No question, the Ford Mustang is a galloping success. Both the base and GT models are a runaway success, contributing significant revenue to their corporate parent. And now legendary racer, sports car constructor and chili magnate Carroll Shelby is adding some hot tamales to the feed bag. The Shelby Cobra GT500 goes on sale any second now, saddled with a supercharged 5.4-liter V8 good for 500hp. Although there’s little doubt that Shelby’s performance package will be a well-engineered addition to the core car’s strengths, it’s still a case of too much too late.
Let’s Review. For 50 percent more than the MSRP of a Mustang GT, the GT500 buyer gets a supercharger, an intercooler, a race-proven T56 six-speed manual transmission, suspension mods, 18” wheels, wider tires, distinctive spoiler and grill treatments and one whole Hell of a lot of Shelby badging. Oh, and roughly 400 pounds of additional weight, which push this pony car into the Crown Vic weight class. And that’s what I’m talking about: Ford’s decision to add horsepower to the Mustang instead of reducing weight.
It may be a piercing glimpse into the obvious, but Ford could have made a serious performance car out of the Mustang GT simply by shedding weight. In fact, if the 300hp GT lost 700 pounds, it would have the same power-to-weight ratio as the 500hp Shelby GT500. A leaner, meaner, altogether keener Mustang GT would find a willing market, and serve notice to GM and DaimlerChrysler that Ford isn’t going to cede the ponycar market quite yet. There are a number of ways, most of them relatively cheap, to ditch the Mustang’s extra pounds.
Start by eliminating the air conditioning. This lightweight GT (call it the GT-L) would be a potential race-ready road car, not a boulevard cruiser for hot nights in Vegas. If it wasn’t for the Federal standards about defrosters, you might be able to leave off the heater. But even with a heater and defroster, the elimination of the air conditioning unit would drop a lot of mass, and some drag on the engine as well. Next, ditch the power windows. If Ford made the call, its suppliers could come up with a manual window regulator in a heartbeat.
Likewise, lose the electric locks. Real racers can push their own lock buttons down. Ditto for the electric trunk release. Once those are gone, the module that controls these functions and related wiring can also be deleted, saving even more weight. The radio and CD player can also go; the glorious fury of the Mustang GT’s V8 is music enough to a performance junkie. And while we’re at it, deep-six the sound deadening material behind the front seats. And the back seats, rear seat belts and shoulder harnesses.
Ford can use the front fascia from the base six cylinder Mustang, delete the fog lights and save a few more pounds. The cladding on the rocker panels can go, too. Who cares if the tires throw a little dirt on the side of the car? And off with the spoiler. A real racer is going to fashion a spoiler that works, rather than one that satisfies the design committee. Removing the spare tire, jack and tools will also liberate some major heft.
These simple steps would get the Mustang coupe’s weight near the goal of 2600 lbs. Several more radical changes would get the weight to less than 2600 pounds. How ‘bout manual steering? Back to the supplier for a manual rack and pinion gear. This would allow the elimination, and drag, of the power steering pump. A Mustang with manual steering would probably be a bear to park, but pistonheads aren’t going to buy this car for their grandmothers. The final step: kill the center console. This would require some new parts, but the existing console has to be a lot heavier than a few rubber boots around the shifter.
Tweak the car’s suspension, add appropriate decals and there you have it: a Mustang that’s fully competitive with the Shelby version, and a lot better handling to boot. As less is sometimes less, the Mustang GT-L’s development costs would not be prohibitive. Lest we forget Shelby himself jettisoned ballast when he developed the GT350, ‘way back in the 60s. It was a belter that burnished the image created by the Cobra. Porsche, Mazda, Honda and several other manufacturers build lightweight performance cars like these. Even better for Ford, they charge more money for them. That’s a business plan that FoMoCo should latch onto pronto.
Of course, not many people would buy this car. But there is simply no underestimating the street cred a GT-L would generate for Ford and its entire Mustang franchise. Of course, there’s nothing to stop ole Shel from putting his Mustang on a diet…
109 Comments on “The Ford Mustang GT Must Diet...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
I like where you are going with this, Bob.
I’d call the lightweight model an “LX” and slap some “4.6″ badges on the fenders to make the point. And lower the base price to something more like what the original “LX” sold for.
I’d buy the GT-L. That’s eveything I want in a car with none of the crap I don’t want. Added bonus: fewer electrical items means fewer things to catch on fire (e.g. Ford’s infamous cruise control module)
Although I like the logic that saving weight is equally as important as a power increase, your ideas are just a little off-base.
For all the changes you are proposing, you would be lucky to save 350 lbs, let alone 700. Second, fabbing up new manual parts in place of power ones would only increase cost. Other than the most hardcore racer-types, who else would pony up just as much for a stripper GT with manual everything, no A/C, and no back seats (!).
I think the better idea would be to develop the GT500 to deliver 500 hp, but with little-to-no additional weight over the regular GT. That way you would have a better power-to-weight ratio still, and the type of people who would buy a 500 hp car won’t worry as much about any lack of creature comforts.
And who would buy it? Sure some of us would be interested. But in the real world, no back seats, no radio? The wife would like that.
Build race cars. Build street cars. Can’t be both.
Can’t be both? STi? Elise?
I loved this article! As a fun project I recently purchased an ‘89 5.0L and decided to take the exact route this article describes. Even for a 17 yr old car, it still is powerful, but quite in-efficient. When making any car fast, efficiency is key. After removing the AC, all sound deadening, Power Windows, Rear Seat, Stereo, spare tire I estimate I’ve saved around 400 to 500 pounds! It is a noticebly faster car, and I haven’t spent a dime on superchargers or any power adders.
I’ve always said the automakers are missing a large market for stripped cars. Great article to bring this concept of increasing effiecency to the fore-front.
I believe this idea has already been done. A couple of years ago I read an article in one of the auto magazines, can’t remember which, where the tested a stripped down race version of the Mustang GT. It had light weight racing seats, no back seat, lighter rims, and some of the other mods mentioned above. I believe they said it weighed 500 lbs less than a standard Mustang GT. They also said that it was uncomfortable and the performance numbers were almost identical to the GT (worse in some of the tests). Really not a product with a market, though I do agree in principle with the idea that the Mustang needs to go on a diet if it truly wants to get back to its roots. IMHO the only way to do this and make it work is to start at the start and design it from the ground up to be a quick racer similar to what Chevy did with the latest Corvette. Shaving a few pounds here and there to reduce the overall weight of the car. Not that the Corvette’s a particularly light car, but it’s a lot lighter than it would have been using the same old building technology.
A stripper with a V8… build it NOW!
Why would you race a mustang with a solid live rear axle? Independent rear suspension would be a better mod, than any weight savings mentioned in this article. Try firming the suspension a bit first. Have you seen a Mustang under heavy braking, it nose dives like the titanic.
Mustang sells because it does one thing really well. Cruise. For crusing more the badges the better your bragging rights. So the Shelby makes sense.
I understand the point that loosing some weight is a good thing but let’s get realistic. The ZO6 corvette is made of aluminum, Magnesium and balsa wood (floor) and its weight as a 2 seater is 3100 LBS. A target weight of 2600 is a figure that may work on a planet with less gravity but come on! Anything that is not at the size scale of Miata with a 4 cylinder is going to be way over 2600 lbs. Even the beloved 5.0 LX notchback could not get that light if you took out the interior and removed the doors.
Removing the features of the car to save weight? Ridiculous! First off you can’t even remove the power windows on a 05 and newer Mustang because they automatically have to roll down 1 inch to clear the molding when you open the door. They did this to remove the need for an ugly drip molding and seal the door better for wind noise. Remove the air conditioning? What? If people want a purpose built race car they would make one them selves, there is not even something the size of a niche market for a purpose built race car from the dealer this day and age.
All the points in this article seem to point that the 400 lb supercharger upgrade is a better idea by far. You can use the car every day with the radio and A/C and then go to the track and run a high/mid 11 second quarter mile. I’m not sure if anyone realizes just how disgustingly retarded fast this is for a non race specific car that can be driven daily.
a_d_y_a:
The GT 500 comes with a IRS suspension. It’s part of the 400 LB add is because of the IRS. It is heavier than a “live axle”.I guess they ditched it.
“Of course, not many people would buy this car.”
Exactly. Arn’t car companies in the business of selling cars…? This is one of those articles where it’s easy to talk if you’re not actually the one responsible for running the business.
Gearhead,
The GT500 comes with a solid axle just like the Mustang GT
The big weight gain can be attributed to the cast iron block and all the supercharger pumbing that comes with the car. A ford GT block converted to wet sump could probably have been used to save weight.. but $$$ would have gone up for sure.
Cars are getting heavier and heavier, part of this is increased safety, the other part is the desire for torsional rigidity. Sure a 99-04 Mustang GT is lighter than its 05-07 counterpart, but to get the same stiffness out of the chassis a lot of bracing would have to be added.
It would have been nice if they had taken a full 2-3″ inches of thickness out of the car to reduce weight that way and make it more of a “low slung” look.
Delte the Air Conditioning?
You so crazy, Bob.
Though killing the center console would help. I don’t know about weight saving, but that ugly Ford Family radio has to die.
Regardless, any Mustang that weighs close to 4,000 lbs is not a pony car. If it is, then I guess this comes as great news to Cadillac owners out there.
Anyway, good article. I doubt deleting all the aforementioned parts would shed 700lbs, but it would definately make a better car. I believe Ford did make a “stipped” version of its Mustang GT back in ‘95? I believe it was called the Mustang GTS.
This proposed GT-L/LX should also get more power from the 4.6 – I’m sure you can get 350HP without too much effort.
Sounds like a Mustang RS America model
I saw a GT500 yesterday at the Ford lot with the hood popped getting a power-bath.
Ugliest, most ungainly looking engine-bay you can imagine. It’s 50% plumbing.
Put it this way — if this car were to meet European pedestrian Safety Standards, the driver wouldn’t be able to see over the swollen hood.
Slap some GT350 badges and a couple of blue stripes on the Mustang described in this article, and Ford should be ready to go.
Sure, not many people would buy it, but it’d work well as another performance icon (I doubt Ford’s making money off the GT either, but it “enhances the brand” or whatever corporate b.s. you want to use). In addition, it’d bring the Mustang a little closer to where it started, and it might just entice some of the sports car nuts who write the Mustang off as nothing more than a tire-torture device.
If Ford really wanted to go the full mile, start up a spec racer program for these stripped Mustangs.
Even if you removed the interior, AC and power everything all that stuff would never amount to 700 LBS.
Of course, not many people would buy this car. But there is simply no underestimating the street cred a GT-L would generate for Ford and its entire Mustang franchise.
Excuse me, but over on the “Death Watch” series of articles we jump all over the Big 2 for making cars people won’t buy.
This car isn’t designed to do stoplight drags, any more than the Land Rover LRV is designed to travel across the trackless sahara. Both of them are designed to drive the mean streets of suburbia while preserving the owner’s delusions about himself as a teenage street racer (Mustang) or intrepid African explorer (Land Rover.) AC, power steering, power windows and locks are all neccessities on these cars because they’re not intended to do anything more than shuttle the driver back and forth to work and to look cool. And you can’t be cool if you’re burning up from the heat!
No doubt some enterprising builder might come up with a stripper version, but my guess is it wouldn’t be any less expensive than digging up an original ‘69 in beater condition and restoring it to its former glory.
The root of the problem is that the basic Mustang is at least 500 pounds too fat right off the car transporter. The Ford website doesn’t list curb weight, but I seem to recall the ’stang being about 3200. Why a 2-door sports coupe needs to weigh as much as the average sedan defies logic.
But then again, the Mustang is not really supposed to be a sports car, just something to pose in and look like you’re going fast. In reality, the Mustang would sell very well with a 200 hp six as the only motor.
And while 500 hp in a Mustang would be a whole lot of fun I can think of a whole lot better ways to get more performance for a whole lot less money. And you can get it without the heft of a big honkin’ V8.
How about putting a turbo or supercharger on the 4.6 liter? You won’t have much of a weight gain and all it would lack is bragging rights about displacement. Even better, buy something else, like an EVO, STi or build a Factory Five Cobra.
Mustangs. Fun rentals but still a yawn.
A Roush or KB supercharger on a base GT will make a safe 430 HP @ a cost of $4K – $5K with a gain of about 75lbs of stuff. After all of that the total would be about 30K but with a 1/4 mile time in the 11’s.
People who want a Mustang GT probably would not want an EVO or STI I’m guessing.
It may seem a correct strategy to replace things like electronic window regulators, locks and even power steering for mass reduction. But the current components are beneficiaries of a lot of relentless development to get mass out, and their manual counterparts are likely the same designs used in the Mustangs in the’60s. I wouldn’t be surprised if the current components were lighter than the manual ones that would replace them, unless the manual ones were completely redesigned.
Love the idea of a lipo-ed ’stang, but I’m inclined to think that the weight has more to do with the engineering of the frame, structural components, etc. After all, an Elise still weighs in at 2000lbs+/- with AC and power windows.
Not a fair comparison, obviously, but I think the general point still stands- ‘lightness’ probably needs to be an engineering goal from the beginning. Something for Ford to look into for the next gen Mustang, maybe.
i think the goal weight should be 3,000lbs, if im not mistaking the Vipers goal weight is 3,000lbs. it seems like an obtainable number. Lightweight wheels; no rear seats; lightweight racing front seats; Carbon Fiber Hood, Fenders, Trunk lid; no AC; no spare tire/jack; lose a lot of the sound insulation. And i agree, IRS or go home. Ford should concentrate on making the mustang the best handling and braking car in the class. Forget about all out straight line speed.
IRS suspension is heavier than a live axle.
What you want has already been made, and made better. Just not by Ford. What you want is a Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution IX RS. You can get them for about $27k or less if memory serves (place in Cali that will sell you them under invoice). The RS has rear seats and four doors and AWD. Fast as hell and you car drive it in something other than a straight-line, oh and change the tires and you can even do some gravel or dirt.
While I agree that most newer cars need to save weight the type of car you are asking Ford to build would be lucky to sell more than 500/year. What is the incentive for cash strapped Ford to do this? Better that they put any money they would spend on this into something that will sell in volumes say the Euro Focus or a derivative of the Focus they use in Rally racing (call it something else in the states).
They wanted the Mustang GT to be a good bang for your buck straight line car; low weight costs too much money.
What Ford could have done is significantly up the use of aluminum in the Shelby to get a better weight balance and weight overall.
Cute article but way out of touch with reality. People don’t want to give up creature comforts for speed, and where is it written that prospective Mustang buyers are SCCA drivers? Mustang buyers for the most part don’t seem to be the types that would “get it”, I’m afraid.
If you build it with IRS, what’s the first thing guys who take it to the track are going to do? They’re going to put stiffer aftermarket (anti)sway bars on it. Why add all the weight to make IRS just to tie it all together with sway bars and undo all the indpendance the IRS gives you. (Go on over to VW Vortex and see all the posts about people butting bigger sway bars on their new fancy suspenion in the Mark V GTIs when they all got along just fine with the old twist beam suspension on the Mark IV)
Reviews say that the Mustang GT will post up a .86g skidpad. 0-60 in 5.2 (you guys don’t seem to relate to 1/4 mile)
Under 27K.
27MPG Highway also.
Not bad for 3500 Lbs. Most cars this size will not do these numbers.
Allow me to follow up on my previous post. Although I am completely on board with the concept of a stripper muscle car as a fun project race car, that exactly what it is, a race car. Without A/C, sound deadening, Rear seats, or a Stereo, I wouldn’t dare drive it regularly or take the family on vacation in it. It’s uncomfortable as hell! But that’s not its purpose. A stripper car, of any make would sell in low volumes, so not a great business case does this vehicle make. Low volume specialty cars exist, they’re called TVR’s for example.
Ford needs to sell cars to the masses to stay in business. So build a stripper of your own. It’s much more enjoyable too!
Gearhead, you faithful defender of all things American,
Those numbers seem about accurate, except for the 27mpg on the highway. More like 27mpg from Mt. Witney (14,000+ feet) to sea level. And they’re OK. About the same as a WRX.
However, the car is very, very heavy — too heavy for thre brakes at the very least. And as a car is only as good as its brakes…
Though, the convertible version rectifys that, as you are simply smiling too much to actually care.
I agree with the major stuff, but eliminating power windows and door locks? are the manual versions even that much lighter? even if so, I can’t imagine the difference is much more than a few big macs.
A Roush or KB supercharger on a base GT will make a safe 430 HP @ a cost of $4K – $5K with a gain of about 75lbs of stuff. After all of that the total would be about 30K but with a 1/4 mile time in the 11’s.
And if Ford did it at the factory (called it a mustang GT-S) their cost would probably be less than 1K and they could easily add 2-4K to the price. Don’t know about strength of rest of drive train. Might also have to be upgraded.
Howard
I’ll go further and say the Mustang GT is exactly the car Ford wanted and needed. For this one type of vehicle Ford really know its target audience. They sell a ton of these things as is, (probably the V6) lots of ladies like the Mustang looks and a V6 is fine by them. For those who want some tire smoking torque and V8 growl you have the GT and look its well under 30k (really who pays MSRP anyway so it’s a bunch less). Mustang owners don’t car how heavy the car is with a few simple mods (which Ford will sell you) you can bump the power and improve the handling. Hell the Shelby GT is standard Ford Parts bin fair. Any Mustang owner can do the same.
While the Mustang GT is not something I would buy since I need 4 real seats and at least a bit more than 2 doors it is a great design and win by Ford. Ford knew exactly what it was doing on the Mustang, it’s a shame they can’t do the same on the rest of their lineup. Without the 2005 Ford Mustang you would have never seen the green light on a Dodge Challenger or Chevy Camaro.
gearhead, I rarely look at 0-60 times, as the quarter mile is more telling.
Jeff in Canada, and most likely cheaper as well. Focus on the unsprung weight first (17-in. light-weight wheels), add the Roush supercharger per gearhead’s suggestion, eliminate the spare, replace the two front seats, swap the hood and deck lids with carbon fibre pieces (I don’t know the stock weight for these pieces, it may be pointless as the savings may be marginal), and you have a car that is still streetable.
What’s the Mustang’s rear-end ratio? A swap there may be in order as well.
Bob Elton’s posts are like train wrecks waiting to happen. I read them for sheer morbid curiosity.
I think the braking is 116 feet 60 to 0. The WRX 60 to 0 is only 1.5 feet shorter and weighs about 200 lbs less.
Not sure what the brake fade is like between the two. I would suspect the GT has more.
htn:
When the Roush supercharger kit is used the vehicle retains the 36K factory warranty. The driveline was built for 450… anything more the engine tends take a crap from what I hear. The trans and the axle housings are the same between the GT and the GT500.
What’s the Mustang’s rear-end ratio? A swap there may be in order as well.
3:55 Auto
3:75 Manual
gearhead:
The WRX is a better car.
gearhead455: “The WRX 60 to 0 is only 1.5 feet shorter and weighs about 200 lbs less.”
The fact that a 4-door, AWD sedan weighs less than this 2-door RWD coupe tells the whole story.
Jonny, you can’t say that in all fairness. In Europe the GT moniker stands for grand touring, while here in the US we have warped that meaning to describe the sport model of a line. The Mustang GT is really a grand tourer in the traditional sense. The two are not really comparable.
The WRX is in a different category than the Mustang. I used to post frequently at NASIOC and this topic (which car is better, blah blah blah) came up often. Why compare a two-door (traditional) GT to a 4-door sedan? Why compare a car with rally heritage to a car with its eyes set on the quarter mile?
Someone who is looking at the Mustang is not (most likely) going to consider the WRX, Mazdaspeed6, Legacy, etc, unless they are looking at strictly performance oriented vehicles. Even then, if someone is looking at a WRX they will not even consider the Mustang as they are most likely import-biased.
Hutton, your comment is most telling and in the spirit of the original editorial.
General question: does sharing a platform do anything to weight?
i dont think taking the back seats out is abig deal. Mini just did it and they sold everyone. and i dont think the mustangs back seats are much more useful then a Mini. I would suspect anyone that was trying to save weight would be taking the back seats out of there GT anyway.
No AC? We must have AC!
To quote John Phillips III of Car and Driver, in a counterpoint sidebar for the road test of the Porsche RS America, on which the AC was optional:
“To air is human, forgive design”.
A cooler driver is a happier driver, a less fatigued driver.
Replace the factory seats with a fixed angle racing shell type seat with adequate padding. That should easily save 70 pounds or so!!
Jonny,
The WRX STI has a 33K MSRP (USD), It should be a better car and I never said it was not.
What you forget is the car was a compromise from the begining. It was built on the same heavy platform designed for the luxury Lincoln LS and Jaguar S. It can never be a lightweight, much like the Nissan 350Z based on the same platform as Infininty FX. Platform sharing is a fact of life and it adds weight to the smaller members of the family, but it makes them cheaper. Even the original Mustang shared it’s frame with a stodgy sedan.
As others have said, the author’s idea of superficial weight savings is going to compromise comfort and convenience while saving MAYBE 200-300 lbs, nowhere near the 700-800 needed to get to 2600 lbs.
The car’s chassis is just not engineered with weight savings in mind. Low cost was the number one priority…..Period.
The C6 corvette, even in non Z06 steel chassis guise, has every convenience feature known to man and still weighs 300 lbs less than a Mustang GT, and 600+ lbs less than the GT500. No contest. With 400 HP it will run with the 500 HP Shelby in a straight line and destroy it in the twisties….assuming a driver with sufficient skill at the helm.
The only “weigh” to carve significant poundage is nothing less than a clean sheet redesign…but with the bargain priced Mustang selling well….this will be many years away.
Of note, my 1991 LX 5.0 notchback with one airbag and rear drum brakes weighed about 3100 lbs. The Mustang needs to get back to that weight as a realistic goal. 2600 lbs is a nice idea, but about as likely as having $1.50/ gal gas making a comeback.
Gearhead,
I’m sure Jonny is comparing the regular WRX ($23k base) to the Mustang GT ($26k base). Seems fair.
If you’re talking STi, the the comparison would be to the GT500, which at $42k, and with 500 horses, should embarass the Subaru… but… it doesn’t. Almost identical numbers all around. Where does your extra $10,000 go? Not towards performance.
It can be said that WRX vs. Mustang is a dumb argument, and I’m not really getting involved, but it keeps coming up, so obviously some people are comparing them.