ProudPony

OK - to my shagrin, I feel the need to post this little blurb about weights.

Allow me to expound on my beloved Muskrats because I know them intimately and don't have to search for many figures.

When the Mustang was conceived by the Fairlane Comittee in 1963, Iacocca gave the mandate that the car was to be brought to market at the rate of $1/pound. THAT was the metric set for budgets and design.
* The 1964 Mustang came to the market in base coupe form at 2480lbs, and $2450 MSRP.
* We all know they added about 100lbs when the 1967/68 bodystyle came out.
* Then the 1969/70 cars came along with yet more weight and size to accomodate the big-block engines and trannys that were offered. The 1969 base Mustang came in at 2690 lbs and started at $2618 MSRP. (Just FYI... it went up to 3210 lbs and busted $5k for the Shelby 500 or Boss-9 cars).
* The 1971-73 Mustangs (biggest ever) still came in at 2907 lbs and started at $2911 MSRP for the I6 coupes. (A loaded 429-SCJ Mach 1 was about 3261 lbs and busted $4200 in the wallet.)

Then came the Mustang II...
It debuted at a svelte 2620 lbs (coupe) and MSRP went to $3134 - the first time the original 1:1 ratio was really broken.
The Mach 1 for '74 was 2778 lbs and MSRP was $3674.

When it died in 1978, the M-II was still pretty much the same, at 2610 lbs and $3824 for the base coupe, and the Mach/Cobra cars coming in at 2735 lbs and $4809 for the V8 cars (add $1277 for King Cobra option).

Fox body cars started at 2530 lbs in 1979 and MSRP was about $4494 for the base coupe! Twice in a row that new models went DOWN in weight and up in price. THIS was the lightest coupe outside of the introduction models. When the run ended in 1993, they were still at 2754 lbs and MSRP was $8043 for the base coupe. (5.0 LX was at 3115 lbs and cost $13,296 for the 5.0 coupe, GT was 3294 lbs and cost $15,747, GT Vert was the dog, weighing 3350 lbs and costing $20,848).
What this shows us is CLEARLY how the addition of safety equipment and features added to the weight and price of the cars - because from 1979 through 1993, the Fox was just that - esentially an unchanged platform that only had reskins and suspension tweeks. Yet we see an 224 lbs added to the base coupe (even though they are both 2.3L I4s with manual trannys), and an incredible $3549 increase in MSRP - almost DOUBLE the 1979 price for the same basic car on a 14-y/o platform.
So why all the price and 224 lbs of weight on basically the same car?
Airbags. Smart belts. Anti-Lock brakes. You know... all the "gadgets".

This gets us to where Bob's 88 5.0 was. I estimate he was at about 3000-3100 in race trim, wet, and who knows the HP number. It made for a fun ride though, I'm sure.

For one of the best thrill rides in a Mustang, the ugly red-headed step child is tough to beat. My preference is a '76-78 fastback M-II, with a "massaged" 302 (or 347 if we must be honest) up front. It's tough to beat 2700 lbs with 400-500 horses under the hood, and that's a car that's NOT EVEN STRIPPED YET!!! Likewise, no shock towers makes plenty of room in the engine bay, battery already at the rear (firewall), and upper/lower control arms with adjustable shocks beat the pants off a MacPherson system in a small car when it comes to handling. I rather enjoy marrying the no-nonsense vehicles of yester-year with the new engine technology of today.


And today we're talking about 4000 lb cars with 180-190hp?

Bob Cosby

Ehh....when bone stock, right around 3000 w/o me. My car (a coupe) still had all the original seats and sound deadner, but back then, one could still order (or not) individual options, so I ordered mine without AC. Loved it!

muckz

I am talking about VTEC 4-cylinder, since the current gen also uses VTEC. I was off on the HP, it was 145 not 150. With intake, and exhaust, these cars were running 15.2 - 15.4 second quater miles at the time my Z28 ran 14.4 at the track.

Obviously it was a smaller and lighter car. Hence why I posted earlier, saying that at some point, the 4-cylinder powerplant will become inadequate. 3600 lbs just doesn't sound right no matter how you look at it.

HAZ-Matt

I just posted my example of the Preludes bc I didn't think the Accords were as fast

Eric Bryant

I wouldn't have called it a 15-second car, but the '96 I4/M5 Accord that we had for a fleet car was definitely no slouch. That was a damn fine compact-ish (by today's standards) sedan - it was quick, handled well, and pulled down good economy numbers. It's amazing what 145 HP can do when not saddled by excessive weight.

BigDarknFast

Um, nope. The two you compared are disjoint since the most closely comparable 2007 Malibu, an LT, is several thousands of $$ cheaper than an EX-V6 2007 Accord sedan. So an intelligent buyer cross-shopping the two would likely spring for the Malibu SS, (at about the same edmunds.com street price as the EX-V6 Accord) with its 3.9L 240/240 hp/tq V6. (Honda HAS NO higher V6 than their wimpy 3.0 ). Or, a buyer not hypnotized by import-hype could check into a 2007 Saturn Aura XR for the same price as the almighty Accord, where the XR's 3.6L V6 has 252/251 hp/tq.

Give me a break. The US of A has been schooling Japan Inc. for DECADES on how to get serious power out of the V6. Familiar with this car?



Or maybe this one?



Japan Inc. has learned V6 performance optimization magnificently... but let's not forget who taught the classes

Todd80Z28

LMAO- you picked two forced induction models to compare V6s? WEAK!

Eric Bryant

The 3.5L in the Acura RL makes 290 HP and 256 lb-ft of torque, while the 3.7L in the Acura MDX makes 300 HP and 275 lb-ft of torque. Hint: both are Honda engines. Or, for that matter, there's the 3.2L in the Acura NSX, which has been making 290 HP since 1997.

Picking on Honda's ability to build a V6 is about as dumb as doubting GM's ability to build a V8. Now, if you want to speak of GM's ability to lead the technology curve, bring up some Quad 4 history - that was amazing in its time.

BigDarknFast

Eh? Honda had the option to offer a power adder. They (and their 'Jennifer' customers) however simply did not care about serious power and torque until recently.

BigDarknFast

Well congratulations Acura! ( ). You managed to fit a $46k, 4014 lb sedan with a 290/256 hp tq V6! Gads. If I'm putting down that kind of $$ on a new sedan, I can get a new CTS-V, with 400/395 hp/tq and lay utter waste to the bloated RL. Don't even get me STARTED on how long Japan Inc has lacked a simple pushrod V8 in the same league as the incredible value provided by the LS1/2/6.

Honda's been making fine engines for a long time. They are extremely reliable and fuel-efficient. But until recently, only exotic expensive Acura variants of their V6 had American-style torque. Not that 'Jennifer' would care

OBTW here's an article about 'Jennifer' and her cute 110 ft-lb Honda civic

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/w...c/01civic.html

Threxx

So the original point of this thread is that the Accord is getting porky.

I maintain my point that per size, the Accord is staying right on target, if not better than par. It just happens that the Accord keeps getting bigger. If you want an 1990 Accord sized vehicle today, you should go look at a Civic... and guess what the civic has pretty close to in common with the 1990 Accord? Weight!

91_z28_4me

I think the question on my mind about all this is: When will it be enough? When will cars stop growing and stick to their segment instead of inching up each remodel?

I know Holden said it will be lightening/stopping gainage for the Commodore but has any other manufacturer even commented on this or shown that this is something they plan to address?

teal98

Or perhaps that the complaints are the same all over.

flowmotion

True. But the Accord built its reputation by always being a notch smaller, lighter, more fuel effienct and more sporty than other midsized cars. I can understand why they are Camry-sizing it, because that's where the market is, but they are getting away from the original formula.

Oddball

I drive a 2001 Accord EX-V6 we purchased new when our son was an infant and my wife went back to work. Since then we had twins. She got a minivan and I inherited the Accord. The sole reason I am looking for a non-Accord when this one dies is that I need the big rear seat that my Accord doesn't have. My three boys are literally in each other's lap when I have to take them to school.

Maybe Honda is realizing the same people who are turning away from SUV's need the larger car. They do not have anything to compete with Charger.