El Duce

I think the 22-55 crowd if there is such a segment. You get those guys and girls who happen to make it out college with a decent paying job, before they have families. It will also get those guys who want something sporty while the wife has the SUV/Minivan for the family. And you can get the empty nesters who don't make enough to get the Corvette or Porsche, but want to get out of that SUV/Minivan.

Just because someone is 30 doesn't mean they have a family, or even if they do, doesn't mean they want two family haulers in the driveway. The price gas will go up as well, so hitting the 30mpg mark will draw interest when it's splashed across the TV. Even more so when they start touting the ~5.5 0-60 time on it.

Bob Cosby

I was talking about the 2010 - guess I mistakenly thought you were talking about the same. If the 2011 V6 Mustang GAINS over 300 lbs (~3420 to ~3750 lbs), then that is an immense failure on Ford's part.

teal98

Actually, the 3750 is for the coupe and 4000 for the convertible. The heading was on the previous page. The M6/A6 heading only applied to fuel economy.

I didn't see that in the perf pkg release before. So we have conflicting information. Time will tell.

mdenz3

Track pack press release:
Fords 2011 Tech Specs:
54/46 isn't what I would consider "near-equal" either.

SSbaby

There's something confusing about the information being circulated... the wheels are listed as 18" as optional in the Technical Specifications link whereas the press release on the jalopnik site state that 19" are now optional.

SSbaby

Bob

(I know you don't care...) When the Mustang must meet stricter 2012 crash standards (which the Camaro already meets), what choice does Ford have in meeting those requirements?

teal98

You interpreted the columns just like Charlie did, but I'm pretty sure that the M6/A6 only applied to fuel economy, given the coloring and placement of the headings. Here's the full table, though cut&paste loses a lot of context from the PDF:


DIMENSIONS (inches unless otherwise noted)
Coupe Convertible
EXTERIOR
Wheelbase 107.1 107.1
Overall length 188.1 188.1
Overall width 73.9 73.9
Overall height 55.6 56.1
Track, front/rear 62.3/62.9 62.3/62.9
INTERIOR
Seating capacity 4 4
Front headroom 38.5 38.8
Front legroom 42.4 42.4
Front shoulder room 55.3 55.3
Front hip room 53.4 53.4
Rear headroom 34.7 36.5
Rear legroom 29.8 29.8
Rear shoulder room 51.6 45.0
Rear hip room 46.8 45.2
WEIGHTS AND CAPACITIES
SAE passenger volume 83.3 cu. ft. 81.0 cu. ft.
Cargo volume 13.4 cu. ft. 9.6 cu. ft.
Maximum towing capacity 1,000 lbs. 1,000 lbs.
(properly equipped)
FUEL ECONOMY (city/hwy) 6-speed automatic 6-speed manual
3.7-liter DOHC V-6 19/30 mpg estimated 18/29 mpg estimated
BASE CURB WEIGHT (POUNDS)
Manual transmission 3,750 estimated 4,000 estimated
Automatic transmission 3,750 estimated 4,000 estimated
Weight distribution (f/r) 54/46 estimated 54/46 estimated
Power-to-weight ratio TBD TBD
Manual transmission TBD TBD
Automatic transmission TBD TBD
Specifications subject to change.

teal98

Is it possible that the V6 Performance Package will weigh considerably less than the base V6? On the 2010 GT, it adds a few dozen pounds, but that doesn't necessarily mean it would on the 2011 V6.

Probably they're just being very conservative in the heavy direction in the preliminary spec.

Bob Cosby

No idea, and I really don't care as it pertains to the V6, because no matter how good it is, I would only be in the market for the V8. But I do care about what the weight of the chassis itself will weigh. In fact, if the rumored V8 really does have ~400 HP and holds the weight close to current, it will be tempting to me.

Will have to wait and see on the weight (no pun intended).

Gold_Rush

I don't believe the 3,750lb part. I think the actual figure will be closer to 3,500lbs. The car sounds pretty impressive. When will we get info on the GT??

jg95z28

Sorry. I was with my mom helping her look at crossovers. I barely got to spend any time looking at the Camaros!

I did however get into a discussion with a "Ford-guy" standing over the inferno orange 2SS/RS. BTW, thank you so much for bringing that car to the show. I now know what I want, exactly that car as configured... 2SS/RS L99 inferno orange inside and out, cyber gray stripes.

6SpdLT1Z

City, maybe. I've gotten 29 MPG in my Camaro before and I know multiple LT1 owners claiming as high as 31-34 MPG Highway.

90 Z28SS

And likely to not return either . Back in the day smaller 4cyl cars were for crap . Now though , with cars that are legit all around performance cars ....like the WRX , Mazdaspeed3 , Cobalt SS turbo , VW GTI and soon to be the wonderful Focus ST or RS ....and in reality used late model BMW 3 series , used 350Z/G37's , used Evo's and STI's . Thats a BIG list of very appealing affordable all around fun rides to own , and every one I listed has a healthy aftermarket with drivetrain and chassis . Younger buyers wont be flocking to the newest stang or camaros like they may have used to except for in the used car market . Times arent changing , they have already changed Buying a new Camaro/Trans Am used to be a no descision process for me ...Ive never wanted anything else , it literally blows my mind a Camaro no longer tops my list of cars Id buy for a daily driver .

I sure hope this V6 stang is not really 3750 lbs , wow .

muckz

Not if it's forced induction 4 cylinder.

Besides, Toyota is putting a N/A 4-cyl into their 4Runner

JoeliusZ28

thatd be me lol. Ive pulled off 33mpg on a 180 mile trip filled to overflow both times. That was when i had a stock engine with nothing but CAI and headers.