yakisoba Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 Does the new Mustang 5.0 look a little heavy? 5700 pounds in the rules update? We had one down at ECR in Texas this weekend, and in stock trim, it was much lighter than that. Any idea if the weight will change for next year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obzezzed350 Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 Did you mean 3700lbs, lol? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 I recall him coming in anywhere between 365X and 372X - no weight reduction mods outside of track wheels and tires, no special lightweight no options model or anything. And that was with driver and all, so the car itself is likely closer to 34XX-35XX itself. "Ford Mustang GT ('11)---TTB 3770 lbs" is the listing That's one that I'd like to see dialed in a little closer once there are some real-world builds to look at - might be a popular enough car that there are enough out there already. Its tough to get a new car perfect based on mfg data and all though, so I gotta give credit for it being pretty close as is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varkwso Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 (edited) I recall him coming in anywhere between 365X and 372X - no weight reduction mods outside of track wheels and tires, no special lightweight no options model or anything. And that was with driver and all, so the car itself is likely closer to 34XX-35XX itself. "Ford Mustang GT ('11)---TTB 3770 lbs" is the listing That's one that I'd like to see dialed in a little closer once there are some real-world builds to look at - might be a popular enough car that there are enough out there already. Its tough to get a new car perfect based on mfg data and all though, so I gotta give credit for it being pretty close as is That is a heavy based on real world data - but they are not light cars! Edited October 6, 2010 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 we kept teasing the guy about breaking the scales I know if it were me I'd be a little miffed about taking weight points straight from the factory floor though - but again - its tough to nail these cars down when they're brand new and all you have to go on is marketing data. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboShortBus Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 Bear in mind that, if the base weight is reduced significantly in the TT rules, a star (*) or two could feasibly be added to the base classification, although I don't know how Colonel Greenbaum's "secret TT recipe of 11 herbs and spices" works for determining base classifications. It might turn into one of those "6 of one, half a dozen of the other" deals. Some of the serious AI guys managed to gut these cars to the point that they are relatively light (er, less heavy). But, they are porky as they roll off the showroom floor. Blame it on things like 900 airbags, light-up door sill logos, variable gauge backlight colors, sound deadening, etc. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevor57 Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 My 08 STI was the same way. I took it out for fun, and it was only like 25lbs over weight, but that was with a full gas tank, and I weigh 220. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNAKBITN Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 I've herd the s197 down in weight as much as 2850 to 2950.With a tune and cold air kit on the 5.0 reaching 420rwhp.Now I don't care who you are that's a fun a$$ car to drive but it would be well out of TTB. Robert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 When it came by me a few times when I was on cooldown laps I was surprised how physics-defyingly-well it turned The other mods (nothing to reduce weight) did push it to TTA fwiw - running decent times but also well driven. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomn29 Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 (edited) I've herd the s197 down in weight as much as 2850 to 2950.With a tune and cold air kit on the 5.0 reaching 420rwhp.Now I don't care who you are that's a fun a$$ car to drive but it would be well out of TTB. Robert Wowser, that's really out of TTB-A-S there! lol. What's this thing dyno stock anyways? I've read a lot of stuff that said in the neighborhood of 360-375rwhp. It's all internet chatter, so I have nothing to verify that beyond a few well informed Mustang/Ford friends. If somebody has a solid # I'll update the #'s I'm figuring below. That's 10.4 at the low end and 9.9 at the high end --> for a TTB based car? I'd assume you'd run a 255-275 on there, so add in the .4 for tires: 10.3 - 10.8 completely stock power running a 275. 9.9 - 10.4 completely stock power running a 285+ The limit for TTB is 10.25 so it's right on it with a 275 which is pretty darn big for a TTB car! And with 19pts to play with, you could run a 275 A6 (14pts) and still have 5pts for coilovers! Now using the unofficial online classing spreadsheet, it adds in another weight modification since it's above 3300 which would range it: 11.0 - 11.4 --> 275 10.6 - 11 --> 285+ Edited October 5, 2010 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboShortBus Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 What's this thing dyno stock anyways? I've read a lot of stuff that said in the neighborhood of 360-375rwhp. It's all internet chatter, so I have nothing to verify that beyond a few well informed Mustang/Ford friends. If somebody has a solid # I'll update the #'s I'm figuring below. My buddy's 2011 GT (with manual transmission) put down 371 rwhp in bone stock trim about a week after he bought it. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNAKBITN Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Pro-dyno tuned one with cai and the tune and mufflers made 406rwhp with about the same gain on torque.stock was around 365rwhp. Robert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakisoba Posted October 5, 2010 Author Share Posted October 5, 2010 Pro-dyno tuned one with cai and the tune and mufflers made 406rwhp with about the same gain on torque.stock was around 365rwhp. Robert Huh. So if it weighed in at 3500, 406 rwhp and, say, 275mm tires would put it well within the TTA range, if my math is right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varkwso Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 My 08 STI was the same way. I took it out for fun, and it was only like 25lbs over weight, but that was with a full gas tank, and I weigh 220. My 99 FRC Corvette full of gas as factory equipped is over a 100 pounds lighter then the TTB base Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
11gttt Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Thanks for looking out for me on the weight issue. I just thought it was kind of weird to have a horsepower to weight ratio if there was no way to possibly get there and stay competitive in the class. I'm not trying to whine, just exploring options and trying to help out with others with the same car and situation. Weight Reduction and classification so far: Wheels/tires, aftermarket c/o kit, lower control arms(lowered on the axle also), factory Brembo, 275 Hoosier R6. That's all I can do and stay legal for TTA. No more room for points to get my HP up to get close to the ratio needed to compete in TTA. With this I weighed in at 3722 with 7/8 fuel, and 3685 with 1/2 fuel. I'm a hefty 206lb myself with aspirations to be around 190lb.........yeah right. If I did only the following it would shave about 100 lbs at least: Remove Pass Seat, Replace Driver, aluminum driveshaft. BTW: I had a blast with all of the Texas guys at ECR this weekend. Thanks for doing such a great job on the event!! Congrats to all this years winners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fair Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 If anyone cares, here's a bone stock 2011 Mustang GT 5.0 6-spd with the Brembo package, with the fuel level as shown (1/2 tank), that we weighed a couple of months ago: It was 3605 pounds soaking wet, with no trunk junk (there is no spare tire so it wasn't much): That's a whole lotta puddin! We ordered one like this about 5 months ago and, although we're building it for an SCCA Solo class, we will still run it in a few TT events. I'm hoping it ends up in TTB, but who knows? Anyone know when GG is going to class this one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboShortBus Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 Anyone know when GG is going to class this one? It already has been: http://www.nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13578 Ford Mustang GT ('11)---TTB 3770 lbs Don't forget +2 for the Brembos, along with any seemingly innocent exterior trim parts, blingy suspension parts, valences, spoilers, or spoiler deletes that are options above and beyond the base GT package (if you have them), etc. I know that there are several different options for the front valence now (per the thread over on C-C), and they will all cost modification points even if the performance improvement is negligible. Mark (MarkMc26 on C-C) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drivinhardz06 Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 It was 3605 pounds soaking wet, with no trunk junk (there is no spare tire so it wasn't much): wow, almost 56% on the nose to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboShortBus Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 wow, almost 56% on the nose to. My gutted-interior 2004 Mustang has 60% on the nose...I'd love to have "only" 56% up there. The only movable/removable thing of any significance left ahead of its CG is the battery, and moving it to the trunk won't give me much (although it's going there anyway). Even the majority of my door glass is behind the CG. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
11gttt Posted December 3, 2010 Share Posted December 3, 2010 Found this info for specs and weight. Copy to browser. Shows the manual transmission at 3720 lbs instead of 3770 lbs. Hope it helps. http://media.ford.com/images/10031/2011_Mustang_GT_Specs.pdf Bryan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboShortBus Posted December 3, 2010 Share Posted December 3, 2010 The base weights shown in the TT vehicle list don't necessarily have anything to do with the actual vehicle weights as published by the manufacturer. From what I have seen, they should just be seen as a general starting point. Of course, newer vehicles are subject to corrections as more is known about them. Also, weight reduction points are assessed based on the difference between the base weight (general starting point) and the minimum competition weight (with driver and fluids, as it would weigh during a session). Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucketlist Posted December 5, 2010 Share Posted December 5, 2010 wow, almost 56% on the nose to. My gutted-interior 2004 Mustang has 60% on the nose...I'd love to have "only" 56% up there. The only movable/removable thing of any significance left ahead of its CG is the battery, and moving it to the trunk won't give me much (although it's going there anyway). Even the majority of my door glass is behind the CG. Mark Ford Mustang Mach 1 TTC 3420 Ford Mustang V8 ('99-'04) TTE** 3273 Crazy variance in classifications within the same year car regardless of where your CG is located IMHO! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundguydave Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 Ford Mustang Mach 1 TTC 3420 Ford Mustang V8 ('99-'04) TTE** 3273 Crazy variance in classifications within the same year car regardless of where your CG is located IMHO! Well, let's see... The GT had a 260HP 2-valve motor, and 12" brakes, while the Mach 1 had an under-rated 305HP motor, with heads sourced from the Cobra/Marauder, cams from Lincoln (used to give it a little more midrange torque), and a MUCH higher redline. Oh, and Brembo 4-pots, revised dampers (Tokico) and stiffer springs, too. Based on that, I can understand the upclassing, and honestly, I would say that TTC sounds about right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IGZOSTD Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 Boy these sure have turned into a porker. My 06( fully optioned with leather any all the fancy dash crap), no spare, cat delete and flowmaster's, C&L air intake, 275X 18 Hankooks on stock wheels came in at 3440 with 7 gal., on Nasa scales and a friends set of Rebcos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundguydave Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 The S197's seem to have weights that fly all over the place... My '06, with the leather gone (rear seat delete plus console delete), and aluminum in, all the misc. bolted on weights gone, Braile battery, Steeda competition hood, longtubes, no cats, FR500S mufflers, aluminum driveshaft, aluminum flywheel, light wheels with Hoosier 275x18s, and of course the trunk-junk delete, crossed the scales at 3463, on fumes, with me in it. I weigh 160, IN the race gear... Mine started at 3719. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.