Anyone know the real weight and balance numbers? - MustangForums.com



3.7L V6 Technical Discussions Any questions about the new engine, transmission, exhaust, tuners/CAI, or gearing can be asked here!
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

Reply
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-04-2012, 10:00 PM   #1
WindyMustang
2nd Gear Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location:
Posts: 242
Default Anyone know the real weight and balance numbers?

Sooooo...according to the Ford info, the 2011 V6 is supposedly nose heavy, with 54% front, 46% rear. Or so it says here:

http://media.ford.com/images/10031/2...tang_Specs.pdf

Now the GT has supposedly the same weight split...

http://media.ford.com/images/10031/2...g_GT_Specs.pdf

...so I smell bull twinkies here, but I could be wrong too.

There's two reasons this doesn't seem quite right to me. (1) is this it sure as heck doesn't DRIVE like it. My last hobby car had 52/48 and I could tell you EXACTLY what it took get to a more neutral chassis tuning. Major PITA, and even then you can only work around the balance, not magically cure it.

(2) is that just looking at the car doesn't seem quite right. The weight of the V6 Cyclone engine seems to be behind the front axle. Trans is pretty much centralized mass too. RAXL is a heavy bit, so that should add some to the back.

Has anyone had a V6 coupe on a set of race scales yet? If so, what did you get for corner weights?

Last edited by WindyMustang; 03-04-2012 at 10:06 PM.
WindyMustang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2012, 08:07 AM   #2
JayyVee
2nd Gear Member
 
JayyVee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Woodstock, GA
Posts: 485
Default

Curious of exact #'s myself - coming 'from' a near-perfect 50/50 car before the stang, it's certainly easy to feel the slight weight discourse (and correct for, generally).
JayyVee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2012, 04:29 PM   #3
WindyMustang
2nd Gear Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location:
Posts: 242
Default

Hmm...will have to track down a set of race scales when the new car comes in. In the mean time...

2012 GT Coupe, 6-speed manual = 3603 lbs
2012 V6 Coupe, 6-speed manual = 3447 lbs

For a difference of 156 lbs. On the GT, virtually ALL of that additional weight is in the nose of the car. Starting from the GT percentages

GT Front = 54% of 3603 = 1946 lbs
GT Rear = 46% of 3603 = 1657 lbs.

Now let's recalculate for the V6

V6 Front = 1946 - 156 = 1790
V6 Rear = 1657 (same as a GTs)


V6 Front % = 1790 / 3447 = 52% Front
V6 Rear % = 1657 / 3447 = 48% Rear

Now THAT split I might believe, but I suspect that with a full fuel load it gets even closer to the hallowed 50/50 split. We'll have to weight...wait...and see!

Last edited by WindyMustang; 03-06-2012 at 09:21 PM.
WindyMustang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2012, 08:57 AM   #4
Frodostang
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 10
Default

In other threads I see a battery weight of about 50lbs.

Moving that to the rear gives 1740lbs front and 1707lbs rear, for a 50.5/49.5 split.

Full tank and spare ups the rear percent, adding a driver moves it back to the front.
Frodostang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2012, 09:05 AM   #5
jdmcbride
4th Gear Member
 
jdmcbride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Palm Beach to South Carolina
Posts: 1,566
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frodostang View Post
In other threads I see a battery weight of about 50lbs.

Moving that to the rear gives 1740lbs front and 1707lbs rear, for a 50.5/49.5 split.

Full tank and spare ups the rear percent, adding a driver moves it back to the front.
The drivers weight is closer to the rear tires than the front, so I would think that the driver would shift more weight to the rear than the front.
jdmcbride is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2012, 04:22 PM   #6
WORKISSLOW
2nd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 244
Default

I don't know about you guys buy my Mustang did not come with a spare tire. I just could not bring my self to drive around with out a spare so I picked up a matching rim and tire used for $130. Anyways I was thinking it would put a little more weight in the rear where it would do some good. I have wondered how much gas mileage would be affected though.
WORKISSLOW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2012, 09:43 PM   #7
WindyMustang
2nd Gear Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location:
Posts: 242
Default

Probably little to no MPG hit for 130 lbs.

With my heavy butt in the seat, maybe it will be closer to 50/50! (Man I gotta work out more...)
WindyMustang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2012, 08:35 PM   #8
radioguy1
 
radioguy1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Missouri
Posts: 42
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WindyMustang View Post
Sooooo...according to the Ford info, the 2011 V6 is supposedly nose heavy, with 54% front, 46% rear. Or so it says here:

http://media.ford.com/images/10031/2...tang_Specs.pdf

Now the GT has supposedly the same weight split...

http://media.ford.com/images/10031/2...g_GT_Specs.pdf

...so I smell bull twinkies here, but I could be wrong too.

Has anyone had a V6 coupe on a set of race scales yet? If so, what did you get for corner weights?
I had my 2011 Mustang V6 convertible on 4 wheel scales today.
I was in the driver's seat (weight 200 LBs) and there was 15 gallons of fuel in the tank (80 LBs) and a 17" donut spare wheel/tire and scisors jack in the wheel well (40 LBs). If you subtract my weight, fuel and tire/jack you get 3609 with the Ford expected specification being 3606. The 4 wheel weights - with me in the car - were:
LS.............Front..............RS
1044...............................995
957.................................934

The Front/Rear percentage was Front 51.9% and rear 48.1% with me in the car and the fuel and the spare/jack.
radioguy1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2012, 10:12 PM   #9
WindyMustang
2nd Gear Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location:
Posts: 242
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by radioguy1 View Post
I had my 2011 Mustang V6 convertible on 4 wheel scales today.
I was in the driver's seat (weight 200 LBs) and there was 15 gallons of fuel in the tank (80 LBs) and a 17" donut spare wheel/tire and scisors jack in the wheel well (40 LBs). If you subtract my weight, fuel and tire/jack you get 3609 with the Ford expected specification being 3606. The 4 wheel weights - with me in the car - were:
LS.............Front..............RS
1044...............................995
957.................................934

The Front/Rear percentage was Front 51.9% and rear 48.1% with me in the car and the fuel and the spare/jack.
COOL - thanks!

Checks out with the back-of-the-envelope estimate too.

Once the new coupe comes in I'll try to find some scales and post up the same.
WindyMustang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2012, 11:34 AM   #10
Smike
 
Smike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 27
Default

Was looking for some weight into on a SN95. Saw this. Figure I might as well help:



Full interior 2011. No spare (PP w/19s). 1/4 tank gas.
Smike is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
S197 Parts baddog671 Parts For Sale 20 07-26-2016 01:20 PM
what are the odds - Service Engine Soon light lincolnshibuya V6 (1994-2004) Mustangs 9 12-08-2015 04:37 PM
So who wins uedlose The Racers Bench 4 10-01-2015 08:31 PM
Water found on Mars! HRnB Off Topic 31 10-01-2015 05:50 PM
Steeda & Nitto Tire Testing NT555 G2 - Great Photos Inside!! tj@steeda Steeda Autosports 0 09-08-2015 11:50 AM


Tags
03, 2012, 5050, balance, balancing, base, gr, gt, mistang, mustang, plit, scales, v6, weigh, weight, wheel

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:23 AM.