options. Do actually think that we would lose weight. ...

Click to expand...

Compare 2 identical cars...

faster
Any car will be faster when weight is removed. Unless you do something stupid, like removing the control arms to cut weight.

handle better
Any car will handle better when weight is removed. Again, with the exception of removing the control arms.

queiter
more weight can help, but my opinion is that this extra sound deadening should be an option for those who want it. More likely though the option would be removal of the sound deadening.

More comfortable
I would argue that comfort does not need to be heavy. Comfort level is mostly determined by seat quality/ergonomics and a little suspension. Weight does not need to be a contradicting quality.

Brake better
Any car will brake better when weight is removed.

Safety
A heavier vehicle does not mean a safer vehicle. More weight (consider an SUV) just provides different safety strengths and weaknesses. Race cars are much safer than what we drive, and the driver is safer at high speed, than we are at highway speeds.

My point is just that an increase in weight is not necessarry to improve in any of these categories, with the possible exception of "quieter".

In my opinion there is too much of an emphasis on cost to build, and not enough emphasis on developing new production methods. Building cars almost exclusively from steel is a little outdated. Even crush structures can be made from polymers now. For example Carbon fiber honeycomb actually provides better ride down characteristics than steel, and is much better than Al.

Of course, that's just my opinion...I could be wrong.
jason

Poopdawg -- c'mon, you can do better than that. AMG's handle well for what they are - big sedans. I wouldn't characterize them as handling like a Ferarri (you sure you're not selling them on the side? ). You may if you like.

"Cars don't have to be light to handle well..."

The point is simple -- but I'll restate it since it seems to have gone by you the first time. All else equal, when you make it lighter, you make it easier 1) to accelerate more quickly, 2) to stop it more quickly and 3) for it to corner harder. It's really not a difficult bit of physics to comprehend.

All you have to do is look back over the years at the 'giant slayers' at Lotus and Porsche --- who consistently outran bigger, more powerful competition with smaller, lighter cars with smaller, less powerful engines.

If you want them heavier -- they're available; knock yourself out. I don't.

Copperstang87 said:

ok so I take it my car is 3150-3180 lbs stock then thanks

Click to expand...

Sorry the thread got off topic on you.

My source says 3191 dry, but if you have cut some weight, as you may have for racing, you could certainly be in that range.

vristang said:

Sorry the thread got off topic on you.

My source says 3191 dry, but if you have cut some weight, as you may have for racing, you could certainly be in that range.

Click to expand...

only thing is that my car weighs 3300, no weight cut, it is/was completely stock, including air silencer, sound deadening, spare and jack, and what not with a 1/4 tank and me(150 lbs) in car. so i dont know, but i have never found two places say the same weight for these cars. just going by what it was weighed at.

Michael Yount said:

My point is they'd be even faster, stop even better, handle even better if they were lighter. Because F still equals M * A. Yes - I'm biased. I'd like them to be lighter. Sorry. I'm an auto enthusiast. And I'm generally willing to sacrifice quieter/more luxurious for better performance. When they get heavier - it takes more HP/torque, more tire, more brake, etc. to achieve the same or higher levels of performance. I'd rather get there with less weight.

Click to expand...

So bigger brakes weigh more right? So with the bigger brake setup and better braking parts you would think it would weigh more right. Well their goes your weight. It all adds up. Sometimes weight can be a good thing. You got to have something to plant your weight. You also don't want so much that it "pushes" you outwards. The F/R weight ratio on the newer cars is nice. Very close to 50/50 on a vert for example. The new 05's handle better than the 5.0L's considerably. So I don't think the weight is hurting it. Your statements about being lighter =ing better handling isn't true in this case is it. Hasn't been true since say (in respect to mustangs) 94+ Darn them new heavy cars. They handle better/faster/brake better/ride better/etc. What is the world coming too...everything is getting better

With loss of weight you lose amenities. Many of us like daily drivers. Not race cars. Think about it

Michael Yount said:

Yup - Pig is pretty much how I'd describe a 4000 lb. 'sports' car (popular options, 220 lb. driver and full tank of gas with a suitcase in the trunk for a long weekend). And, Ford is not the only guilty party. The market (I'm in the minority) and safety regs have pretty much called for cars becoming porkier. Mitsubishi's new Eclipse is tipping the scales at the 3500 lb. mark too.

Click to expand...

Where is a 4,000lb sports car. I thought we were talking about 05 Gt's and not the example you just happen to bring up when it has a blower on it Convienent amnesia? Your adding cars to fit your script. Next you can bring up the F-350's with their v10's. Yeah they can't get out of their own way. You see what I'm saying here...

You can't really deck out a "sports car" with weighted options. So the "options" is "no option".

Well as long as the cars get quicker/more reliable/safer/brake better/handle better/ride better/etc....I don't think your going to get any "reliable" grumblings about adding a couple hundred pounds. You have to be practical about it. Ford can side with NASA and come up with some space saving (in weight) technology...but guess who that will hit in cost. Yep, us!

Michael Yount said:

But, they'll both sell plenty of 'em. Just not to me.

Click to expand...

I just try to think practically...I'm not going to live on the good ole days I guess

vristang said:

Compare 2 identical cars...

Click to expand...

Let's do

vristang said:

faster
Any car will be faster when weight is removed. Unless you do something stupid, like removing the control arms to cut weight.

Click to expand...

That is generally true. Correct. Also remember that a faster car isn't necessarily the one that gets the quicker E.T.'s (control arms).

vristang said:

handle better
Any car will handle better when weight is removed. Again, with the exception of removing the control arms.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. A certain amount of weight is needed to plant (previous post).

vristang said:

queiter
more weight can help, but my opinion is that this extra sound deadening should be an option for those who want it. More likely though the option would be removal of the sound deadening.

Click to expand...

You think sound deadening should be an option...are you kidding me? You know 99% of the people that buy their cars aren't turning them into lightweight beast right? What about the poor woman with 4 kids that needs an economical vehicle but to save money elects not to get the option of sound deadening. That is just a crazy thought IMO. It isn't all about race cars...right?

vristang said:

More comfortable
I would argue that comfort does not need to be heavy. Comfort level is mostly determined by seat quality/ergonomics and a little suspension. Weight does not need to be a contradicting quality.

Click to expand...

It comes with it's price. If we spend all this money on make lightweight comfort on titanium seat brackets or those of the like...it is going to hit us in the wallets. It is a balance act man...you know that. The comfort is also into the suspension. Of course we could go with titanium everything (for example) to lighten up parts but it isn't in the budget or market of the car in question and 99% of them either. Think about it...

vristang said:

Brake better
Any car will brake better when weight is removed.

Click to expand...

Sure, but it isn't that simple. The new cars brake setup overcomes their 2-300lb difference (which is like having a bigger passenger with you...whoopdy do ). It well overcomes it and can easily afford the extra "pig" weight.

vristang said:

Safety
A heavier vehicle does not mean a safer vehicle. More weight (consider an SUV) just provides different safety strengths and weaknesses. Race cars are much safer than what we drive, and the driver is safer at high speed, than we are at highway speeds.

Click to expand...

I never said nor meant to say that. That wasn't the point. Newer cars are simply safter in a wreck with their technology. Driver/passenger/and side air bags have weight. Plus extra wreckage supports. It is a price I would like to pay both out of the wallet and in weight so I have a better chance of surviving the price of life. Don't you think

There is a difference between a race car and daily driver. Comfort becomes a big factor in that. "It is a balancing act". No need to compare to different cars when you put above "Let's compare 2 identical cars."

vristang said:

My point is just that an increase in weight is not necessarry to improve in any of these categories, with the possible exception of "quieter".

Click to expand...

So who is going to pay for the R&D in acheiving that point of equilibrium between the two (business/customer). If you can tell me who is...then you "win". I think you'll have a little trouble with this one. One of them is going to have to pocket the price. Either way it will effect either one of them. You can't deny or get around that for sure.

vristang said:

In my opinion there is too much of an emphasis on cost to build, and not enough emphasis on developing new production methods. Building cars almost exclusively from steel is a little outdated. Even crush structures can be made from polymers now. For example Carbon fiber honeycomb actually provides better ride down characteristics than steel, and is much better than Al.

Click to expand...

Well developing new production methods cost money as well...so who do you think is going to get hit. Us at the bottom of the economical food chain. Yes, that is us again. We keep complaining about why they don't do this and that...but if they do, do "this and that" we will complain anyways because it will hit our wallets in one way or another. Very simple.

Carbonfiber R&D will cost more. So and yet it hits our wallets again. We will complain and the cycle will continue between old school and new school.

vristang said:

Of course, that's just my opinion...I could be wrong.

Click to expand...

Could be...

Michael Yount said:

All you have to do is look back over the years at the 'giant slayers' at Lotus and Porsche --- who consistently outran bigger, more powerful competition with smaller, lighter cars with smaller, less powerful engines.

Click to expand...

Would you care to express the price difference in thos two examples. "giant slayers" and Lotus/Porsche? The price difference is my point right there

You may not like "new cars" that ride better/faster/brake better/quieter/more comfortable/last longer/better tech overall/handle better....but many others do. We can sacrifice a passenger size weight for all those advancements. Don't make it seem one-sided because it simply isn't.

"So bigger brakes weigh more right? So with the bigger brake setup and better braking parts you would think it would weigh more right. Well their goes your weight. It all adds up. Sometimes weight can be a good thing. You got to have something to plant your weight. You also don't want so much that it "pushes" you outwards."

What? Your 'logic' is so - uh - unlogical that it defies any attempts to debate it. Perhaps the concept is just too simple for you. Take ANY car. Remove weight from areas that won't compromise performance. The result is a car that will accelerate quicker, stop better and corner harder. There's simply no way around it. You don't NEED the bigger brakes when the car weighs less. When race sanctioning bodies want to penalize a particular car that has shown a performance advantage, what do they do? They force them to add weight. Why? Because with all else equal, more weight means less performance. You seem to be suggesting we should inform them that the extra weight will help them 'plant' the car better. Please tell us more about that bit of physics. It will be entertaining.

The 4000 lb. 'sports' car IS the '05GT. But apparently the math eludes you. 3523 lbs. + 220 lb. driver + full tank of gas + suitcase for a long weekend (which was all in the previous post - can you read?) is 3900+ lbs. Yes - I rounded up to make the point. Throw in your petite girlfriend and you're at 4000+ -- as driven. The automatic vert will go well over 4000 lbs. under the same conditions. The upcoming supercharged versions are gonna be pushing 4200 lbs. under the same conditions.

You keep referring to all the benefits of newer cars. I've never debated that - I've simply said if they weren't so 'fat', all the performance advantages would be even greater. You're not really trying to tell us that ain't so are you?

Wow man these GT verts are hogs lol, man that crushes my dream of me wanting one lol.

Michael Yount said:

What? Your 'logic' is so - uh - unlogical that it defies any attempts to debate it. Perhaps the concept is just too simple for you. Take ANY car. Remove weight from areas that won't compromise performance. The result is a car that will accelerate quicker, stop better and corner harder. There's simply no way around it. You don't NEED the bigger brakes when the car weighs less. When race sanctioning bodies want to penalize a particular car that has shown a performance advantage, what do they do? They force them to add weight. Why? Because with all else equal, more weight means less performance. You seem to be suggesting we should inform them that the extra weight will help them 'plant' the car better. Please tell us more about that bit of physics. It will be entertaining.

Click to expand...

Yes but where are you going to remove that weight from and not effect cost? Simple question here Michael...

Michael Yount said:

The 4000 lb. 'sports' car IS the '05GT. But apparently the math eludes you. 3523 lbs. + 220 lb. driver + full tank of gas + suitcase for a long weekend (which was all in the previous post - can you read?) is 3900+ lbs. Yes - I rounded up to make the point. Throw in your petite girlfriend and you're at 4000+ -- as driven. The automatic vert will go well over 4000 lbs. under the same conditions. The upcoming supercharged versions are gonna be pushing 4200 lbs. under the same conditions.

Click to expand...

So you use a "bigger driver" (I'm 205lbs)...and you happen to use a full tank...and they happen to be going on a business trip with a passenger. What a coincedence in your point. We can use that for the foxes to and push the weight around 3700lbs rounded up.

Michael Yount said:

You keep referring to all the benefits of newer cars. I've never debated that - I've simply said if they weren't so 'fat', all the performance advantages would be even greater. You're not really trying to tell us that ain't so are you?

Click to expand...

Sure they would be greater but where is that weight going to come out of? Is it going to affect the wallet of the customer? It's all about practicality. Your being way to general. It isn't as simple as removing weight and nothing else being affected. Not that simple at all...

1988 convertible 5 speed-2960 with 1/4 tank and no driver.....lots of weight reduction ( should have just got a coupe )

First response in the 05 Gt weight thread:

"My 05 GT with a full tank of gas and everything in the car but me weighs 3476 lbs. The car is equipped with:

5 spd manual
Body Side Mouldings
Bullitt Wheels
Leather seats
Shaker 500
Active Anti Theft
IUP
Side Airbags"

Wow...a bit under 300lbs more than my car for all of that

J_Squared said:

only thing is that my car weighs 3300, no weight cut, it is/was completely stock, including air silencer, sound deadening, spare and jack, and what not with a 1/4 tank and me(150 lbs) in car. so i dont know, but i have never found two places say the same weight for these cars. just going by what it was weighed at.

Click to expand...

So how can we account for about 110lbs?

Is yours an auto? I don't think that would account for all the difference though.

The source I am quoting is from Ford using SAE standards, so I am gonna stick with my guns on this one. Remember though that the SAE standard used is for a dry vehicle, No fuel, No oil, and maybe No coolant (but I will have to check on this when I get home).

I appreciate you bringing this up, and I will look into the SAE test a little further to see if I can find the source of the discrepancy.

I will be writing in red as this could get confusing pretty quick.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vristang
Compare 2 identical cars...



Let's do


Quote:
Originally Posted by vristang
faster
Any car will be faster when weight is removed. Unless you do something stupid, like removing the control arms to cut weight.



That is generally true. Correct. Also remember that a faster car isn't necessarily the one that gets the quicker E.T.'s (control arms).

Let's not just talk about 1/4 mile racing. Faster in and out of a corner is harder to do in a heavier car. Just something else to consider.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vristang
handle better
Any car will handle better when weight is removed. Again, with the exception of removing the control arms.



Not necessarily. A certain amount of weight is needed to plant (previous post).

Again, let's not just look at drag racing. As weight increases, so does its inertia. Bottom line is the car is less responsive.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vristang
queiter
more weight can help, but my opinion is that this extra sound deadening should be an option for those who want it. More likely though the option would be removal of the sound deadening.



You think sound deadening should be an option...are you kidding me? You know 99% of the people that buy their cars aren't turning them into lightweight beast right? What about the poor woman with 4 kids that needs an economical vehicle but to save money elects not to get the option of sound deadening. That is just a crazy thought IMO. It isn't all about race cars...right?

As I stated it would be more likely to get the option to remove sound deadening (or maybe just some of it similar to the 93 Cobra R). And I don't think a woman with 4 kids is going to buy a Mustang anyway, so who cares?


Quote:
Originally Posted by vristang
More comfortable
I would argue that comfort does not need to be heavy. Comfort level is mostly determined by seat quality/ergonomics and a little suspension. Weight does not need to be a contradicting quality.



It comes with it's price. If we spend all this money on make lightweight comfort on titanium seat brackets or those of the like...it is going to hit us in the wallets. It is a balance act man...you know that. The comfort is also into the suspension. Of course we could go with titanium everything (for example) to lighten up parts but it isn't in the budget or market of the car in question and 99% of them either. Think about it...

You only bring up Ti. There are hundreds (maybe thousands) of composites that would be much better than steel. My point is that regardless of which material is used there are better options than steel. Steel is not necessarry for comfort. I will address the cost issue in another point.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vristang
Brake better
Any car will brake better when weight is removed.



Sure, but it isn't that simple. The new cars brake setup overcomes their 2-300lb difference (which is like having a bigger passenger with you...whoopdy do ). It well overcomes it and can easily afford the extra "pig" weight.

Actually it is that simple. Simple Physics. No getting around it. Lighten up todays cars (with their better brake systems) and you will see an improvement in braking performance. Being able to afford the extra weight for the same braking ability does not concern me. My point is that less weight = better braking performance.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vristang
Safety
A heavier vehicle does not mean a safer vehicle. More weight (consider an SUV) just provides different safety strengths and weaknesses. Race cars are much safer than what we drive, and the driver is safer at high speed, than we are at highway speeds.



I never said nor meant to say that. That wasn't the point. Newer cars are simply safter in a wreck with their technology. Driver/passenger/and side air bags have weight. Plus extra wreckage supports. It is a price I would like to pay both out of the wallet and in weight so I have a better chance of surviving the price of life. Don't you think

There is a difference between a race car and daily driver. Comfort becomes a big factor in that. "It is a balancing act". No need to compare to different cars when you put above "Let's compare 2 identical cars."


The new technology that you are mentioning is really just unimaginative extensions of what had been done before. There have been no major changes to crush structures or supports in quite a while. They are all steel which is heavy for its strength (compared to composites), and does not provide as good of a ride down as CFRP can. I agree that continuous improvement to safety standards should be a goal. The problem I have is that most of todays improvements have been unimaginitive continuations of old technology.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vristang
My point is just that an increase in weight is not necessarry to improve in any of these categories, with the possible exception of "quieter".



So who is going to pay for the R&D in acheiving that point of equilibrium between the two (business/customer). If you can tell me who is...then you "win". I think you'll have a little trouble with this one. One of them is going to have to pocket the price. Either way it will effect either one of them. You can't deny or get around that for sure.

I don't need to deny or get around this at all. The R&D has already been done. I worked on a crash safety vehicle last year that was fabricated from CFRP. Only a little steel tubing for the suspension. This car was built at a university; designed by 2 professors and built by a rag-tag team of students. This was done without the help of the auto manufacturers, just cumulative knowledge from the university.
My point is that there has not been a decision to move to the more advanced materials and manufacturing processes. Make a full scale move, and the increase in cost would not be near as much as you make it out to be.
In case my materials knowledge is in question, I test structural materials for Aerospace applications.




Quote:
Originally Posted by vristang
In my opinion there is too much of an emphasis on cost to build, and not enough emphasis on developing new production methods. Building cars almost exclusively from steel is a little outdated. Even crush structures can be made from polymers now. For example Carbon fiber honeycomb actually provides better ride down characteristics than steel, and is much better than Al.



Well developing new production methods cost money as well...so who do you think is going to get hit. Us at the bottom of the economical food chain. Yes, that is us again. We keep complaining about why they don't do this and that...but if they do, do "this and that" we will complain anyways because it will hit our wallets in one way or another. Very simple.

Carbonfiber R&D will cost more. So and yet it hits our wallets again. We will complain and the cycle will continue between old school and new school.

CFRP R&D has been going on for a long time. The material costs involved (for automotive grade CFRP) are not too far from those of high quality fiberglass.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vristang
Of course, that's just my opinion...I could be wrong.




Could be...

Could be...

I hope you don't take personal offense to any of this, as I am just enjoying the discussion.

Wow, that ate up my entire lunch break.
jason
__________________