Welcome To V6Mustang.com!

We are the oldest and largest V6 Mustang forum on the internet. If you have any questions about your V6 Mustang or just want to connect with other V6 Mustang owners around the world, you have found the best place on the internet to do that.

Registering is free and easy! Hope to see you on the forums soon!

weight distribution???

Discussion in '1994-2004 V6 Mustang Tech' started by 2000machine, Jan 2, 2002.

  1. 2000machine

    2000machine New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    somebody please tell me what the weight distribution is on a 99+ v6 5speed. if you could i wouldnt mind seeing where you got it from too. i've heard 50/50, but that sounds too good to be true. thanks fellas.
     
  2. AZ2KVert

    AZ2KVert Old guy

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2001
    Messages:
    1,593
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Tucson, AZ
    Instead of "too good to be true" I'd say "wishful thinking."

    This is the best weight distribution info I've found.
    It's for the 1998 model, but I imagine the 99+ numbers aren't
    that much different.

    The source is: http://web2.iadfw.net/robmu/eyewtk.html

    -----------------------------------------------

    1998 Mustang (Front/Rear/Total) (Front%/Rear%)

    3.8L Coupe 5spd (1731/1340/3071) (56.4/43.6)
    3.8L Convt 5spd (1795/1421/3216) (55.8/44.2)
    3.8L Coupe Auto (1806/1348/3154) (57.3/42.7)
    3.8L Convt Auto (1876/1424/3300) (56.8/43.2)
    4.6L Coupe 5spd (1840/1387/3227) (57.0/43.0)
    4.6L Convt 5spd (1905/1489/3394) (56.1/43.9)
    4.6L Coupe Auto (1917/1395/3312) (57.9/42.1)
    4.6L Convt Auto (1982/1496/3478) (57.0/43.0)
     
  3. 2000machine

    2000machine New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    thats cool. the 99's and 98's have a lot of differences though, i'd still like to see the 99 specs. i have no clue where to look.
     
  4. AZ2KVert

    AZ2KVert Old guy

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2001
    Messages:
    1,593
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Tucson, AZ
    Yes, but the 98/99 changes did not seem to have much effect on the curb weights. You can find those weights easily by looking at the auto review web sites, like carpoint.com. The numbers all vary by a few pounds (amount of gas in the tank?), but some typical numbers I've seen for the 2000 V6 Mustangs are: 3064 lbs for the 5spd coupe and 3203 lbs for the 5spd convertible.

    You'll notice that those are VERY close to the 1998 numbers I posted above.

    Unfortunately, I have not found any reliable published front/rear weight numbers for the 99+ stangs. Until I do, I'll stick with an assumption that the 99+ weight distrubutions are probably similar to those of the 98 model year, in spite of all the engineering and body panel changes that were introduced in 1999.

    One more thought... If Ford had significantly improved the weight distribution in the 99 model year, I think the Ford marketing people would have mentioned it in their sales literature. I dont remeber ever seeing anythuing like that.
     
  5. KTBug

    KTBug - Kris -

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2001
    Messages:
    23,222
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I had the corner weights for my car ('01/AODE). I measured them myself but I forgot what I did with them. I'll have to see if I can find them for you.
     
  6. 2000machine

    2000machine New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    thanks a lot fellas
     
  7. Justang

    Justang ɹoʇɐɹǝpoɯ-ɹǝdns

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2001
    Messages:
    15,849
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    So. Cal
    actually I've been told by many people that the 99+ V6's have 50/50. by mustang buffs with V8's (gave me a compliment), and the dealership told me that after I bought the car.

    I would like to see what it exactly is though. the car does handle really really nice. I have a friend that races autocross and he drove my car and he said he was really impressed with how great it handled stock. but like I said, I would like to see if it is really 50/50, or if Ford just claims that.
     
  8. AZ2KVert

    AZ2KVert Old guy

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2001
    Messages:
    1,593
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Tucson, AZ
    Here are some more data points:

    1999 SVT Cobra Coupe
    Curb weight 3,430 lbs.
    Weight Distribution 55.55/44.55 (f/r)
    source: http://www.promustangs.com/99cobra.html

    2000 SVT Cobra R Coupe
    Curb weight - 3,590 lb
    Weight Distribution, 56.5/43.5 (f/r)
    Source: http://www.charlotteford.com/cobrar.htm
     
  9. Justang

    Justang ɹoʇɐɹǝpoɯ-ɹǝdns

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2001
    Messages:
    15,849
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    So. Cal
    ok lets see what happens when we use that data for our cars. I remember reading that using and IRS (as the cobra uses) reduces weight 100-150lbs (I'm using a broad number because I can't remember the exact number, but I think it's around that). so we have to add some weight to the rear end of our cars. so we get closer to 50/50. BUT, our engines are lighter. how much lighter though? I have no idea. this pulls us to the opposite spectrum doesn't it? our front ends should be lighter than the cobras right. for the V6's they have added weight because of the solid rear end, and dropped some weight in the front because of the smaller engine. wouldn't this make us closer to 50/50? but wait, what about the tranny? is it different? heavier lighter? does it matter? but if you look at the curb weight is heavier than our cars. probably due to the engine right? so where does that leave us. hmmm. *ouch* ok now I've just giving my self a headache. I'm gonna stop thinking.

    does my logic make sense?
     
  10. Saddleup

    Saddleup Huge Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    12,920
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    ks
    Our V-6's must be lighter than ANY V-8 Ford ever put into production.
    I understand the V-8 trannies are beefed up for the extra power, so surely that adds some weight for them there.
    The IRS is NOT lighter than our stick axles. They weigh MORE, and that is why Cobras are closer to 50/50. That and they shaved a few pounds here and there on the front end. Our axles should be lighter than the GT's since they are 8.8" and have the quadra shocks. Ours is a mere 7.5".;)
    I believe our V-6's are very close to 50/50 but they're not. How could they be? The engine is in the front... You would have to put an awful lot of weight in the back to compensate for that kind of weight on the front.:eek:
     
  11. Justang

    Justang ɹoʇɐɹǝpoɯ-ɹǝdns

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2001
    Messages:
    15,849
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    So. Cal
    all of this is V6 vs. the Cobra.

    ok the IRS is 125lbs reduction in weight over the 8.8 ( http://www.stangnet.com/2001cobra/indexpage2.htm ) . the 8.8 is a little less than 50lbs heavier than the 7.5. ( http://www.v6power.net/articles/article-jan99a.htm )so we could say that the 7.5 is 75lbs lighter than the IRS.

    now on to engines. the V6 engine weight is 375lbs dry, the V8's engine is 535lbs dry ( http://www.mich.com/~drudis/must98/must98a.htm ) that's a 160lbs decrease in weight.

    so if you look at it the Cobra has a 55.55/44.55 weight distribution. with the V6's we droped weight in front and gained in the rear. so we should be really close to 50/50.
     
  12. AZ2KVert

    AZ2KVert Old guy

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2001
    Messages:
    1,593
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Tucson, AZ
    Interesting, but you've only accounted for 85 lbs of the approximately 360 lbs difference in curb weight between the 99 Cobra and a 99 base Mustang.

    More calculations needed.
     
  13. KTBug

    KTBug - Kris -

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2001
    Messages:
    23,222
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    48
    After weighing my car (2001, V6, AODE, 16" wheels/tires, A/C, etc.), I came up with a weight distribution of 52.25% front / 47.75% rear. That's about as close to 50/50 as you're going to get.
     
  14. Mustang

    Mustang XBox designer

    Joined:
    May 10, 2001
    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Sunnyvale, CA
    KT: did you add the weight of the driver? :D
     
  15. KTBug

    KTBug - Kris -

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2001
    Messages:
    23,222
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    48
    No, I was outside weighing the car! :D
     
  16. SlowAsStock

    SlowAsStock baylorstangs.com

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,526
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Temple, TX
    Let X be the 7.5 axle, Y be the 8.8, and Z be IRS.
    Z = Y - 125
    Y = X + 50
    Z = (X + 50) - 125
    Z = X - 75

    IRS is 75 pounds lighter than 7.5. I think you got that backwards, if I'm thinking correctly.

    If our front end is heavier, relocate the battery to the trunk.
     
  17. Mustang

    Mustang XBox designer

    Joined:
    May 10, 2001
    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Sunnyvale, CA
    That will push the weight distribution to 55%/45% :(
    Stack 200# of cat litter or sanbags in your trunk over the passenger side wheel and you'll probably balance it back to 50/50.
     
  18. Justang

    Justang ɹoʇɐɹǝpoɯ-ɹǝdns

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2001
    Messages:
    15,849
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    So. Cal
    actually that's wrong. you have Z = (x + 50) - 125. that's as far as you can go with that equation. the only way to get farther is to know one of the variables. what you did was added 50 and -125 together, but since it is in parenteses (sp?) then you also have to add -125 to X. so your equation would look like this Z = -125X - 75. and that's no closer than the other.

    here's how to think about it. IRS is 125lbs lighter than 8.8 so we could say that IRS < 8.8. but the 7.5 is lighter than the 8.8, so we could say 7.5 < 8.8. Now what have we established here? we've established that the 8.8 is heavier than both. look at the figures now. the 8.8 is 125lbs heavier than the IRS, and it 50lbs heavier than the 7.5. follow me? that would mean that the 7.5 would be 75lbs heavier than the IRS.

    KT IT'S MATH TIME. where are you?
     
  19. Justang

    Justang ɹoʇɐɹǝpoɯ-ɹǝdns

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2001
    Messages:
    15,849
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    So. Cal
    YES! AZ2KVert said interesting to me!!!!! I half way impressed one of the V6 suspension gurus! awesome!

    NO NO NO. not more calculations... :D I see that I missed some weight, but there has to be other components, beefier components, that are accountable. ok lets look at this:

    well we could take some weight off for the rims and tires. Cobra rims and tires are heavier.

    no dual exhaust, that would be lighter. mufflers are heavy.

    what about suspension components? would springs be heavier on a Cobra? sway bars are heavier.

    tranny would be heavier too, but I already said I didn't want to mess with that one. too much work.
     
  20. Saddleup

    Saddleup Huge Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    12,920
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    ks
    Look at the IRS. Have you seen how big it is? How could it possibly be lighter than our stick axle?