GM Inside News Forum banner
1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,641 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,637 Posts
Normally I'd question fords thinking on putting a 4 cylinder into the stang but in this case if it helps it drop 500 pounds and still give 300 horsepower then I'll be more than willing to drive one
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,436 Posts
That sounds great. A lightweight, efficient and nimble little stang that also shreds it rear tires. Perfecto
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,963 Posts
For the 2010 model year, according to a source, the Mustang will have an SVO offering. The model should be powered by a...wait for it...2.5 I4 Ecoboost MAKING 300 HP!!!! AND it will also lose 500 POUNDS over the 4.6 V8 that we have to today. Holy Crap we have a winner!:bounce::dro:

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/07/03/rumormill-ford-reviving-mustang-svo-with-300-hp-ecoboost-four/
It says it could lose 500lbs which won't happen. The 4.6 that is currently in the Stang has an aluminum block and heads so by switching to a 4 cylinder turbo with the associated plumbing, turbo, intercooler, etc... you won't drop 500lbs. Now if Ford makes an effort to shed weight in other places it could happen but I doubt it. Look at the 4 cylinder G6 which should actually be lighter since it's FWD (3500lbs) or the upcoming RWD T4 Genesis which is about the same.

I would be shocked if the Mustang lost more than 300lbs. If they could actually get it to 3000lbs with 300hp I would seriously consider one but I won't have to worry about that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
303 Posts
It says it could lose 500lbs which won't happen. The 4.6 that is currently in the Stang has an aluminum block and heads so by switching to a 4 cylinder turbo with the associated plumbing, turbo, intercooler, etc... you won't drop 500lbs. Now if Ford makes an effort to shed weight in other places it could happen but I doubt it. Look at the 4 cylinder G6 which should actually be lighter since it's FWD (3500lbs) or the upcoming RWD T4 Genesis which is about the same.

I would be shocked if the Mustang lost more than 300lbs. If they could actually get it to 3000lbs with 300hp I would seriously consider one but I won't have to worry about that.
I believe the V6 'stang with the iron block 4.0L SOHC truck motor comes in at 3300lbs for the manual tranny version. I coudln't imagine with some aluminum or high strength steel bits on the hood, trunk, and maybe fenders along with the smaller motor, attention to wheel/tire weight that it couldn't get well under 3100lbs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,963 Posts
I believe the V6 'stang with the iron block 4.0L SOHC truck motor comes in at 3300lbs for the manual tranny version. I coudln't imagine with some aluminum or high strength steel bits on the hood, trunk, and maybe fenders along with the smaller motor, attention to wheel/tire weight that it couldn't get well under 3100lbs.
Anythings possible but possible and probable are two different things. Besides I doubt the iron block V6 is 300lbs lighter than a GT and the GT is right at 3600lbs with a tank of gas. I could see the turbo 4 coming in at 3300lbs though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,043 Posts
Anythings possible but possible and probable are two different things. Besides I doubt the iron block V6 is 300lbs lighter than a GT and the GT is right at 3600lbs with a tank of gas. I could see the turbo 4 coming in at 3300lbs though.
Mustang GT: 3450

Mustang V6: 3300

Those are the factory weights for manual transmission Mustang coupes. Add 50 lbs for an automatic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,770 Posts
Even at 3200-3300 lbs. this will be a boon to steering, handling and economy. I actually find this a lot more interesting than a Mustang equipped with a giant Boss V8.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,971 Posts
Nice, but it's just a rumor so far.

It says it could lose 500lbs which won't happen. The 4.6 that is currently in the Stang has an aluminum block and heads so by switching to a 4 cylinder turbo with the associated plumbing, turbo, intercooler, etc... you won't drop 500lbs. Now if Ford makes an effort to shed weight in other places it could happen but I doubt it. Look at the 4 cylinder G6 which should actually be lighter since it's FWD (3500lbs) or the upcoming RWD T4 Genesis which is about the same.

I would be shocked if the Mustang lost more than 300lbs. If they could actually get it to 3000lbs with 300hp I would seriously consider one but I won't have to worry about that.
The article says "by dropping the massive 4.6L V8 and using higher strength steel."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
185 Posts
This is probably a very real possibility because of the other 4 cyl. coupes that are either out or coming out..
GM has a few, Hyundai has one, Nissan has two on the market right now, etc. etc.

Also.. hasn't America caught on with using aluminum yet?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
http://www.ussautomotive.com/auto/steelvsal/hood.htm

Above is a quick pricing analysis comparison between aluminum and steel. I changed the prices to reflect current pricing $1.43/lb for Aluminum and and $0.56 for 10-20 Steel, non-SAE grade.

Aluminum cost : $42.32
Steel cost: $32.43
Volume: 1,440,000
Tot. Price Aluminum: $60,940,800
Tot. Price Steel: $46,699,200
Added Cost: $14,241,600
Weight Saving: 49%
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
185 Posts
Now even though ~20,000,000 is a boat load of money to some, the benefits outweigh the pennies spent.

1) Aluminum cannot "rust".. it can erode/corrode, but cannot "rust" [in the oxidized sense] because of it's structural make-up
2) Aluminum (when protected by aluminum oxide) can last lifetimes longer than steel against the forces of nature (we've all seen cars from the 70s and 80s that look 50 yeas old)
3) MASSIVE weight savings
4) Aluminum is more malleable than steel, allowing for those crazy looking concepts to actually look like the production versions

damn.. BMW knows how to play the game.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
On the other hand, even with high-grade aluminum it's tensile strength is lower then a low-grade steel.

Mild Steel Tensile Strength (Low-Grade): 300ksi
6111 T4 Aluminum Tensile Strength (High-Grade): 295

In order to get the same crash worthiness out of an aluminum chassis, they would have to use more aluminum. It could make sense to use a high grade DP980 Steel, so that the overall weight could be reduced while maintaining the crash worthiness.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
185 Posts
On the other hand, even with high-grade aluminum it's tensile strength is lower then a low-grade steel.

Mild Steel Tensile Strength (Low-Grade): 300ksi
6111 T4 Aluminum Tensile Strength (High-Grade): 295

In order to get the same crash worthiness out of an aluminum chassis, they would have to use more aluminum. It could make sense to use a high grade DP980 Steel, so that the overall weight could be reduced while maintaining the crash worthiness.
Steel frame, aluminum body FTW!
 

·
Back!
Joined
·
5,366 Posts
I find it easy to believe that a plan exists for a 3000lb, 300hp, GTDi I4 Mustang, but not for the 2010MY...the weight doesn't work out. The target weight for the GRWD Mustang GT set to debut around the 2012 or 2013 model year is 3250lb, making a 3000lb turbo four Mustang a little more likely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,080 Posts
For the 2010 model year, according to a source, the Mustang will have an SVO offering. The model should be powered by a...wait for it...2.5 I4 Ecoboost MAKING 300 HP!!!! AND it will also lose 500 POUNDS over the 4.6 V8 that we have to today. Holy Crap we have a winner!:bounce::dro:
Right, the 4 banger will weigh -60 lbs
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,971 Posts
http://www.ussautomotive.com/auto/steelvsal/hood.htm

Above is a quick pricing analysis comparison between aluminum and steel. I changed the prices to reflect current pricing $1.43/lb for Aluminum and and $0.56 for 10-20 Steel, non-SAE grade.

Aluminum cost : $42.32
Steel cost: $32.43
Volume: 1,440,000
Tot. Price Aluminum: $60,940,800
Tot. Price Steel: $46,699,200
Added Cost: $14,241,600
Weight Saving: 49%
3 important things to consider:
1. From that page, the weight savings of a move to Aluminum hoods from steel is about 30 pounds. That's too small to make a dent in EPA fuel ratings, which means an automaker would be spending $14,000,000 extra for no benefit. In order to really help fuel ratings, they might need to drop weight, say, 300 pounds. Then you're looking at $1,400,000,000 in added expenses.
2. Aluminum is weaker than steel. So you might need to replace 1 cubic foot of steel with (just for the sake of argument) 1.3 cubic feet of Aluminum to keep the same frame strength. That adds to your costs and reduces your weight savings.
3. Shaping the parts as you need them may cost more (or for all I know, less) with Aluminum and with steel. Some materials are easy to work with than others.

I don't mean to defend the status quo. It's not impossible that Detroit automakers have delayed a move to Aluminum and other lighter materials out of sheer idiocy.

But it's possible that cutting 5-10% off of the weight of a typical vehicle with Aluminum adds several thousand dollars to the production costs.
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top