5.0L General Discussion This section is for non-tech specific information pertaining to 5.0L Mustangs.

3560 lbs?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Feb 7, 2009 | 07:51 AM
  #11  
WhiteWindsor's Avatar
WhiteWindsor
5th Gear Member
 
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,872
From: Warner Robins,GA
Default

Sounds a bit heavy to me. My old 89 hatch weighed 3370 with me, i'm a fat **** weighing 255lbs. I had a heavier block and a heavier TKO 600. Full interior. The only weight loss i had was being carbed, fuel cell, and weld wheels.
Old Feb 7, 2009 | 08:24 AM
  #12  
302army187's Avatar
302army187
6th Gear Member
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,395
From: colorado
Default

0.o

my 'vert is 3305 without me in it.

only weight loss is passenger seat out, spare tire&jack out and i even had a full bottle(i think its 28lb?) in the trunk with some tools to switch out the pills, some waterbottles and snacks.
(well i have a o/r H pipe, that might save me 10lbs?)

still have A/C, smog, stock hood, iron heads, stock drivers seat, all other interior, and a HEAVY *** AOD!

Last edited by 302army187; Feb 7, 2009 at 08:28 AM.
Old Feb 7, 2009 | 09:06 AM
  #13  
Slo5oh's Avatar
Slo5oh
Thread Starter
Banned
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,206
From: Mount Laurel, NJ
Default

Originally Posted by WhiteWindsor
Sounds a bit heavy to me. My old 89 hatch weighed 3370 with me, i'm a fat **** weighing 255lbs. I had a heavier block and a heavier TKO 600. Full interior. The only weight loss i had was being carbed, fuel cell, and weld wheels.
That sounds a bit more like it to me. Your "heavier block" was a 351? What size fuel cell and how big?

Any idea how much the turbine wheels weigh?
Old Feb 7, 2009 | 09:23 AM
  #14  
WhiteWindsor's Avatar
WhiteWindsor
5th Gear Member
 
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,872
From: Warner Robins,GA
Default

Originally Posted by Slo5oh
That sounds a bit more like it to me. Your "heavier block" was a 351? What size fuel cell and how big?

Any idea how much the turbine wheels weigh?
Yea it was a 351. Fuel cell was an aluminum 10 gal. I have no idea how much the turbine wheels weigh. Besides having FULL interior i also had power locks, windows and mirrors. Like said it was carbed and also no a/c. I had the usual stuff....aluminum rad, electric fans, aluminum DS and aluminum heads, it still had power steering. Maybe when you figure all this stuff in, the weight isnt too far off but idk.. But the heavier block, tranny and power acc. made up for some of the light weight parts i mentioned. The car w/o me weighed 3115. Oh and i also had manual brakes...not sure how much the brake booster weighs. If i would have taken out the matting and seats i would probably have been less 3k but i wanted to keep stock interior. Hell....one more thing lol...i also had a 6in cowl instead of stock hood. But i still dont see yours weighing that much, weigh it on a different scale and take out any loose ****.
Old Feb 8, 2009 | 06:32 PM
  #15  
AdderMk2's Avatar
AdderMk2
Banned
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,374
From: Lil' Rhody
Default

Originally Posted by Slo5oh
Youre still heavier.

I took out some crap I had in the car and that saved about 50, I can get another 50 out easily enough. Basicly, I have to lose weight...personally... lol.
we arent talking about modified though. I was reffering to mostly stock.

I now have prostars all the way around, full tubular front suspension, aluminum heads, no a/c, no P/S, no ABS, and no spare equipment in the trunk. Once I get to the scales this year, we will settle this.

I'm just tired of hearing about how "heavy" and "slow" SN-95's are

My car (stock) still beat the hell out of every stock fox on this board
Old Feb 8, 2009 | 07:14 PM
  #16  
Slo5oh's Avatar
Slo5oh
Thread Starter
Banned
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,206
From: Mount Laurel, NJ
Default

Originally Posted by AdderMk2
we arent talking about modified though. I was reffering to mostly stock.

I now have prostars all the way around, full tubular front suspension, aluminum heads, no a/c, no P/S, no ABS, and no spare equipment in the trunk. Once I get to the scales this year, we will settle this.

I'm just tired of hearing about how "heavy" and "slow" SN-95's are

My car (stock) still beat the hell out of every stock fox on this board
If anything the stigma comes from that turd 4.6 in the newer ones
Old Feb 8, 2009 | 07:59 PM
  #17  
302army187's Avatar
302army187
6th Gear Member
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,395
From: colorado
Default

Originally Posted by AdderMk2

My car (stock) still beat the hell out of every stock fox on this board
meh, id agree to that if the cars where on street tires.


sticky tires and i think a coupe lx fox might walk it.
Old Feb 8, 2009 | 09:04 PM
  #18  
83gtragtop's Avatar
83gtragtop
5th Gear Member
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,897
From: DTLA, CA
Default

Originally Posted by AdderMk2
we arent talking about modified though. I was reffering to mostly stock.

I now have prostars all the way around, full tubular front suspension, aluminum heads, no a/c, no P/S, no ABS, and no spare equipment in the trunk. Once I get to the scales this year, we will settle this.

I'm just tired of hearing about how "heavy" and "slow" SN-95's are

My car (stock) still beat the hell out of every stock fox on this board
We got some '93 Cobra's on this board right?
Old Feb 8, 2009 | 09:58 PM
  #19  
OnyxCobra's Avatar
OnyxCobra
6th Gear Member
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 8,467
From: Rochester, NY
Default

It is true that SN95s aren't as heavy as people make them out to be, there is not a big difference between Foxes and SN95s.
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
JimC
Street/Strip
15
Oct 7, 2015 07:02 PM
guitarman376
4.6L (1996-2004 Modular) Mustang
0
Sep 30, 2015 05:54 PM
jar_are_red
New Member Area
3
Sep 24, 2015 07:03 AM
tj@steeda
Steeda Autosports
0
Sep 17, 2015 07:57 PM
tj@steeda
Archive - Mustangs For Sale
0
Sep 17, 2015 07:32 PM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:06 AM.