View Poll Results: All things being equal, which would you buy in 2011
4,000 lbs Camaro
108
65.45%
3,500 lbs Mustang
23
13.94%
I'd buy something else.
34
20.61%
Voters: 165. You may not vote on this poll
Here's a weight poll for you guys.
03-14-2008, 04:47 PM
#16
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 619
Minus 2 doors it will be significantly lighter. (Those rear doors aren't carbon-fiber.)
Aluminum wheels? No more than 5-lbs per wheel.
Your talking about a top dog G8 now? About 100 lbs more. As for the top dog Camaro? It could have a lightweight hood to offset the difference.
The convertible is a different story. A convertible Camaro could very easily reach G8 territory.
Aluminum wheels? No more than 5-lbs per wheel.
Your talking about a top dog G8 now? About 100 lbs more. As for the top dog Camaro? It could have a lightweight hood to offset the difference.
The convertible is a different story. A convertible Camaro could very easily reach G8 territory.
Two less doors on the civic was only 50lbs.
03-14-2008, 04:59 PM
#17
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 9,710
03-14-2008, 05:08 PM
#18
Prominent Member
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 2,282
Unless the next Mustang will equal a Smart for Two, ther's just no way in hell it'll be 200lbs lighter than today's model.......unless it cost as much as a Corvette, loses two seats and incorporates high priced, exotic materials....that and are four cylinder only.
So to even propose this as a premise is misguided at best....
Targets are as meaningless as pulling a number out of your @$$ without establishing parameters of materials, size, etc....
To me, a car that is 100x more solid, has many more features, gets twice the fuel mileage, last many times as long, doesn't ride like a log wagon or handle like one too, meets all current crash standards....than my 1969, 3,400+ lbs Camaro does, HAS to weigh more and puts this additional weight to good use.
There's no magic pill here people...you want a modern 2+2 car with al the bells and whistles? Then it's gonna weigh more than a 40 year old similar sized car...unless your a magician.....deal with it...or buy something else.
Me, I don't want to drive a Smart car...nor some other p*ss poorly design foriegn POS...
So to even propose this as a premise is misguided at best....
Targets are as meaningless as pulling a number out of your @$$ without establishing parameters of materials, size, etc....
To me, a car that is 100x more solid, has many more features, gets twice the fuel mileage, last many times as long, doesn't ride like a log wagon or handle like one too, meets all current crash standards....than my 1969, 3,400+ lbs Camaro does, HAS to weigh more and puts this additional weight to good use.
There's no magic pill here people...you want a modern 2+2 car with al the bells and whistles? Then it's gonna weigh more than a 40 year old similar sized car...unless your a magician.....deal with it...or buy something else.
Me, I don't want to drive a Smart car...nor some other p*ss poorly design foriegn POS...
Last edited by Doug Harden; 03-14-2008 at 05:12 PM.
03-14-2008, 05:11 PM
#19
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
"Minus 2 doors it will be significantly lighter" is more of a hope than a reality. That alone will make little difference.
03-14-2008, 05:54 PM
#22
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Posts: 6,166
If you feel the new Camaro won't approach G8 weight levels, you're expecting a Camaro in the 3600-3700 pound range. So what's the big leap to 3500 for Mustang? Especially with the wide speculation that the '11 Mustang will be a more compact design (hint: you don't necessarily HAVE to make the interior vastly smaller to cut outer dimensions and heft).
03-14-2008, 05:56 PM
#23
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Posts: 6,166
03-14-2008, 05:58 PM
#24
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 9,710
03-14-2008, 06:22 PM
#25
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SoCal
Posts: 3,463
I guess pass because I'll probably have a 2010 Camaro. 
To me this thread, like the one that spawned it, us just about useless.
We don't know the weight of the 5th Gen Camaro is. And we certainly have no clue about the weight of the next Gen Mustang. Ford can state they want the car to fly too.... Words are just words until the tires hit the pavement.
We can debate the published curb weight when the car arrives. The only thing proven in these weight threads is that everyone has opinions on the curb weigh, no surprise. But no actual info on what it will be other than to say at a certain point it won’t be good. We all knew that before Jan 2006.
To me this thread, like the one that spawned it, us just about useless.
We don't know the weight of the 5th Gen Camaro is. And we certainly have no clue about the weight of the next Gen Mustang. Ford can state they want the car to fly too.... Words are just words until the tires hit the pavement.
We can debate the published curb weight when the car arrives. The only thing proven in these weight threads is that everyone has opinions on the curb weigh, no surprise. But no actual info on what it will be other than to say at a certain point it won’t be good. We all knew that before Jan 2006.
03-14-2008, 06:45 PM
#26
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
Words are the precursors to action.
Should we believe all the rumors and reports on the next gen Mustang? Probably not.
Should we believe Ford when they say they'll drop 200-300 lbs on their future models? Probably yes. That is of course, if they want to sell cars when CAFE kicks in.
In fact, if this CAFE legislation would have passed 30 months ago, I'd bet the Camaro would have been based on something other than Zeta today.
Should we believe all the rumors and reports on the next gen Mustang? Probably not.
Should we believe Ford when they say they'll drop 200-300 lbs on their future models? Probably yes. That is of course, if they want to sell cars when CAFE kicks in.
In fact, if this CAFE legislation would have passed 30 months ago, I'd bet the Camaro would have been based on something other than Zeta today.
03-14-2008, 07:38 PM
#27
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Commerce, mi, USA
Posts: 2,139
Unless the next Mustang will equal a Smart for Two, ther's just no way in hell it'll be 200lbs lighter than today's model.......unless it cost as much as a Corvette, loses two seats and incorporates high priced, exotic materials....that and are four cylinder only.
So to even propose this as a premise is misguided at best....
Targets are as meaningless as pulling a number out of your @$$ without establishing parameters of materials, size, etc....
To me, a car that is 100x more solid, has many more features, gets twice the fuel mileage, last many times as long, doesn't ride like a log wagon or handle like one too, meets all current crash standards....than my 1969, 3,400+ lbs Camaro does, HAS to weigh more and puts this additional weight to good use.
There's no magic pill here people...you want a modern 2+2 car with al the bells and whistles? Then it's gonna weigh more than a 40 year old similar sized car...unless your a magician.....deal with it...or buy something else.
Me, I don't want to drive a Smart car...nor some other p*ss poorly design foriegn POS...
So to even propose this as a premise is misguided at best....
Targets are as meaningless as pulling a number out of your @$$ without establishing parameters of materials, size, etc....
To me, a car that is 100x more solid, has many more features, gets twice the fuel mileage, last many times as long, doesn't ride like a log wagon or handle like one too, meets all current crash standards....than my 1969, 3,400+ lbs Camaro does, HAS to weigh more and puts this additional weight to good use.
There's no magic pill here people...you want a modern 2+2 car with al the bells and whistles? Then it's gonna weigh more than a 40 year old similar sized car...unless your a magician.....deal with it...or buy something else.
Me, I don't want to drive a Smart car...nor some other p*ss poorly design foriegn POS...
03-14-2008, 07:46 PM
#28
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Commerce, mi, USA
Posts: 2,139
If you feel the new Camaro won't approach G8 weight levels, you're expecting a Camaro in the 3600-3700 pound range. So what's the big leap to 3500 for Mustang? Especially with the wide speculation that the '11 Mustang will be a more compact design (hint: you don't necessarily HAVE to make the interior vastly smaller to cut outer dimensions and heft).
It goes back to the point I made above, what a circus this thread is. For example - will the next Mustang have another live axle? What conditions will Ford be operating under in a couple years - will they be able to make a profit on a 2011 Mustang with some exotic materials? And so on. So no, I don't see how they get down to 3500 unless many or all of the conditions I laid out come true for the car - very, VERY unlikely.
03-14-2008, 07:49 PM
#29
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 619
03-14-2008, 09:00 PM
#30
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
Unless the next Mustang will equal a Smart for Two, ther's just no way in hell it'll be 200lbs lighter than today's model.......unless it cost as much as a Corvette, loses two seats and incorporates high priced, exotic materials....that and are four cylinder only.
So to even propose this as a premise is misguided at best....
Targets are as meaningless as pulling a number out of your @$$ without establishing parameters of materials, size, etc....
To me, a car that is 100x more solid, has many more features, gets twice the fuel mileage, last many times as long, doesn't ride like a log wagon or handle like one too, meets all current crash standards....than my 1969, 3,400+ lbs Camaro does, HAS to weigh more and puts this additional weight to good use.
There's no magic pill here people...you want a modern 2+2 car with al the bells and whistles? Then it's gonna weigh more than a 40 year old similar sized car...unless your a magician.....deal with it...or buy something else.
Me, I don't want to drive a Smart car...nor some other p*ss poorly design foriegn POS...
So to even propose this as a premise is misguided at best....
Targets are as meaningless as pulling a number out of your @$$ without establishing parameters of materials, size, etc....
To me, a car that is 100x more solid, has many more features, gets twice the fuel mileage, last many times as long, doesn't ride like a log wagon or handle like one too, meets all current crash standards....than my 1969, 3,400+ lbs Camaro does, HAS to weigh more and puts this additional weight to good use.
There's no magic pill here people...you want a modern 2+2 car with al the bells and whistles? Then it's gonna weigh more than a 40 year old similar sized car...unless your a magician.....deal with it...or buy something else.
Me, I don't want to drive a Smart car...nor some other p*ss poorly design foriegn POS...
Last edited by Z284ever; 03-14-2008 at 09:02 PM.
