2011 Mustang
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,977
From: SeVa
The '10 GT500 rendered the KRs to instant Lot Queen status. The only thing a KR has going for it now is that its an actual SA product (with the exception of the ALCOA wheels and the CF hood and other bits, the rest is just FRPP stuff you can buy and install way cheaper than what alot of these guys are asking). They've got one at my local dealer priced down to 68k from 80k. I guess from a collector standpoint they will be worth it at some point down the road, but currently other than being a KR, they are obsolete.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,000
From: TX Med Ctr
If we recall correctly, the 2010 prototype that was running near the M3 had Pirelli P Zero Corsa R-compound tires... which is original equipment on Lambos but probably won't be original equipment on a Mustang.
Otherwise, we will have to wait and see. What was the source for all this new info anyway?
Otherwise, we will have to wait and see. What was the source for all this new info anyway?
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
I'm always conscious of typing in American English because I know some American who takes issue with any of my comments will accuse me of not being able to spell correctly. Anyway, back on topic... I'm almost fed up with these weight threads. There is a snowflake's chance in hell that cars will get lighter. To start nitpicking on items like 'oversized' wheels just highlights the level of BS we've stooped down to.
Threads like these are invariably always about ONE particular person's (selfish) agenda to derail anything truly positive about the current Camaro. Yes, it pisses me off to read the same BS over and over... but time does not stand still. The Mustang will also, one day, enter the new century. It, too, will gain 20" wheels and additional weight.
Btw, 2011 Mustang can't come soon enough as I still have to put up with 2 more years of whining about weight issues...
Rant off!
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
A bit.
It's what happens to the engine in a frontal crash.
It should submarine downward towards the bottom of the passenger compartment.
The engine performs no function in crash resistance other than being factored in to what happens to it in a crash. It's the metal around it that's absorbing the crash.
Therefore, the material of the engine is irrelvent.
Aluminum will crush you just as well as iron.
It's what happens to the engine in a frontal crash.
It should submarine downward towards the bottom of the passenger compartment.
The engine performs no function in crash resistance other than being factored in to what happens to it in a crash. It's the metal around it that's absorbing the crash.
Therefore, the material of the engine is irrelvent.
Aluminum will crush you just as well as iron.
I guess the answer would be a 'Yes' to your comment. Therefore, why would they need to crash test the car if the engine construction changes? My bet is that the engine is also a structural member of the car!
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
You know, Charlie, I had a chance to speak to some friends of mine inside GM, and I hate to say it, but I hear that you will be disappointed with the size and weight of the Alpha Camaro too -- apparently, they enlarged Alpha (it's called Alpha Plus) in order to accommodate Camaro rather than shrinking Camaro to fit Alpha.
Hopefully it's early enough in the development stages that it was just a prototype with no such decision set in stone, but that's what I heard.
Hopefully it's early enough in the development stages that it was just a prototype with no such decision set in stone, but that's what I heard.
Charlie is putting a lot of faith into Alpha, but any improvements will come through sweat in the engineering department, lightweight materials, and perhaps design compromises like smaller wheels and tires.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,178
From: Payson, AZ USA
Well, how is this. Word from a very good source, is that the GT does not really gain any weight, as weight reductions offset any minor gain. The V6 Mustang loses weight, and the GT500 loses 200lbs.
Oh, and it is supposed to be available before summer of next year. In other words, 6-9 months from now. Pricing is supposed to stay pretty much the same, as the recent price increases took the new engines into consideration already.
Now, everyone can feel free to bash me for this info.
Oh, and it is supposed to be available before summer of next year. In other words, 6-9 months from now. Pricing is supposed to stay pretty much the same, as the recent price increases took the new engines into consideration already.
Now, everyone can feel free to bash me for this info.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
Well, how is this. Word from a very good source, is that the GT does not really gain any weight, as weight reductions offset any minor gain. The V6 Mustang loses weight, and the GT500 loses 200lbs.
Oh, and it is supposed to be available before summer of next year. In other words, 6-9 months from now. Pricing is supposed to stay pretty much the same, as the recent price increases took the new engines into consideration already.
Now, everyone can feel free to bash me for this info.
Oh, and it is supposed to be available before summer of next year. In other words, 6-9 months from now. Pricing is supposed to stay pretty much the same, as the recent price increases took the new engines into consideration already.
Now, everyone can feel free to bash me for this info.
The GT500's specs look great on paper. GM won't have a competitor until they decide to green-light the Z28.
Status quo.
But GM must have done something right with Camaro. Otherwise, it wouldn't be outselling Mustang. Like I keep saying, there's so many things to enjoy about Camaro that the weight and performance argument sometimes overrides logical thinking.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
OK getting back to the point on how BMW weighs their cars.
They don't take a base model. They take a car optioned up as the majority are sold. They then add in the weight of an average driver(i'll assume male) + a 90% full tank at 6lbs/gal + 10kg of stuff.
Let's assume that adds up to 250lbs.
3704(stated curb/unladen weight BMW style) - 250lbs = 3454
3454 + 200lbs(the weight Ford claimed the BMW was lighter by) = 3650!
They don't take a base model. They take a car optioned up as the majority are sold. They then add in the weight of an average driver(i'll assume male) + a 90% full tank at 6lbs/gal + 10kg of stuff.
Let's assume that adds up to 250lbs.
3704(stated curb/unladen weight BMW style) - 250lbs = 3454
3454 + 200lbs(the weight Ford claimed the BMW was lighter by) = 3650!
Trying to make sense of this 200 pound comment is as impossible as making sense of the Corvette power to weight comment.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
Well, how is this. Word from a very good source, is that the GT does not really gain any weight, as weight reductions offset any minor gain. The V6 Mustang loses weight, and the GT500 loses 200lbs.
Oh, and it is supposed to be available before summer of next year. In other words, 6-9 months from now. Pricing is supposed to stay pretty much the same, as the recent price increases took the new engines into consideration already.
Now, everyone can feel free to bash me for this info.
Oh, and it is supposed to be available before summer of next year. In other words, 6-9 months from now. Pricing is supposed to stay pretty much the same, as the recent price increases took the new engines into consideration already.
Now, everyone can feel free to bash me for this info.
If you're right, I may end up buying my first Ford, once initial demand is satisfied (July 2012?).
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,977
From: SeVa
Alot of that is new kid on the block along with pent up demand. Mustang and Challenger (to some extent) are the boring old stuff. Once the F5 has been out awhile and the competition gets its act together (ie; Ford and its new powertrains) well see. If GM can maintain or nearly the same sales pace over the long term then it will have a game changer.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,505
From: Charleston, WV
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
If you can fit a V8 into an Alpha ATS without modification, then the Alpha is too big.
Charlie is putting a lot of faith into Alpha, but any improvements will come through sweat in the engineering department, lightweight materials, and perhaps design compromises like smaller wheels and tires.
Charlie is putting a lot of faith into Alpha, but any improvements will come through sweat in the engineering department, lightweight materials, and perhaps design compromises like smaller wheels and tires.
Don't hate me for it though. I put alot of faith into the 5th gen too, but got a Monte Camarlo for my trouble.
Who knows, maybe I should save the energy and just buy a Boss Mustang or M3 - closest things to a Z/28.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
It's like, "no one else can build them that light either, short of going to a smaller engine or SRA or lots of Al, so lighten' up (poor word choice in this context, I know) a little!"
Though I have to concede 20" wheels and door sills at head level of my '98, and give you 100 pounds or so.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
Anyway, not much good reading there after the first post. It's turned into a bitch fight with lots of anti-Camaro overtones.
Anyway, 2012 is a long time away and lots can happen until then.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,698
From: USA
I would say let's worry about the Mustang when it starts outselling the Camaro handily again. As for reviewers complaints..opinions are like *******s..everyone has one. I can find just as many things to complain about in a Mustang than a Camaro.
