Shelby GT500 weight

So, I was pondering on power to weight. Which led me to check out the new mustang, as even the v6 is supposed to "feel" fun.

BUT why the heck is the GT500 nearly 4000lbs!? 400lbs heavier than the standard GT and 500lbs heavier than the v6!

What the heck weighs so much?

Externally huge engine with a big supercharger, a big intercooler and all the associated piping, bigger transmission, bigger axles, bigger brakes, bigger tires, bigger wheels, bigger swaybars and all the luxury stuff people expect on a range topper.

The better question to ask is why the v6 weighs 3500 lbs.

Also, up until the 2011(?) model, the GT500 had the iron block while the others had an aluminum block. That alone is about 80 pounds of difference.

I had a 2000 Tundra that weighed 4200 or so and it had a V8, auto trans, transfer case, 2 diffs, 35" tires on heavy wheels, a class 4 hitch, 27g fuel tank and a huge push bar.

Maybe the GT500 has dark matter.

DaewooOfDeath wrote: Externally huge engine with a big supercharger, a big intercooler and all the associated piping, bigger transmission, bigger axles, bigger brakes, bigger tires, bigger wheels, bigger swaybars and all the luxury stuff people expect on a range topper. The better question to ask is why the v6 weighs 3500 lbs.

This. I can get my GT down to just over 3400 lbs runningn 1/4 tank of gas and rmving jack, spare, etc. And I've got all the power & leather crap.

Interesting to note, the 6 way power leather buckets on these things weigh between 75 & 90 lbs EACH depending on some factors.

but they sure are comfy!

The car is big, huge compared to a foxbody mustang. Metal weighs a lot. It is good to see some companies are offering "tuner" packages with small wheels, no power seats, radio components etc. I think a tuner package 2012 5.0 Mustang would be darn cool.

DaewooOfDeath wrote: The better question to ask is why the v6 weighs 3500 lbs.

Because it's huge? Compared to the old ancient Fox body, you are looking at a comparison similar of a Cimarron to a CTS or a CTS to a DTS/STS. The upper body line is way taller then a Fox. Same with the overall width. The engine bay is much bigger then a Fox. You can easily squeeze in a 2 1/4" header for a 460 based power plant in there, where the Fox needs a tube or two snaked out around the framerail. Hell, a Kaase Boss headed 460 motor fits without ANY cutting on firewalls, shock towers, k-members, or rad supports. Everything about the S197 is huge and leads to more steel, much just gives you more weight. About the lightest S197 I have seen that isn't a completely gutted and ugly POS is about 3000# without a driver. I personally haven't taken one apart yet, but I have a feeling you COULD get into the 2800# range if you want to get super serious about weight reduction. And that is with a 150#-ish iron block, not a 80# alum deal. Think of the Challenge Firechiken if Mr. Nelson and all his drilled brackets got together.....

DaewooOfDeath wrote: The better question to ask is why the v6 weighs 3500 lbs.

Because it shares a lot of components with the "beefier" GT.

And the S197 Mustang really is not that big. I've got a picture somewhere of my '11 parked next to a '67. I mean, it's definitely bigger, but it's not as comically large as, say, a new honda accord or dodge challenger.

I suppose I knew the answer to this, but 4000 lbs! That's ridiculously heavy. I wonder how light you could get the v6? A stripped down 2011 v6 would be an absolute ball to drive, considering that at it's current weight it's considered "quite fun."

Pretty amusing since my country squire is only 4400 lbs.

i'll say it again...the Vette is the only domestic car that has managed to keep its weight down.

Is it at 3214 lbs? My dubious google source says so, confirmation? They always hide the curb weight on the manufacturers websites....

WTF.... 4000#s I'm pretty sure the biggest pig of a Shelby in the original run was the 69 and the 70, and I'm pretty sure those were under 3500#s. Having owned a 70 Mach1 SCJ, I know that car, with a 428SCJ, was under 3500#s

I really don't like the 05 and up Mustangs. Compared to the SN95s they felt numb, I couldn't see out and even the speed seemed like somebody had sanitized it.

Of the Stangs I've driven the best was the 03 Bullit, which felt really alive and really pointy. Next best was a 97 Cobra, which was similar to the Bullit except peakier and more nose heavy. After that would probably be the 05 GT I drove. After that was the 99 V6 with auto. Worst of all was an 82 5.0 with the 3 speed.

I just did a Maryland state inspection on a gt500 convertible last week. Mother of god fast but flexy and heavy as a tank. Good fun though

Also remember the old cars didn't have mandatory air bags, crumple zones, and side impact protection. I'd rather be in a new "piggy" stang in an accident!

Hey another "zOmG new cars are heavy thread!"

oldeskewltoy wrote: WTF.... 4000#s I'm pretty sure the biggest pig of a Shelby in the original run was the 69 and the 70, and I'm pretty sure those were under 3500#s. Having owned a 70 Mach1 SCJ, I know that car, with a 428SCJ, was under 3500#s

And I bet you wouldn't walk away from an accident in one of those like you would in new cars either.

miatame wrote: Also remember the old cars didn't have mandatory air bags, crumple zones, and side impact protection. I'd rather be in a new "piggy" stang in an accident!

I am sick of hearing that cars need to be 4000lbs to keep us safe. It isn't like the technology isn't there to dissipate the same energy from 2000lbs. The drive to bring it to market is what seems to be missing.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

miatame wrote: Also remember the old cars didn't have mandatory air bags, crumple zones, and side impact protection. I'd rather be in a new "piggy" stang in an accident!

I am sick of hearing that cars need to be 4000lbs to keep us safe. It isn't like the technology isn't there to dissipate the same energy from 2000lbs. The drive to bring it to market is what seems to be missing.

Me too. BUT. Safety isn't driving up vehicle weights as bad as the people who want a HUGE, noiseless, and vibration free cocoon to drive around in. I drive my 95 model around then step in to drive either my wife's Avalanche or MIL's Impala and it makes my 95 feel like a battle tank.

As to old vs new, people are STILL going to die in accidents. Until nobody leaves their domicile ever, someone somewhere will end up as a MVA death statisitc. My problem is with survivability during the accident and post accident "lifestyle". If I knew the next accident I am involved in leaves me on a vent in a comatose or vegetable state because of safety features for the rest of the days here on Earth, I would rather have left this planet. As to me, that is not living. It is merely simplistic survival at the hands and minds of petty people. Gimme the old clunker that isn't "safe" and let me enjoy my life.

Yah, you don't need huge to be safe. Statistically, the safest cars out there are 3,000 lb four door sedans. The least safe are full sized pickup trucks.

I have a giant rant about this ....

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: I am sick of hearing that cars need to be 4000lbs to keep us safe. It isn't like the technology isn't there to dissipate the same energy from 2000lbs. The drive to bring it to market is what seems to be missing.

Here is a good video on small vs bigger cars in crash test, some may have seen it before. Interesting how they say that small vs small the cars do well, but don't do as well vs a larger car. A lot of it has to do with the bigger cars having longer front ends so they absorb the impact better, which makes sense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cu95gB04VC4

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: I am sick of hearing that cars need to be 4000lbs to keep us safe. It isn't like the technology isn't there to dissipate the same energy from 2000lbs. The drive to bring it to market is what seems to be missing.

tougher CAFE standards will make this happen. bitch about government regs all you want but they have made our cars much much better and likely will continue to do so.

a401cj wrote: tougher CAFE standards will make this happen. bitch about government regs all you want but they have made our cars much much better and likely will continue to do so.

You and I are probably operating on different ideas of "better". My daily driver is 22yrs old and once I stripped some weight out of it - it was juuust about perfect.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

a401cj wrote: tougher CAFE standards will make this happen. bitch about government regs all you want but they have made our cars much much better and likely will continue to do so.

You and I are probably operating on different ideas of "better". My daily driver is 22yrs old and once I stripped some weight out of it - it was juuust about perfect.

1989's were still the result of heavy gov't regulation. Not as much so as today but still.

I'm no big fan of big brother but the fact is we'd still be driving cars with carburetors were it not for EPA and CAFE standards.

I'm hoping the next round of standards will get us common rail turbo diesels that don't weigh as much as meteorites

a401cj wrote: I'm no big fan of big brother but the fact is we'd still be driving cars with carburetors were it not for EPA and CAFE standards.

I'm not too sure about that - I was driving fuel injected cars long before the big three were forced into adding it. The germans did it because it was awesome and they love mechanical whiz-bangery - not because they had to.

I would like a CR diesel truck that didn't blow the cylinders out of my jacks when I rotate tires for certain.