Next gen Mustang getting more modern look

[ChrisV]

I can guarantee you that the weights of the early Mustangs listed were with the tiny inline 6s in them, as the V8 ones were heavier. Ran the '70 across the scales when it was stock and it was at 3300lbs and it was the same size as the '06. Took a lot of gutting and acid dipped front sheetmetal to get it down to 2800lbs. And that was with the 302. Imagine what a 390 or 428 powered one would weigh...

[MX793]

IIRC, V8 powered '65s were around 2800 lbs.  '67 GTs were just under 3000.

[ChrisV]

So take the '67 and add modern sound deadening and modern safety equipment /structural bits. And deformable 5 mph bumpers... I'd bet that you could add 300-400 lbs pretty quickly when they were no longer structurally wet noodles and safe in high speed offset crashes.

It's amazing that cars have gotten a bit heavier, but perform vastly better in every measurable way, from speed to braking to handling to fuel mileage to emissions to safety.

[Byteme]

I can guarantee you that the weights of the early Mustangs listed were with the tiny inline 6s in them, as the V8 ones were heavier. Ran the '70 across the scales when it was stock and it was at 3300lbs and it was the same size as the '06. Took a lot of gutting and acid dipped front sheetmetal to get it down to 2800lbs. And that was with the 302. Imagine what a 390 or 428 powered one would weigh...

Probably so.  I took the eyeball average of the coupe, convertible and (if offered) fastback. and used that number.    In 64 seat belts, radio, exterior mirrors, AC PS, PB; damn near everything was optional and likely not in that quoted weight.  That weight probably didn't include fuel either.   Still though, it works for comparison purposes.

[SVT666]

Probably so.  I took the eyeball average of the coupe, convertible and (if offered) fastback. and used that number.    In 64 seat belts, radio, exterior mirrors, AC PS, PB; damn near everything was optional and likely not in that quoted weight.  That weight probably didn't include fuel either.   Still though, it works for comparison purposes.

No it doesn't, especially if the weights quoted don't include any of the stuff listed.  Gasoline alone is about 80 lbs.

[MX793]

No it doesn't, especially if the weights quoted don't include any of the stuff listed.  Gasoline alone is about 80 lbs.

Full tank of fuel in the current car is over 100 lbs.  That said, I don't think curb weight has ever taken fuel weight into account.

[SVT666]

Full tank of fuel in the current car is over 100 lbs.  That said, I don't think curb weight has ever taken fuel weight into account.

I believe it uses half a tank.

[565]

http://www.ford.com/help/glossary/?letter=c

"Curb Weight
Weight of a vehicle with standard equipment, oil, lubricants, coolant and a full tank of fuel."

[Byteme]

No it doesn't, especially if the weights quoted don't include any of the stuff listed.  Gasoline alone is about 80 lbs.

Yes, it does.  If all the vehicles I listed were all the bottem end models without fuel the relative weights (for comparison purposes) would be meaningful.

[GoCougs]

I hope the next mustang comes with the ecoboost v6, and awd.

That would be a HUGE shock to the brand. At that point would it be a Mustang - more like a Probestang, which who knows, may happen.

[GoCougs]

Back in the day "curb" weights could vary WILDLY - PS? PB? AT? AC? A lot of times these were individual options. Even today it's gonna vary somewhat from nominal owing to various options packages (moon roof, power seats, etc.). Worthwhile argument BTW.