Mustangs................

[DeathChill]

It's weird, it's like you guys want to have sex with your cars...most of you. This scares me.

[a_Username]

I would if my dick could fill up the exhaust.

[BaylorCamaro]

Originally Posted by DeathChill

It's weird, it's like you guys want to have sex with your cars...most of you. This scares me.

Made my night.

[len56]

just an innocent stang

[syr74]

Originally Posted by a_Username

I believe that you're naive to think that the mustang will not gain any weight whatsoever, and you even go as far to think it would lose weight? Since it will be built on the same platform as the 2010's, and you add extra power, it would only be logical to assume that it would at least gain a little weight.

The problem I have here is that your argument is just too generic. Why is that extra power going to necessitate a weight increase? Let's start with the V6 model.

First, we'll deal with the chassis. Across the lineup the current Mustang chassis is the same piece no matter the car, which means that the same unibody that handles 510lb-ft of torque in the GT500 is the same chassis you get when you buy a base V6 model. Obviously, the chassis wont need upgrades for the new V6 or even the 5.0L powered GT as it is already sufficient to handle a 540hp, 510lb-ft of torque monster.

If we throw suspension into the mix the first thing we have to consider is that the 3.7L engine itself actually weighs much less than does the 4.0L Cologne-built currently in use. The 3.7L is physically much smaller, especially in terms of the engine block as the Cologne unit has massive bore spacing and is extremely long for a V6. Further consider that the 3.7L uses an aluminum block where the Cologne uses a cast iron piece, and the difference in weight only increases. Just the difference between the the bare engine blocks is nearly 100lb. So, we know the V6 suspension wont need to be beefed up to handle greater weight, in fact spring rates will absolutely have to go down up front.

That leaves the drive-line. While many seem to think that the V6 drive-line components will need to be made from far bulkier, heavier pieces to handle the added power output nothing could be further from the truth.

For example, if Ford decided to ditch the V6 models existing 7.5 inch rear for the GT models 8.8 inch unit the difference in weight would be right at 20lb

As for transmissions, if Ford decided to employ the TR6060 employed in cars like the GT500, which would be overkill to say the lest, in place of the T5 unit the V6 model currently uses the difference would be around 40lb dry.

If Ford switched over to the brakes used on the current GT model for 2011 V6 Mustang duty you would be hard pressed to notice any difference in weight, to be generous I'll call the weight gain fro the entire system 10lb.

And since the drive-shaft used in the current Mustang GT weighs about 40lb ,and is considered a bit on the heavy side for an engine rated where the 4.6L currently is, it would be difficult to imagine the V6 model using a drive-shaft which actually weighs more than the unit in the GT. Heck, lets say the V6 unit somehow weighs half as much as the current GT piece does (it doesn't) which means I'm factoring in a possible weight gain of 20lb which is giving your argument a whole lot of leeway.

Throw in one other item the base V6 current leaves off like a standard rear sway bar (I'm giving you 5lb on this one) and were done.

Altogether the above listed weight gains, all of which are genuine worst case scenarios seriously overestimating what will actually occur more often than nor, would account for a weight gain of roughly 95lb. That number just manages to offset the difference in the weight savings that the bare engine block brings to the table. Keep in mind that the intake manifold, heads, crankshaft, etc all weigh less on the 3.7L as well since the engine block is significantly shorter than the extremely long 4.0L unit it.

The only way the base V6 model wont lose weight is a scenario where Ford seriously upgrades base V6 model content.

[drivingincamaro]

Originally Posted by meanmike

You show me these imaginary number's where it handily beat's it. And I dont want to see a 1 or 2 second's. 1/4 mile not by much around the track again not by much, however like I said there is a 100+ hp difference so of course it won. For having 100 more horse it sure isnt a significant amount.

Almost forgot to add 5speed vs 6 so again I say show me.

wasn't that only with the 3.73 gears from the track pack which is like 3k?

[fdjizm]

Originally Posted by drivingincamaro

wasn't that only with the 3.73 gears from the track pack which is like 3k?

the track pack option is a mere $1495 where did you get 3k from?
http://www.mustangblog.com/blog/1020...ck-pack-review

People... before you post any kind of numbers please research. it makes it easier on everyone, that was the first result on google.

[meanmike]

Originally Posted by drivingincamaro

wasn't that only with the 3.73 gears from the track pack which is like 3k?

Yes it most definitly was, but if we are going to compare them then it should be with the best they offer. It is only like 1500 not 3k though. I also want to clarify something, I meant to say buy a 1 or 2 tenth's of a second.

[lil_chef]

ouch.............................

[MikesZ]

[Camaro509]

Too much $ and not enough brains....

Sad indeed.

[Rallysport]

BRILLIANT!

[2010SLVRBULIT]

beuller...beuller...anyone...anyone...can't buy common sense.

[TaylorRyanSS]

haha I saw this a few years ago on youtube