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?

 

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).

 

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!

 

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.

 

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.

 

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...)

 

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.

 

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.