what do 87-93 fox's weigh??

Status
Not open for further replies.
It seems like everyone had brought up some good points about how much a car weighs. vristang had mentioned trying new materials to build these cars with. It just seems to me like we are all beating out heads agains the wall. How can we not come up with a better more efficient way to power are transportation than an internal combustion engine? Isn't that 1900's technology? Stop and think about when it was invented and how much it has changed. IMO you are stuck on a topic of weight and how it makes a car better or worse, but in reality cars are so far behind what are current tech is we should be ashamed. Shouldn't we stop and think about the idea that no matter how much a car weights it's still the same basic platform that we used in the 1950's. We have just patched together fixes for things like saftey and handling when what they really need to do is use some imagination, think ouside the box and comepletely redesign the automobile. George Jetson here we come!! :p

I am with everyone on the idea that I would LOVE to have my car lighter. My car weights 3450 with the rear seat out, 1/4 thank of fuel, and me in it (150lbs). That is with light wheels and tires, Tubular k-member and 6 point bar and it's still 3450!! I know I would sure like to find a way to make it lighter. I know the faster it goes the happier I am :banana:
 
  • Sponsors (?)


kck6894 said:
How can we not come up with a better more efficient way to power are transportation than an internal combustion engine? Isn't that 1900's technology? :banana:

Very good point.:nice: So I guess Walla Walla is good for more than just Onions.

But it probably won't happen until the gov. pushes for it, and the hippy population doubles in size and can suddenly afford a new car.:jester:
 
I'll be writing in blue so it will look "perty"... :)

vristang said:
I will be writing in red as this could get confusing pretty quick.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vristang
Compare 2 identical cars...



Let's do:)


Quote:
Originally Posted by vristang
faster
Any car will be faster when weight is removed. Unless you do something stupid, like removing the control arms to cut weight.




That is generally true. Correct. Also remember that a faster car isn't necessarily the one that gets the quicker E.T.'s (control arms).

Let's not just talk about 1/4 mile racing. Faster in and out of a corner is harder to do in a heavier car. Just something else to consider.

Well since you had just highlighted "faster" I figured we were talking about straightline in this case because down the page we talk about "handling". So I figured I was right on topic :shrug:


Quote:
Originally Posted by vristang
handle better
Any car will handle better when weight is removed. Again, with the exception of removing the control arms.




Not necessarily. A certain amount of weight is needed to plant (previous post).

Again, let's not just look at drag racing. As weight increases, so does its inertia. Bottom line is the car is less responsive.

Well now we are in the "handling better" part which I was still on point with. I was talking about being planted around the corners. Not straightline. Just some confustion there. If your to light or aren't balanced well you will just "skip" off the track whether it be a race track or twisty scenic highway.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vristang
queiter
more weight can help, but my opinion is that this extra sound deadening should be an option for those who want it. More likely though the option would be removal of the sound deadening.




You think sound deadening should be an option...are you kidding me? You know 99% of the people that buy their cars aren't turning them into lightweight beast right? What about the poor woman with 4 kids that needs an economical vehicle but to save money elects not to get the option of sound deadening. That is just a crazy thought IMO. It isn't all about race cars...right?

As I stated it would be more likely to get the option to remove sound deadening (or maybe just some of it similar to the 93 Cobra R). And I don't think a woman with 4 kids is going to buy a Mustang anyway, so who cares?

But can a woman with 2 kids by a mustang? What about 3? This isn't China and the government hasn't put the number of kids one can have and enjoy on a leash, yet :p You might be surprised who buys one and who doesn't. I'm not going to stereotype so neither should any of us. You can't judge a market of a car by thinking all young teens are going to buy them. I've seen 16yr olds (of course) up to some in their 90's by these cars in question. Beleive me they want it quite. A very very limited amount of people would actually go for the "less deadening" sound deadner. Many people aren't out to save 20lbs. That's like taking out a 30pack of cokes (beer in somepeoples case/not mine). Not worth it during the entire use and life of the car.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vristang
More comfortable
I would argue that comfort does not need to be heavy. Comfort level is mostly determined by seat quality/ergonomics and a little suspension. Weight does not need to be a contradicting quality.




It comes with it's price. If we spend all this money on make lightweight comfort on titanium seat brackets or those of the like...it is going to hit us in the wallets. It is a balance act man...you know that. :nice: The comfort is also into the suspension. Of course we could go with titanium everything (for example) to lighten up parts but it isn't in the budget or market of the car in question and 99% of them either. Think about it...

You only bring up Ti. There are hundreds (maybe thousands) of composites that would be much better than steel. My point is that regardless of which material is used there are better options than steel. Steel is not necessarry for comfort. I will address the cost issue in another point.

Titanium was just an example. I didn't mean they need to use that. Just was trying to show a point. It cost money to R&D no matter what the new/lighter/stronger material is. That will hit the customer. It isn't as simple as why don't they lighten up the car? It simply isn't...


Quote:
Originally Posted by vristang
Brake better
Any car will brake better when weight is removed.




Sure, but it isn't that simple. The new cars brake setup overcomes their 2-300lb difference (which is like having a bigger passenger with you...whoopdy do :p ). It well overcomes it and can easily afford the extra "pig" weight.

Actually it is that simple. Simple Physics. No getting around it. Lighten up todays cars (with their better brake systems) and you will see an improvement in braking performance. Being able to afford the extra weight for the same braking ability does not concern me. My point is that less weight = better braking performance.

It isn't that simple to lighten up a car like that. You would have to lose something in the process in today's market. You twisted what I was saying. I never said a lighter car wouldn't be better but it isn't as simple as taking off weight. It will eventually hit the consumer. I've already discussed this.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vristang
Safety
A heavier vehicle does not mean a safer vehicle. More weight (consider an SUV) just provides different safety strengths and weaknesses. Race cars are much safer than what we drive, and the driver is safer at high speed, than we are at highway speeds.




I never said nor meant to say that. That wasn't the point. Newer cars are simply safter in a wreck with their technology. Driver/passenger/and side air bags have weight. Plus extra wreckage supports. It is a price I would like to pay both out of the wallet and in weight so I have a better chance of surviving the price of life. Don't you think :shrug:

There is a difference between a race car and daily driver. Comfort becomes a big factor in that. "It is a balancing act". No need to compare to different cars when you put above "Let's compare 2 identical cars." :)


The new technology that you are mentioning is really just unimaginative extensions of what had been done before. There have been no major changes to crush structures or supports in quite a while. They are all steel which is heavy for its strength (compared to composites), and does not provide as good of a ride down as CFRP can. I agree that continuous improvement to safety standards should be a goal. The problem I have is that most of todays improvements have been unimaginitive continuations of old technology.

Some of that is based on opinion. For those to use composites (that will cost money in R&D which will hit the consumer once again). For those to use CFRP can and make it "worldwide" and common it will hit the consumer once again. It just isn't as simple as slapping/using a newer/better product. If so we would be years ahead (literally) then what we are. The economy and growth don't work like that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vristang
My point is just that an increase in weight is not necessarry to improve in any of these categories, with the possible exception of "quieter".



So who is going to pay for the R&D in acheiving that point of equilibrium between the two (business/customer). If you can tell me who is...then you "win". I think you'll have a little trouble with this one. One of them is going to have to pocket the price. Either way it will effect either one of them. You can't deny or get around that for sure.

I don't need to deny or get around this at all. The R&D has already been done. I worked on a crash safety vehicle last year that was fabricated from CFRP. Only a little steel tubing for the suspension. This car was built at a university; designed by 2 professors and built by a rag-tag team of students. This was done without the help of the auto manufacturers, just cumulative knowledge from the university.
My point is that there has not been a decision to move to the more advanced materials and manufacturing processes. Make a full scale move, and the increase in cost would not be near as much as you make it out to be.
In case my materials knowledge is in question, I test structural materials for Aerospace applications.

I haven't made it out to be anything drastic. Just pointing out the fact that it will cost more. That will hit the consumer (boy that is redundent) and hurt the new vehicles coming out. Very simple. Your example is nice but it just that, one example. It doesn't express the auto industry as a whole or possibly not even partially.




Quote:
Originally Posted by vristang
In my opinion there is too much of an emphasis on cost to build, and not enough emphasis on developing new production methods. Building cars almost exclusively from steel is a little outdated. Even crush structures can be made from polymers now. For example Carbon fiber honeycomb actually provides better ride down characteristics than steel, and is much better than Al.

I'm sure it does...but to mass produce and put it willingly on the market will cost extra money and we, by now, know who that will hit. us...and we will complain again. The never ending water cycle hits again.


Well developing new production methods cost money as well...so who do you think is going to get hit. Us at the bottom of the economical food chain. Yes, that is us again. We keep complaining about why they don't do this and that...but if they do, do "this and that" we will complain anyways because it will hit our wallets in one way or another. Very simple.

Carbonfiber R&D will cost more. So and yet it hits our wallets again. We will complain and the cycle will continue between old school and new school. :shrug:

CFRP R&D has been going on for a long time. The material costs involved (for automotive grade CFRP) are not too far from those of high quality fiberglass.

Possible but it still cost more and effects us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vristang
Of course, that's just my opinion...I could be wrong.




Could be...

Could be...

I hope you don't take personal offense to any of this, as I am just enjoying the discussion.

Wow, that ate up my entire lunch break.
jason
__________________

Absolutely not...this is stangnet.

The entire point that I am trying to make is that the new cars aren't "pigs" or overweight because look at all the extras we get for the little con we get. Do you want to be 200-300lbs lighter (how much does that really effect performance...come on... :shrug: ) or brake better/ride better/handle better/faster/more comfortable/extra things like stereo upgrades/etc...etc...etc. Yeah I'll take the latter at the price given :nice:
 
87MustangGT5.0 said:
So between the lx convertible and the GT hatch, which one is lighter?

I'd be willing to be the vert weighs just a bit more with all other variables being the same. The only real weight difference on a gt over an lx is the foglight assembly. The ground effects are super light.

They both are pretty light really.
 
Another update to the 05 weight thread. Here is the second entry:

"'05, GT, full options. 1/2 tank of gas, with 160 pound driver in seat.

Overall 3650
Front 1950
Rear 1700
Left 1900
Right 1750"

That would be known as yet another 05 gt in the 3,4xx lb range. I thought these things were 3,600-3,700lbs on average:D I just had to prove a point. Wow I want a newer one even worse:nice:
 
93 coupe

i have a 93 coupe that had the two front seats changed out to the race type seat .it had a c4 and a single t76 turbo that blown thur a carb it was a 302 with alu heads . i could not get the car to run good. i took it to the trck and it was 2540 with out me and 2740 with me. the car made to good passes and that was it the motor blue up. im building a bbf 547 for the car its going to run in true 10.5 but the car has to be 3200 so i may have to add back to the car
 
Another update to the 05 weight thread. Here is the second entry:

"'05, GT, full options. 1/2 tank of gas, with 160 pound driver in seat.

Overall 3650
Front 1950
Rear 1700
Left 1900
Right 1750"

That would be known as yet another 05 gt in the 3,4xx lb range. I thought these things were 3,600-3,700lbs on average:D I just had to prove a point. Wow I want a newer one even worse:nice:

So if the oldschool gt500 and the new gt500 came out at the same time with the same options which would you take? Assuming all other factors except bodystyle and weight are negligible
 
5 sp gt There are some pretty basic flaws in your logic
1. weight is the enemy of all things, braking, handling, acceleration, and chassis flex

2. weight does NOT plant a car if so a top fuel dragster would never move becuase it weights next to nothing and has 8,000 hp

3. Mechanical Grip(grip created by suspension and areodynamics of a car) throught out a corner, and in a straight line are based on weight transfer, not

weight in general. The correct suspension in both cases
transfers the weight were it needs to be with varying degrees of effectiveness. In

a corner the suspension LIMITS weight transfer, cornering forces throw the car and its weight in the opposite direction of the turn, obviously this is counter

productive so the right supension limits this transfer of weight, and the less weight the more effective the car will turn. This is why weight bias is so important

50/50 is perfect becuase the cornering exerts the same force on both ends the car, weight is important in a relationship front to back, not overall. the heavy

front end will create more transfer more grip and a loose condition. a condition that is made worse by a mustangs already bad suspension, a straight axel just

dosen't work as well as irs.

4. Physical grip( simply put the black sticky part) TIRES TIRES TIRES TIRES!!!!! the only part of the car that touces the road making them way more important than

they ever get credit for. A tires has a given amount of traction in perfect conditions lets use a number say 100 to make it simple. So if the traction value of

a given tire is 100. Weight, suspension, road surface, tempature, speed of the car and weight transfer, use of the brake and throttle, all take a piece of that

traction away and when it zero's out you hit something. So to simplify each pound of weight you lose is less inertia that is placed on the car, and a smaller

number taken from the traction of the tire allowing for better grip of the road, or the same grip at higher speed.

Of course this does not take into account compromises car companies make to make cars safe, comfy, and legal so ford may have reasons or excuses why the

new gt is a pig, the simple fact is weight is the enemy, a stock 93 notch and a stock 93 hatch all things being the same the notch wins in every type of racing

event. The only time the hatch would win is if you pushed them out of a plane at 30,000 feet the hatch would hit first. So weight is bad, and big cars with bad

suspension are not fun to drive. which is why i bought a Rx-8 and not a new mustang, which weight just a shade over 3,000 pounds and handles better than

any mustang ever built by ford, including my fox which has thousands or dollars in upgrades, and still handles poorly becuase it is a 3,500 pound car with a live axel
 
1.8kmint - I would take the new version.

bryce - I am not about to debate further a thread that is 2.5 years old:)

85hatchgt - That is Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR). That is not anywhere near actual weight.

The 05+ cars weigh 34-3500 lbs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.