Mustang to adopt Evos styling
04-27-2012, 04:46 PM
#46
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Providence, RI, USA
Posts: 356
Re: Mustang to adopt Evos styling
I think it's safe to say that your '82 Corvette weighed at *least* 200 over 3000 when it rolled off the assembly line!
Road & Track's test car weighed 3425 lb! Even if that was with a full 24 gallon(!) tank, that would put it at ~3275 lb. empty.
Corvette's have hovered around 3200-3400 lb. since ~1968. The 80's C3s were a bit lighter-weight than the late-70s ones, but they weren't any 3000 lb...
Road & Track's test car weighed 3425 lb! Even if that was with a full 24 gallon(!) tank, that would put it at ~3275 lb. empty.
Corvette's have hovered around 3200-3400 lb. since ~1968. The 80's C3s were a bit lighter-weight than the late-70s ones, but they weren't any 3000 lb...
04-27-2012, 06:46 PM
#47
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Providence, RI, USA
Posts: 356
Re: Mustang to adopt Evos styling
People have this misconception that the chassis has to be seriously beefed up to "handle" additional power, when the major chassis loads are *road* loads.
Additional weight for the powerplant itself, trans, diff, brakes, cooling, those are pretty minor.
Instead of finding reason things can't be done, people need to be thinking this can be done we just might not know how, but someone does.
Last edited by Dan Baldwin; 04-29-2012 at 08:56 AM.
04-29-2012, 12:06 PM
#48
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,881
Re: Mustang to adopt Evos styling
My 3000lb talon didn't gain a pound when it went from 200 to 400hp.
Same for my camaro, my corvette, my trans am, my bronco and all my other cars that the HP doubled on.
They all handle just fine. The lightest two(vette and talon) handle the best for what it's worth.
Instead of finding reason things can't be done, people need to be thinking this can be done we just might not know how, but someone does.
Same for my camaro, my corvette, my trans am, my bronco and all my other cars that the HP doubled on.
They all handle just fine. The lightest two(vette and talon) handle the best for what it's worth.
Instead of finding reason things can't be done, people need to be thinking this can be done we just might not know how, but someone does.
And yes, many people know how to make the cars lighter. They will just be more expensive.
04-29-2012, 07:03 PM
#49
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Berkley, MI
Posts: 957
Re: Mustang to adopt Evos styling
My 85 Mustang 5.0 weighed a hair over 3200 pounds.
It had no power windows or mirrors.
No Navigation
.
No power seats, let alone heated versions.
The rear seat didn't fold down.
It didn't have leater interior (which weighs more than cloth).
It had just 5 speeds in it's manual transmission.
It's brakes were barely bigger than coffee saucers.
I could cover the tiny front brake calipers with my fist.
Anti lock?? Ha!
The sound insulation wasn't much thicker than a flannel shirt.
It didn't have a center console (it was optional in the LX).
It had zero airbags.
The rear axle weighed half as much as an IRS setup, but it was just a log attacked by springs, shocks, and 2 control arms. Something found on perhaps Fred Flintstone's car.
The doors were flimsy enough that if you got T-boned, you'd feel the texture of the grille of the vehicle that hit you.
If you hit something head on, the roof would buckle right above the steering wheel.
The Chassis was so flimsy, that if you modded your 210 or 225 hp engine to put out more than 300hp, it was reccomended that you add chassis braces to the midsection of the car.
Speaking of flexible bodies, if you were serious about handling, you needed a brace between the strut towers to make them stay the same distance from each other under all conditions.
Point to all this is... you're never going to see 3200 pounds in a V8 powered car ever again. Even a 4 cylinder BMW 328 (which at 181" is exactly the same size as a Chevrolet Cruze) weighs in at 3300 pounds to start (all things equal, RWD's drivetrain and rear end does add weight over a FWD car). Sure, even I'd like another car like my old 5.0 LX. But in the end, I'd have to admit the novelty would wear off in 2 days when I'd realize how much sacrifice it takes to get back to that weight.
The problem isn't that car makers simply added pounds for S&G. Our (car buyers) standards have gone through the roof. Performance has gone through the roof. As for Federal standards, if you look at the weight cars have gained through Fed mandates versus buyers demands and things needed to remain competitive, Fed mandates aren't even in the same ballpark as the mandate we have of power seats, 6 piston brembo brakes, 425hp engines, 6, 7, or even 8 speed transmissions, navigation systems, vault-like NVH, sophisticated IRS, and 20 disc CD changers with 10 speaker sound systems.
Sure, if you can make a iron block and head V8 Mustang weigh 3200 pounds in 1985, you can do it with aluminum engines today.
But who'd buy it?
From 1995 to 1998, Ford made the Mustang GTS. It was the spirit of the old 5.0 LX Mustangs. Low content. Many items deleted. It's best year it sold 6300 cars (compared to nearly 9,000 Cobras annually back then).
The unpleasant fact is that no one buying a new car really cares about weight. They care about comfort, features, how it drives, it's fuel economy, and to a very small, minute sliver, how fast is it compared to the competition (Mustang and Camaro core buyers are Chevy or Ford enthusiasts, so they are going to buy their car regardless as to how it stacks up against the competition). All the new car buyers who are actually aware of what their vehicle weighs would barely be enough to hold a good card game.
The number that care enough to go without modern comforts and performance would probably fit in a phone booth.
It had no power windows or mirrors.
No Navigation
.
No power seats, let alone heated versions.
The rear seat didn't fold down.
It didn't have leater interior (which weighs more than cloth).
It had just 5 speeds in it's manual transmission.
It's brakes were barely bigger than coffee saucers.
I could cover the tiny front brake calipers with my fist.
Anti lock?? Ha!
The sound insulation wasn't much thicker than a flannel shirt.
It didn't have a center console (it was optional in the LX).
It had zero airbags.
The rear axle weighed half as much as an IRS setup, but it was just a log attacked by springs, shocks, and 2 control arms. Something found on perhaps Fred Flintstone's car.
The doors were flimsy enough that if you got T-boned, you'd feel the texture of the grille of the vehicle that hit you.
If you hit something head on, the roof would buckle right above the steering wheel.
The Chassis was so flimsy, that if you modded your 210 or 225 hp engine to put out more than 300hp, it was reccomended that you add chassis braces to the midsection of the car.
Speaking of flexible bodies, if you were serious about handling, you needed a brace between the strut towers to make them stay the same distance from each other under all conditions.
Point to all this is... you're never going to see 3200 pounds in a V8 powered car ever again. Even a 4 cylinder BMW 328 (which at 181" is exactly the same size as a Chevrolet Cruze) weighs in at 3300 pounds to start (all things equal, RWD's drivetrain and rear end does add weight over a FWD car). Sure, even I'd like another car like my old 5.0 LX. But in the end, I'd have to admit the novelty would wear off in 2 days when I'd realize how much sacrifice it takes to get back to that weight.
The problem isn't that car makers simply added pounds for S&G. Our (car buyers) standards have gone through the roof. Performance has gone through the roof. As for Federal standards, if you look at the weight cars have gained through Fed mandates versus buyers demands and things needed to remain competitive, Fed mandates aren't even in the same ballpark as the mandate we have of power seats, 6 piston brembo brakes, 425hp engines, 6, 7, or even 8 speed transmissions, navigation systems, vault-like NVH, sophisticated IRS, and 20 disc CD changers with 10 speaker sound systems.
Sure, if you can make a iron block and head V8 Mustang weigh 3200 pounds in 1985, you can do it with aluminum engines today.
But who'd buy it?
From 1995 to 1998, Ford made the Mustang GTS. It was the spirit of the old 5.0 LX Mustangs. Low content. Many items deleted. It's best year it sold 6300 cars (compared to nearly 9,000 Cobras annually back then).
The unpleasant fact is that no one buying a new car really cares about weight. They care about comfort, features, how it drives, it's fuel economy, and to a very small, minute sliver, how fast is it compared to the competition (Mustang and Camaro core buyers are Chevy or Ford enthusiasts, so they are going to buy their car regardless as to how it stacks up against the competition). All the new car buyers who are actually aware of what their vehicle weighs would barely be enough to hold a good card game.
The number that care enough to go without modern comforts and performance would probably fit in a phone booth.
04-30-2012, 07:26 AM
#50
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Posts: 6,166
Re: Mustang to adopt Evos styling
I think that's probably the case IF we insist on continuing this horsepower trend, where 600 is no longer adequate and weights keep ballooning up to accomodate it. And yeah, it's silly to make the argument that doubling your car's HP in your garage is equivalent to what the factory has to do. Would Aaron be willing to sell his 400 HP Talon with a full warranty?
Not trying to make any excuses here, the point is that if we want lighter pony cars I think we also need to see a commitment to less powerful top trim motors.
Last edited by Z28Wilson; 04-30-2012 at 07:29 AM.
04-30-2012, 01:52 PM
#51
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: SeVa
Posts: 2,977
Re: Mustang to adopt Evos styling
Would have been nice to see two piece rotors all the way around (would have saved another 14 pounds or so) and perhaps a carbon fiber hood and roof panel to go along with that fancy carbon fiber driveshaft (which isn't in there entirely for weight reduction).
05-01-2012, 12:59 PM
#52
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
Re: Mustang to adopt Evos styling
Aaron and Dan... are you really comparing your aftermarket alterations to what has to come off of assembly line and actually has to sell to the general public, complete with warranties to buyers who are making the 2nd biggest purchase of their life behind a house?? 
In all the "lazy engineeres" and the claims of "they simply need the will to cut weight", two things always seems to be missing when these 2 positions are brought up:
1. A reason why engineers are adding on material costs by "purposely" adding on unnecessary weight?
2. A reason why engineers are sacrificing killing off fuel economy by "purposely" adding on weight?
When one tries to give the benefit of doubt to these arguments, and offers: "OK... show me how it's done.....give an example of any NEW modest priced volume car on the planet that hold 5 or even 4 people, has a front engine and rear independent rear suspension, and carries a V8 engine that is significantly lighter (than whichever supposedly overweight car we're talking about)"..... and that example never comes.
Sure, there's always someone who upped the power of their car with no weight penality. But they always seem unaware that they simply used up the structural strength margins that are engineered into every automobile for people who do just what they just did and other abuse (...would this person warranty their "upped power" vehicle for 6 years and 100K mies spend their own money fixing it if I ran it roughly and as hard as I could for those 6 years and 100K miles??? Didn't think so.)
Then there's the inevitable "Corvette" comparison. Never mind that the Corvette is a fiberglas 2 seat sports car built in a labor intensive way that works on an assembly line and a vehicle that sells 30K per year, but isn't practical on anything approaching 100K plus. Add to this the question "If the Corvette is the way to make lightweight, high volume, V8 powered cars, why hasn't GM jumped all over this... why wasn't the 5th gen Camaro simply based off of the Corvette?", and it becomes obvious that throwing Corvette into the debate is pointless. Anyone here really believe GM didn't look into it???
Even if you don't have inside info on the auto industry, you begin to realize that if it was simple, easy, or just took a little will to create a 3200 pound V8, IRS, RWD sports coupe or sedan, the world would be flooded with them by now.
It's far easier for someone to call a BMW 3 series a "pig" than to understand that BMW spares no expense in it's engineering, and of just about any automaker on the planet, isn't afraid to spend extra cash to lighten the weight of it's components if it can be made to do the same job. The Japaneese car makers have never been accused of not trying to improve the simplest thing.
The fact of the matter is that just because you added 1 hundred horsepower to your FWD/AWD Eagle Talon doesn't mean much when we're talking about things such as 800hp capable [b]RWD structures that have NVH characteristics Mercedes Benzs couldn't reach when your Talon was new.
No one has yet explained what the "well engineered" part of a "well engineered IRSweighs no more than a live axle" means. Every engineer I've spoken with and every scale I've seen the weight difference, and every comparable car with examples of each tells me otherwise. And as far as I can tell, they were all well engineered in that they didn't self destruct.
Weight isn't an issue of engineers, but it is an issue of will..... the buying public's will. That includes you.
What are you willing to give up to take off weight?
We can lose the Brembo brakes and go back to Fox Mustang's 9" discs, which will save at least 60#.Brembo Cross Drilled Sport Disc Brake Rotors Camaro SS Rear 2010-2012 - Lingenfelter Performance
We can forgo heated power seats, dial back to the Fox seats relative cheap ones and save at least 30 pounds there.
Between the navi system, power windows and mirrors, and the related wiring for all that, that's another 15.
Drop Superchargers and intercoolers and save another 100.
Drop the size and power of engines. The 5.0 Mustang held 11 quarts of coolant, while the Shelby hods 21. Between the smaller radiator, the smaller coolant packages, the smaller water pump, and almost half the weight of the liquid gone, I'm not going to do the math, but that's more weight saved.
The Tremec in the Camaro SS weighs 146 pounds. The T5 in the 5.0 Mustang weighed 75. That's another 70 pounds saved.
6-speed Manual Specifications (SS) - Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
T5 Transmission Rebuild - G-Force T5 - Modern Driveline - FordMuscle
There's weight added onto the current Mustang over the Fox simply in things like sandwiched steel and filler injected into places like the "A" pillar to cut NVH. Get rid of it and save 25-30 pounds.
That's over 300 pounds.
If you have more will to lose weight, dropping the IRS will save another 85 to 100 pounds minimum. If you really want to get serious, you can even drop that 80 pound air conditioning system.
The point is that there are 100s of things that add to a vehicle's weight that most people simply don't imagine. Sure, something may weigh a few pounds here and there. But combine it over a number of years and it adds up.
A pound of steel weighs just as much today as it did in 1985. The law still stands that if you want to make a material do more work, you're going to need more of that material. You want to jump from a 225hp, 300 lbs/ft 5.0 Mustang to a 426hp, 425 lbs/ft Camaro SS and add a gear, your transmission is going to almost double in weight.
If you want a lightweight, RWD, sports car that's close to 3000 pounds that has back seats and doesn't cost almost $50,000?
The new 4 cylinder Subaru BRZ.
In all the "lazy engineeres" and the claims of "they simply need the will to cut weight", two things always seems to be missing when these 2 positions are brought up:
1. A reason why engineers are adding on material costs by "purposely" adding on unnecessary weight?
2. A reason why engineers are sacrificing killing off fuel economy by "purposely" adding on weight?
When one tries to give the benefit of doubt to these arguments, and offers: "OK... show me how it's done.....give an example of any NEW modest priced volume car on the planet that hold 5 or even 4 people, has a front engine and rear independent rear suspension, and carries a V8 engine that is significantly lighter (than whichever supposedly overweight car we're talking about)"..... and that example never comes.
Sure, there's always someone who upped the power of their car with no weight penality. But they always seem unaware that they simply used up the structural strength margins that are engineered into every automobile for people who do just what they just did and other abuse (...would this person warranty their "upped power" vehicle for 6 years and 100K mies spend their own money fixing it if I ran it roughly and as hard as I could for those 6 years and 100K miles??? Didn't think so.)
Then there's the inevitable "Corvette" comparison. Never mind that the Corvette is a fiberglas 2 seat sports car built in a labor intensive way that works on an assembly line and a vehicle that sells 30K per year, but isn't practical on anything approaching 100K plus. Add to this the question "If the Corvette is the way to make lightweight, high volume, V8 powered cars, why hasn't GM jumped all over this... why wasn't the 5th gen Camaro simply based off of the Corvette?", and it becomes obvious that throwing Corvette into the debate is pointless. Anyone here really believe GM didn't look into it???
Even if you don't have inside info on the auto industry, you begin to realize that if it was simple, easy, or just took a little will to create a 3200 pound V8, IRS, RWD sports coupe or sedan, the world would be flooded with them by now.
It's far easier for someone to call a BMW 3 series a "pig" than to understand that BMW spares no expense in it's engineering, and of just about any automaker on the planet, isn't afraid to spend extra cash to lighten the weight of it's components if it can be made to do the same job. The Japaneese car makers have never been accused of not trying to improve the simplest thing.
The fact of the matter is that just because you added 1 hundred horsepower to your FWD/AWD Eagle Talon doesn't mean much when we're talking about things such as 800hp capable [b]RWD structures that have NVH characteristics Mercedes Benzs couldn't reach when your Talon was new.
No one has yet explained what the "well engineered" part of a "well engineered IRSweighs no more than a live axle" means. Every engineer I've spoken with and every scale I've seen the weight difference, and every comparable car with examples of each tells me otherwise. And as far as I can tell, they were all well engineered in that they didn't self destruct.
Weight isn't an issue of engineers, but it is an issue of will..... the buying public's will. That includes you.
What are you willing to give up to take off weight?
We can lose the Brembo brakes and go back to Fox Mustang's 9" discs, which will save at least 60#.Brembo Cross Drilled Sport Disc Brake Rotors Camaro SS Rear 2010-2012 - Lingenfelter Performance
We can forgo heated power seats, dial back to the Fox seats relative cheap ones and save at least 30 pounds there.
Between the navi system, power windows and mirrors, and the related wiring for all that, that's another 15.
Drop Superchargers and intercoolers and save another 100.
Drop the size and power of engines. The 5.0 Mustang held 11 quarts of coolant, while the Shelby hods 21. Between the smaller radiator, the smaller coolant packages, the smaller water pump, and almost half the weight of the liquid gone, I'm not going to do the math, but that's more weight saved.
The Tremec in the Camaro SS weighs 146 pounds. The T5 in the 5.0 Mustang weighed 75. That's another 70 pounds saved.
6-speed Manual Specifications (SS) - Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
T5 Transmission Rebuild - G-Force T5 - Modern Driveline - FordMuscle
There's weight added onto the current Mustang over the Fox simply in things like sandwiched steel and filler injected into places like the "A" pillar to cut NVH. Get rid of it and save 25-30 pounds.
That's over 300 pounds.
If you have more will to lose weight, dropping the IRS will save another 85 to 100 pounds minimum. If you really want to get serious, you can even drop that 80 pound air conditioning system.
The point is that there are 100s of things that add to a vehicle's weight that most people simply don't imagine. Sure, something may weigh a few pounds here and there. But combine it over a number of years and it adds up.
A pound of steel weighs just as much today as it did in 1985. The law still stands that if you want to make a material do more work, you're going to need more of that material. You want to jump from a 225hp, 300 lbs/ft 5.0 Mustang to a 426hp, 425 lbs/ft Camaro SS and add a gear, your transmission is going to almost double in weight.
If you want a lightweight, RWD, sports car that's close to 3000 pounds that has back seats and doesn't cost almost $50,000?
The new 4 cylinder Subaru BRZ.
05-01-2012, 01:08 PM
#53
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
Re: Mustang to adopt Evos styling
The GT500 has lost weight as its gained power, granted it wasn't a huge reduction in weight but it certainly bucked the trend.
Would have been nice to see two piece rotors all the way around (would have saved another 14 pounds or so) and perhaps a carbon fiber hood and roof panel to go along with that fancy carbon fiber driveshaft (which isn't in there entirely for weight reduction).
Would have been nice to see two piece rotors all the way around (would have saved another 14 pounds or so) and perhaps a carbon fiber hood and roof panel to go along with that fancy carbon fiber driveshaft (which isn't in there entirely for weight reduction).
A carbon fiber hood isn't practical as a weight saving move because the cost vs weight savings isn't worth it. On Corvette's massive hood it saves 11 pounds over the standard fiberglas , but has a replacement price of about $1500. Sure, you might see it soon, but on a hood the size of Mustang's, you'd likely save just 5 pounds for a grand, whereas the CF driveshaft actually does display some real, concrete benefits.
2 piece CF rotors are also expensive, and there's a reason you don't seem them much on anything costing 100K It cost about $8,000 in parts alone, and they are for quickly getting rid of heat moreso than weight savings.
Adding CF would give you a Ford Mustang that costs at least $9,000 more with relatively nill weight savings (24# total at best).
But at least, the brakes would be indestructable on a race course.
Just the same, it's also worth pointing out that this is the lightest weight, V8 powered, rear drive, independently rear suspended, regular production car on the planet, that took every single trick in the book to take weight off while handling the power output..... and it weighs less than grocery bag away from 3200 pounds.
That should tell us something.
One last thing to add here, this is an article talking about what was needed to mass produce CF for the Z06, and the whys that certain parts were chosen and other's weren't. I'm posting it because we all need to know that one simply can't throw Carbon Fiber on everything and expect it to be the miracle cure for weight. Due to cost versus benefit it's typically used where it can really count. Making the driveshaft withstand the massive torque of a 662hp engine without weighing as much as an engine, or twisting itself in half reall counts.
To determine whether a part is feasible, GM considers five factors in its Part Selection Process: cost per kilogram of mass saved; location on the vehicle; tooling cost; ability to meet or exceed all base vehicle requirements; and paintability at GM's Bowling Green Assembly Plant (Bowling Green, Ky.) without paint process modification. The location on the vehicle is critical to vehicle performance and forward locations are preferred. By reducing the weight at the front of the car, the center of gravity is moved further back, away from the engine mass. In addition, reducing the weight at the sides of the car decreases the energy needed to change vehicle direction, thereby reducing rolling moment (the tendency for the car to lean in the direction of the turn) through turns. The change in the center of gravity and reduced rolling moment enable the driver to comfortably maintain higher speeds through corners.
Last edited by guionM; 05-01-2012 at 02:00 PM.
05-01-2012, 01:11 PM
#54
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
Re: Mustang to adopt Evos styling
In all the "lazy engineeres" and the claims of "they simply need the will to cut weight", two things always seems to be missing when these 2 positions are brought up:
1. A reason why engineers are adding on material costs by "purposely" adding on unnecessary weight?
2. A reason why engineers are sacrificing killing off fuel economy by "purposely" adding on weight?
When one tries to give the benefit of doubt to these arguments, and offers: "OK... show me how it's done.....give an example of any NEW modest priced volume car on the planet that hold 5 or even 4 people, has a front engine and rear independent rear suspension, and carries a V8 engine that is significantly lighter (than whichever supposedly overweight car we're talking about)"..... and that example never comes.
Sure, there's always someone who upped the power of their car with no weight penality. But they always seem unaware that they simply used up the structural strength margins that are engineered into every automobile for people who do just what they just did and other abuse (...would this person warranty their "upped power" vehicle for 6 years and 100K mies spend their own money fixing it if I ran it roughly and as hard as I could for those 6 years and 100K miles??? Didn't think so.)
Then there's the inevitable "Corvette" comparison. Never mind that the Corvette is a fiberglas 2 seat sports car built in a labor intensive way that works on an assembly line and a vehicle that sells 30K per year, but isn't practical on anything approaching 100K plus. Add to this the question "If the Corvette is the way to make lightweight, high volume, V8 powered cars, why hasn't GM jumped all over this... why wasn't the 5th gen Camaro simply based off of the Corvette?", and it becomes obvious that throwing Corvette into the debate is pointless. Anyone here really believe GM didn't look into it???
Even if you don't have inside info on the auto industry, you begin to realize that if it was simple, easy, or just took a little will to create a 3200 pound V8, IRS, RWD sports coupe or sedan, the world would be flooded with them by now.
It's far easier for someone to call a BMW 3 series a "pig" than to understand that BMW spares no expense in it's engineering, and of just about any automaker on the planet, isn't afraid to spend extra cash to lighten the weight of it's components if it can be made to do the same job. The Japaneese car makers have never been accused of not trying to improve the simplest thing.
The fact of the matter is that just because you added 1 hundred horsepower to your FWD/AWD Eagle Talon doesn't mean much when we're talking about things such as 800hp capable RWD structures that have NVH characteristics Mercedes Benzs couldn't reach when, say, a recently up-powered Talon was new.
No one has yet explained what the "well engineered" part of a "well engineered IRSweighs no more than a live axle" means. Every engineer I've spoken with and every scale I've seen the weight difference, and every comparable car with examples of each tells me otherwise. And as far as I can tell, they were all well engineered in that they didn't self destruct.
Weight isn't an issue of engineers, but it is an issue of will..... the buying public's will. That includes you.
What are you willing to give up to take off weight?
We can lose the Brembo brakes and go back to Fox Mustang's 9" discs, which will save at least 60#.http://www.lingenfelter.com/mm5/merc...gory_Code=C374
We can forgo heated power seats, dial back to the Fox seats relative cheap ones and save at least 30 pounds there.
Between the navi system, power windows and mirrors, and the related wiring for all that, that's another 15.
Drop Superchargers and intercoolers and save another 100.
Drop the size and power of engines. The 5.0 Mustang held 11 quarts of coolant, while the Shelby hods 21. Between the smaller radiator, the smaller coolant packages, the smaller water pump, and almost half the weight of the liquid gone, I'm not going to do the math, but that's more weight saved.
The Tremec in the Camaro SS weighs 146 pounds. The T5 in the 5.0 Mustang weighed 75. That's another 70 pounds saved.
http://www.camaro5.com/forums/wiki.p...tions+%28SS%29
http://www.fordmuscle.com/archives/2...uild/index.php
There's weight added onto the current Mustang over the Fox simply in things like sandwiched steel and filler injected into places like the "A" pillar to cut NVH. Get rid of it and save 25-30 pounds.
That's over 300 pounds.
If you have more will to lose weight, dropping the IRS will save another 85 to 100 pounds minimum. If you really want to get serious, you can even drop that 80 pound air conditioning system.
The point is that there are 100s of things that add to a vehicle's weight that most people simply don't imagine. Sure, something may weigh a few pounds here and there. But combine it over a number of years and it adds up.
A pound of steel weighs just as much today as it did in 1985. The law still stands that if you want to make a material do more work, you're going to need more of that material. You want to jump from a 225hp, 300 lbs/ft 5.0 Mustang to a 426hp, 425 lbs/ft Camaro SS and add a gear, your transmission is going to almost double in weight.
If you want a lightweight, RWD, sports car that's close to 3000 pounds that has back seats and doesn't cost almost $50,000?
The new 4 cylinder Subaru BRZ.
1. A reason why engineers are adding on material costs by "purposely" adding on unnecessary weight?
2. A reason why engineers are sacrificing killing off fuel economy by "purposely" adding on weight?
When one tries to give the benefit of doubt to these arguments, and offers: "OK... show me how it's done.....give an example of any NEW modest priced volume car on the planet that hold 5 or even 4 people, has a front engine and rear independent rear suspension, and carries a V8 engine that is significantly lighter (than whichever supposedly overweight car we're talking about)"..... and that example never comes.
Sure, there's always someone who upped the power of their car with no weight penality. But they always seem unaware that they simply used up the structural strength margins that are engineered into every automobile for people who do just what they just did and other abuse (...would this person warranty their "upped power" vehicle for 6 years and 100K mies spend their own money fixing it if I ran it roughly and as hard as I could for those 6 years and 100K miles??? Didn't think so.)
Then there's the inevitable "Corvette" comparison. Never mind that the Corvette is a fiberglas 2 seat sports car built in a labor intensive way that works on an assembly line and a vehicle that sells 30K per year, but isn't practical on anything approaching 100K plus. Add to this the question "If the Corvette is the way to make lightweight, high volume, V8 powered cars, why hasn't GM jumped all over this... why wasn't the 5th gen Camaro simply based off of the Corvette?", and it becomes obvious that throwing Corvette into the debate is pointless. Anyone here really believe GM didn't look into it???
Even if you don't have inside info on the auto industry, you begin to realize that if it was simple, easy, or just took a little will to create a 3200 pound V8, IRS, RWD sports coupe or sedan, the world would be flooded with them by now.
It's far easier for someone to call a BMW 3 series a "pig" than to understand that BMW spares no expense in it's engineering, and of just about any automaker on the planet, isn't afraid to spend extra cash to lighten the weight of it's components if it can be made to do the same job. The Japaneese car makers have never been accused of not trying to improve the simplest thing.
The fact of the matter is that just because you added 1 hundred horsepower to your FWD/AWD Eagle Talon doesn't mean much when we're talking about things such as 800hp capable RWD structures that have NVH characteristics Mercedes Benzs couldn't reach when, say, a recently up-powered Talon was new.
No one has yet explained what the "well engineered" part of a "well engineered IRSweighs no more than a live axle" means. Every engineer I've spoken with and every scale I've seen the weight difference, and every comparable car with examples of each tells me otherwise. And as far as I can tell, they were all well engineered in that they didn't self destruct.
Weight isn't an issue of engineers, but it is an issue of will..... the buying public's will. That includes you.
What are you willing to give up to take off weight?
We can lose the Brembo brakes and go back to Fox Mustang's 9" discs, which will save at least 60#.http://www.lingenfelter.com/mm5/merc...gory_Code=C374
We can forgo heated power seats, dial back to the Fox seats relative cheap ones and save at least 30 pounds there.
Between the navi system, power windows and mirrors, and the related wiring for all that, that's another 15.
Drop Superchargers and intercoolers and save another 100.
Drop the size and power of engines. The 5.0 Mustang held 11 quarts of coolant, while the Shelby hods 21. Between the smaller radiator, the smaller coolant packages, the smaller water pump, and almost half the weight of the liquid gone, I'm not going to do the math, but that's more weight saved.
The Tremec in the Camaro SS weighs 146 pounds. The T5 in the 5.0 Mustang weighed 75. That's another 70 pounds saved.
http://www.camaro5.com/forums/wiki.p...tions+%28SS%29
http://www.fordmuscle.com/archives/2...uild/index.php
There's weight added onto the current Mustang over the Fox simply in things like sandwiched steel and filler injected into places like the "A" pillar to cut NVH. Get rid of it and save 25-30 pounds.
That's over 300 pounds.
If you have more will to lose weight, dropping the IRS will save another 85 to 100 pounds minimum. If you really want to get serious, you can even drop that 80 pound air conditioning system.
The point is that there are 100s of things that add to a vehicle's weight that most people simply don't imagine. Sure, something may weigh a few pounds here and there. But combine it over a number of years and it adds up.
A pound of steel weighs just as much today as it did in 1985. The law still stands that if you want to make a material do more work, you're going to need more of that material. You want to jump from a 225hp, 300 lbs/ft 5.0 Mustang to a 426hp, 425 lbs/ft Camaro SS and add a gear, your transmission is going to almost double in weight.
If you want a lightweight, RWD, sports car that's close to 3000 pounds that has back seats and doesn't cost almost $50,000?
The new 4 cylinder Subaru BRZ.
05-01-2012, 03:08 PM
#55
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Posts: 6,166
Re: Mustang to adopt Evos styling
Yeah, still curious about how they're going to do that.
05-01-2012, 04:53 PM
#56
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Providence, RI, USA
Posts: 356
Re: Mustang to adopt Evos styling
Contrary to the experience with the IRS Fox Cobra, IRS does NOT add 80+ lb. Most of the weight that IRS added to that car was due to the mounting structure which had to mate with hardpoints for the live axle. Design a car as IRS from the start, little if any weight penalty (and TREMENDOUSLY reduced unsprung mass).
The Camaro is grossly overweight because it is the two-door version of a 4200+ lb. massive sedan.
The Mustang is overweight, if less so, because it inherited some architecture from the LS (if not the same exact platform), a mid-sized luxury sedan.
As an aerospace structures engineer with experience in design/development of road vehicles, I can tell you that if you can keep a project under control weight-wise, you can save a significant amount of weight without negatively impacting functionality. But it has to be a priority, and *every*body has to be on board.
First order of business for the next-gen Camaro and Mustang should be to make them smaller than 2-door luxury sedans. Size begets weight. Current Mustang is BIG compared to the Fox, Camaro positively GIGANTIC compared to any previous version.
Downsizing by itself will help a lot.
Here's hoping Ford meets their target of 300 lb. weight reduction. We shall see...
The Camaro is grossly overweight because it is the two-door version of a 4200+ lb. massive sedan.
The Mustang is overweight, if less so, because it inherited some architecture from the LS (if not the same exact platform), a mid-sized luxury sedan.
As an aerospace structures engineer with experience in design/development of road vehicles, I can tell you that if you can keep a project under control weight-wise, you can save a significant amount of weight without negatively impacting functionality. But it has to be a priority, and *every*body has to be on board.
First order of business for the next-gen Camaro and Mustang should be to make them smaller than 2-door luxury sedans. Size begets weight. Current Mustang is BIG compared to the Fox, Camaro positively GIGANTIC compared to any previous version.
Downsizing by itself will help a lot.
Here's hoping Ford meets their target of 300 lb. weight reduction. We shall see...
05-01-2012, 06:54 PM
#57
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: TX Med Ctr
Posts: 4,000
Re: Mustang to adopt Evos styling
Basically you need a breakthrough in materials engineering, or simply a novel way to make carbon parts much more cheaply.
As opposed to simply putting on a hood or some other component, you would need to design the vehicle around an entirely carbon "frame." It would likely end up being a stressed monocoque or something else like that. If you do that then the weight can drop dramatically.
As opposed to simply putting on a hood or some other component, you would need to design the vehicle around an entirely carbon "frame." It would likely end up being a stressed monocoque or something else like that. If you do that then the weight can drop dramatically.
05-01-2012, 09:36 PM
#58
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: SeVa
Posts: 2,977
Re: Mustang to adopt Evos styling
(well seriously, it was incremental but it helped) and the funny thing about your 9k in added cost for 24 or 25 pounds, Mustang guys would have been okay with it in this instance, alot of these guys were thinking the 2013 would command a 22% premium over the outgoing model ( was about that price jump from the Cobra to the GT500 and they figured the 2013 GT500 was of the same magnitude) placing it right around 70k. And speaking of bringing carbon fiber to the masses, wasn't that something Lambroghini was looking at with its "forged" composites program ultimately as a way to bring down the cost of carbon fiber.
Personally I'm not convinced that carbon fiber is the way to go unless they can recycle the stuff at or near the same rate as steel bodies are today - Once carbon fiber makes the leap as an affordable material (if ever) I keep seeing auto grave yards filled with carbon fiber bodies left to rot like so many scrap tires.
05-02-2012, 02:39 AM
#59
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
Re: Mustang to adopt Evos styling
Contrary to the experience with the IRS Fox Cobra, IRS does NOT add 80+ lb. Most of the weight that IRS added to that car was due to the mounting structure which had to mate with hardpoints for the live axle. Design a car as IRS from the start, little if any weight penalty (and TREMENDOUSLY reduced unsprung mass).
The Camaro is grossly overweight because it is the two-door version of a 4200+ lb. massive sedan.
The Mustang is overweight, if less so, because it inherited some architecture from the LS (if not the same exact platform), a mid-sized luxury sedan.
As an aerospace structures engineer with experience in design/development of road vehicles, I can tell you that if you can keep a project under control weight-wise, you can save a significant amount of weight without negatively impacting functionality. But it has to be a priority, and *every*body has to be on board.
First order of business for the next-gen Camaro and Mustang should be to make them smaller than 2-door luxury sedans. Size begets weight. Current Mustang is BIG compared to the Fox, Camaro positively GIGANTIC compared to any previous version.
Downsizing by itself will help a lot.
Here's hoping Ford meets their target of 300 lb. weight reduction. We shall see...
The Camaro is grossly overweight because it is the two-door version of a 4200+ lb. massive sedan.
The Mustang is overweight, if less so, because it inherited some architecture from the LS (if not the same exact platform), a mid-sized luxury sedan.
As an aerospace structures engineer with experience in design/development of road vehicles, I can tell you that if you can keep a project under control weight-wise, you can save a significant amount of weight without negatively impacting functionality. But it has to be a priority, and *every*body has to be on board.
First order of business for the next-gen Camaro and Mustang should be to make them smaller than 2-door luxury sedans. Size begets weight. Current Mustang is BIG compared to the Fox, Camaro positively GIGANTIC compared to any previous version.
Downsizing by itself will help a lot.
Here's hoping Ford meets their target of 300 lb. weight reduction. We shall see...
First off, you don't simply bolt a differential and half axles of IRS directly to the underbody of a car. This is the same thing that another member couldn't get.
A solid axle is a self rigid piece. All you have to do is attach a couple of springs and shocks, a pair of relatively light control arms, and the thing is mounted.
Meanwhile, Independent Rear suspension had a differential, half axles, and hubs with at least 4 pairs of U-joints. These are not self supporting, so you NEED either a suspension cradle or a subframe to support the IRS package. The whole unit is then bolted to the chassis. That is how IRS is made on a unibody structure. You don't bolt a transmission to your floorpan or an engine to your firewall, do you? You bolt it to something that's then attached to the chassis (cradle, crossmember, or subframe). Same principle.
The only way to get around that is to put IRS on a body on frame chassis. That is how it's done on, say, a Corvette. In that case the differential and all the hardware that doesn't need to bounce around with the suspension can be mounted to the frame. Mount these things to the thin stamped steel of a unibody, and the damn thing is going to eventually rip out and leave a hole where you tried to bolt the thing. That's where the subframe comes in... it bolts on to the stronger parts of the rear chassis and spreads out the weight evenly.
As for the Mustang:
1. Mustang is NOT a DEW chassis. The 2002 4th gen Camaro is far and away more a 1970 Chevrolet Vega than the Mustang is a Lincoln LS.
2. The Lincoln LS wasn't a full sized chassis... nor was it even heavy (an '06 V8 LS weighed 3770... an '06 CTSv weighed 3850, and M45s that year were 3948).
3. That the "bigger" 2005 Mustang added only 100 pounds over the smaller 2004 model, despite growing to the size of the 4th gen Camaro (the '05 Mustang GT w/manual weighed 3518 while the same size '02 Z28 manual weighed 3554).
Going to the 5th gen Camaro:
1. The current Camaro SS weighs 3860.
2. The 2006 GTO weighed 3750 (and is 3" skinner and has smaller ligter rims, tires, & brakes).
3. The BMW M3 weighs 3706 (and is a foot shorter than Camaro)
4. The current Mustang GT weighs just 3605 (but it doesn't have IRS, and it's body structure isn't nearly as ridgid as Camaro's... it even gained weight due to the addition of thicker and sandwiched steel and NVH changes in 2008 which added about 100 pounds... no other changes were made, so you can clearly see track where the weight came from)
If there is any car you can come up with that proves Camaro is unduly heavy, feel free to name it, but it's very clear that for a structure that's designed to handle the abuse that Camaro can, at the price it's selling at, there isn't anything around that tops it without compromises. But the idea that somehow if you design a car for IRS from the start it won't be heavy is pure BS. Every manufacturer does this now. The result is that the old Cobra IRS looks pretty simply and pretty lightweight by today's standards.
FWIW, the BMW M5 is about the same size as a Camaro SS. It weighs 2 tons.
About Camaro and Mustang being based on somthing other than it's own chassis. Camaro and Mustang have always been based on other platforms. Mustang was based on Falcon and Camaro was based on Nova (though Camaro came out 1st).
Ford kept the theme going with Mustangs based on Pintos & Fairmonts before using DEW as a jump off point in creating a lower cost (and lighter weight) D2C which we currently have. Camaro went from Nova, to a larger Nova platform before switching to a larger Vega/Monza based platform for 20 years. the current one is based on the Zeta. And it's on Zeta for good reason.
As an aerospace engineer, I would imagine that the priorities in your job are many degrees different than an engineer in the automotive field. In your field, low weight is the number one priority. I understand why you are extremely obsessed with it and cost isn't that big of an issue and you think it's simply a matter of will or priority. However, in the automotive field, you aren't selling to big companies spending millions or even billions a pop. You're selling to everyday people who are making the 2nd biggest purchase of their life, and generally aren't spending too much more than 2 or 3 dozen grand. That means the item you are engineering must meet cost constraints in both engineering and materials so that person can buy that vehicle at a price they can afford with all the comfort, performance, and gizmos they demand. That means there's a cost versus benefit measurement that you simply don't have in the aerospace business.
Weight savings at any cost isn't on the plate when you're making a $30K automobile that carries a 100K mile warranty that has to stand up to daily abuse at the hands of mear mortals as it is in a $30 million aircraft that's going to be handled with kid gloves by professionals with years of training and experience and six digit incomes.
In your world, you can spend an extra 20 grand to lose a few pounds. Here in our level, if you want a ligher Camaro or Mustang, we have to talk about losing V8s in addition to shrinking sizes.
A Hyundai Genesis coupe with the V6 comes in at about 3300 pounds.
But then again, at that weight, you won't need much more than the Camaro's base V6 at 323hp to get performance like the current 426 SS.... so maybe that's actually good.
Last edited by guionM; 05-02-2012 at 05:27 AM.
05-02-2012, 05:21 AM
#60
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Providence, RI, USA
Posts: 356
Re: Mustang to adopt Evos styling
A solid axle is a self rigid piece.
All you have to do is attach a couple of springs and shocks, a pair of relatively light control arms, and the thing is mounted.
Meanwhile, Independent Rear suspension had a differential,
half axles,
[quote] and hubs[quote]What, no hub/bearings on the ends of a live axle? I certainly hope so...
with at least 4 pairs of U-joints.
These are not self supporting, so you NEED either a suspension cradle or a subframe to support the IRS package. The whole unit is then bolted to the chassis. That is how IRS is made on a unibody structure.
The underbody at the back of an IRS car looks TOTALLY different from what you see under a Fox Mustang. The unibody is mere inches or fractions of an inch from the hard points for control arm pivots and the differential, whereas in the Mustang there's a HUGE gap to the unibody, where the live axle needed a ton of space to dance all around. NO one would design an IRS car like that!
In many instances half of the pivot for control arm mounts is literally ON the unibody, with a bushing sandwiched in place with a practically weightless clamp.
Mount these things to the thin stamped steel of a unibody, and the damn thing is going to eventually rip out and leave a hole where you tried to bolt the thing. That's where the subframe comes in... it bolts on to the stronger parts of the rear chassis and spreads out the weight evenly.
1. Mustang is NOT a DEW chassis.
Wikipedia (I know...): The 2005 S197 Mustang was originally designed to use a "Lite" version of the DEW98 platform, but while that plan was eventually scrapped as too expensive, most D2C platform development completed prior to that decision was retained This led to the carryover of several DEW98 chassis components. These components include the floor pans, portions of the transmission tunnel, the front frame rails, and basic fuel tank design..
2. The Lincoln LS wasn't a full sized chassis, nor was it even heavy.
LS isn't overly heavy, but not really a lightweight, either. It is worth noting that despite being a 4-door Lincoln luxury sedan as opposed to a stripped-down coupe it only weighs ~150 lb more than the Mustang.
3. That the "bigger" 2005 Mustang added only 100 pounds over the smaller 2004 model,
Anyway, the '05 wouldn't have been heavier, could have been lighter, if it hadn't gotten so much bigger.
despite growing to the size of the 4th gen Camaro (the '05 Mustang GT w/manual weighed 3518 while the same size '02 Z28 manual weighed 3554... making claims that it's unusally heavy completely bogus).
Minor points, these, not really pertinent...
If you want to go to the 5th gen Camaro, we can go there as well.
1. The current Camaro SS weighs 3860.
1. The current Camaro SS weighs 3860.
2. The 2006 GTO weighed 3750 (and is 3" skinner and has smaller ligter rims, tires, & brakes).
3. The BMW M3 weighs 3706 (and is a foot shorter than Camaro)
4. The current Mustang GT weighs just 3605 (but it doesn't have IRS, and it's body structure isn't nearly as ridgid as Camaro's... it even gained weight due to the addition of thicker and sandwiched steel and NVH changes in 2008 which added about 100 pounds... no other changes were made, so you can clearly see track where the weight came from)
But the idea that somehow if you design a car for IRS from the start it won't be heavy is pure BS.
Every manufacturer does this now.
The result is that the old Cobra IRS looks pretty simply and pretty lightweight by today's standards.
FWIW, the BMW M5 is about the same size as a Camaro SS. It weighs 2 tons.
Final point. About Camaro and Mustang being based on somthing other than it's own chassis. Camaro and Mustang have always been based on other platforms. Mustang was based on Falcon and Camaro was based on Nova (though Camaro came out 1st).
It would be GREAT if someone would develop such a small, lightweight, rwd platform now. But nowadays "economy" => fwd, and any platform sharing to make a rwd "sporty" car is generally with a biggish, heavyish luxury car platform
Same thing happened to the 350Z/370Z :'(
If you want a smaller, ligher Camaro or Mustang, get ready to lose the V8.
A Hyundai Genesis coupe with the V6 comes in at about 3300 pounds.
But then again, at that weight, you won't need much more than the Camaro's base V6 at 323hp to get performance like the current 426 SS.... so maybe that's actually good.
Here's to the 6th gen! May it be at LEAST 400 lb. lighter, WITH a V8.
Last edited by Dan Baldwin; 05-02-2012 at 05:28 AM.
