Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion Automotive news and discussion about upcoming vehicles

2011 Mustang

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Sep 1, 2009 | 10:20 PM
  #16  
JakeRobb's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,507
From: Okemos, MI
Originally Posted by 81Z28355
This should also drop 100lbs off the front of the GT500.
Based on a quick Google search, it appears that an aluminum LS1 block is only 16 pounds lighter than an iron LT1 block (107 vs 91). Where are you getting the other 84 pounds?
Old Sep 1, 2009 | 10:35 PM
  #17  
BigBlueCruiser's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 574
From: Richmond, TX
Actually, confusing as it may be, by European standards kerbweight and unladen weight are interchangeable depending upon who you ask. At BMW, unladen weight includes the driver, luggage, and fuel. Check it out....look for the reference at the bottom that explains unladen weight according to BMW.

http://www.bmw.com/com/en/newvehicle..._datasheet.pdf
from a knowledgable sounding fella on a stang site.

So BMW's 3700lb M3 apparently includes a mid sized driver, 7kg of stuff and a 90% full gas tank.

Welp apparently the link he referenced doesn't work. So just google "bmw unladen weight explained"

Last edited by BigBlueCruiser; Sep 1, 2009 at 10:38 PM.
Old Sep 1, 2009 | 10:41 PM
  #18  
formula79's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,698
From: USA
The only number that matters is sales.

Mustangs performed no where near as well as the Camaro for years and still cleaned GM's clock in sales.

Originally Posted by Z284ever
Frankly, I just don't know where Camaro goes from here.

With a 100 horsepower advantage, Brembos and IRS for Camaro, Mustang still wins most comparos. Next year, the hp gap closes and Mustang also gets Brembos. The year after, Mustang (Boss?) gets GDI, 30-ish more HP and an available IRS.

BTW, a 3450 pound base Mustang with a 315 hp V6 sounds sweet too.

We need Alpha now!
Old Sep 1, 2009 | 10:45 PM
  #19  
SSbaby's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
Originally Posted by JakeRobb
Based on a quick Google search, it appears that an aluminum LS1 block is only 16 pounds lighter than an iron LT1 block (107 vs 91). Where are you getting the other 84 pounds?
I also believe there's 100 pounds in it... based on my previous findings. Apparently the Coyote block is aluminum and the heads are narrower.

Of course, aluminum blocks are also prized for their reduced weight. A stock LS1 aluminum block barely registers at 110 pounds, while iron blocks push that figure to a more robust 175 pounds. The incentive to side with iron is increased strength, more bore size options, and a budget price. Even as thin-wall castings, all iron blocks can be bored 0.030 inch to help boost the displacement. If you want to really step up in durability, the GM Performance Parts LSX iron block is among the sturdiest, as revealed in its bare casting weight of a rugged 225 pounds or about 50 pounds heavier than a production iron block.

http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles...nes/index.html
Old Sep 1, 2009 | 10:45 PM
  #20  
JakeRobb's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,507
From: Okemos, MI
Originally Posted by BigBlueCruiser
Welp apparently the link he referenced doesn't work. So just google "bmw unladen weight explained"
That's because you highlighted and copied the text of the link, instead of right-clicking the link and copying the link location. The exact menu item you need to choose varies depending on what browser you're using, but suffice it to say that if you get it right, it won't have "..." in the middle.

Most manufacturers give curb weight as a car with no driver, passengers, or cargo, and all fluids full. I don't know why BMW would do it differently.
Old Sep 1, 2009 | 10:49 PM
  #21  
SSbaby's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
Originally Posted by JakeRobb
Most manufacturers give curb weight as a car with no driver, passengers, or cargo, and all fluids full. I don't know why BMW would do it differently.
I also believe it's a red herring...
Old Sep 1, 2009 | 10:51 PM
  #22  
bossco's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,977
From: SeVa
Originally Posted by JakeRobb
Based on a quick Google search, it appears that an aluminum LS1 block is only 16 pounds lighter than an iron LT1 block (107 vs 91). Where are you getting the other 84 pounds?
The GT500 uses Fords 5.4 CI NVH block which weighs 200 lbs (pg 108 FRPP Catalog), the Ford GT(40) AL block weighs 110 pounds (pg 87 FRPP Catalog)

Eye popping fact! the shipping weight for a dressed CI 5.4 DOHC S/C engine is 837 lbs.

The wet sump version of the GT(40) block is the most likely version to be used in the '11 GT500.

Last edited by bossco; Sep 1, 2009 at 10:54 PM.
Old Sep 1, 2009 | 11:03 PM
  #23  
95redLT1's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,505
From: Charleston, WV
When he said 200 pounds lighter...maybe they were referring to the Mustang being lighter than the M3?
Old Sep 2, 2009 | 12:47 AM
  #24  
flowmotion's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,502
Originally Posted by JakeRobb
Most manufacturers give curb weight as a car with no driver, passengers, or cargo, and all fluids full. I don't know why BMW would do it differently.
Including a driver & suitcase is a German standard, supposedly. (I'm sure it's come up here before in one of the many weight threads.)
Old Sep 2, 2009 | 01:50 AM
  #25  
94LightningGal's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,178
From: Payson, AZ USA
Hmmmm............. they forgot about one of the upcoming "fun" models. It involves the engine that they said there was no need for (because they did not use the correct version of said engine).

Now, what Shelby model is missing............... currently?? We have the power brute GT500............... so, what about the more road racing brethen??
Old Sep 2, 2009 | 05:58 AM
  #26  
super83Z's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,214
From: City of Champions, MA, USA
Originally Posted by 95redLT1
When he said 200 pounds lighter...maybe they were referring to the Mustang being lighter than the M3?
I have read the statement 10 times and the way its worded and punctuated I read it like the M3 is the lighter car.

The Mustang is going to gain weight, the question is how much?

Last edited by super83Z; Sep 2, 2009 at 06:01 AM.
Old Sep 2, 2009 | 06:32 AM
  #27  
SSbaby's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
Originally Posted by super83Z
I have read the statement 10 times and the way its worded and punctuated I read it like the M3 is the lighter car.

The Mustang is going to gain weight, the question is how much?
My thinking is...

If the Mustang must be crash tested AND the new alloy donk has less crash resistance than the Modular donk, then there must be some structural reinforcement in the body to compensate for the lost strength from the new engine.

I could be way off beam though...
Old Sep 2, 2009 | 06:50 AM
  #28  
JakeRobb's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,507
From: Okemos, MI
Originally Posted by SSbaby
the new alloy donk has less crash resistance than the Modular donk
Does "donk" mean engine in Australia?

Here, a donk is a modified car along the lines of this one:
Name:  donk.jpg
Views: 13
Size:  84.1 KB
Old Sep 2, 2009 | 06:55 AM
  #29  
SSbaby's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
Originally Posted by JakeRobb
Does "donk" mean engine in Australia?
Yes, I meant engine.

Sorry, I try to Americanize my English at every opportunity... though I didn't know the term 'donk' was uniquely colloquially Australian.
Old Sep 2, 2009 | 07:05 AM
  #30  
JakeRobb's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,507
From: Okemos, MI
Originally Posted by SSbaby
Yes, I meant engine.

Sorry, I try to Americanize my English at every opportunity... though I didn't know the term 'donk' was uniquely colloquially Australian.
No apologies needed. I, for one, enjoy learning about the different colloquialisms.

In Australia, it would normally have been spelled "Americanise," correct?



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:43 AM.