So why are you reading and commenting on it?

I'm quite curious.

I mean, I ignore threads that are useless to me. I don't waste time telling people that I'm wasting time.

If people want to speculate about something that you don't want to speculate about, isn't it easier to just skip the thread? This one's even got a title that tells you what it's all about.

 

But if the next adds IRS and side airbags and all that good stuff, it's starting from a heavier point. Not to start the old IRS debate again. I know you don't think it weighs more, but I sure have seen it cited as a weight adder in the past.

On the SVT forum, someone (who seems to be someone that people listen to) said that it will not lose 250 pounds. My guess is that they're doing well to remain at 3500, which is, of course, where you put in in this poll....

 

For me, massive trunks and rear legroom are non-issues for a ponycar. I have a sedan and SUV for that.

 

I also doubt that the next gen Mustang will be 200-300 lbs less than today's. That's why I used 3500 lbs.

 

Charlie..........you know this is what helped to kill it in the first place....right???? BAD arguement......

Not everyone....in fact MOST people don't have a car for every season.......hence the boom in SUV / X-overs now.

If this is the future of sports cars......I'll pass........

 

Oh come on Doug, have you ever said, "hey my Camaro sucks because my 6 ft tall friends can't stretch out in the back seat"?

Camaro/Mustang aren't cars which should be all things to all people.

 

Magnetic suspension, dual mass clutch, larger driveshaft, supercharger/intercooler, etc.

 

I don't expect a 2+2 to have a huge back seat and trunk. But I do hope the next Mustang does not have less rear legroom than the 05+, which is pretty dismal already. And I know that many people were disappointed with the trunk size on the LSx GTO, despite its very impressive rear legroom. People buying value 2+2 coupes today expect good packaging, some real (not fullsize sedan ) rear legroom, and a reasonable trunk. Sounds like, if your predictions are true, those will be notably absent from the next Mustang... thus ruling it out for me and my two young sons

 

That's only the beginning. Here's the ultimate in high-performance coupes for those who REALLY want to show their fealty to Mother Nature:



Ah... just imagine... the joyous lack of weight! The light, springy feel on bumpy roads! The agility afforded, for dodging those nasty big American V8 pickups and sport utes! Woot!

 

3600-3700 falls within the range of 3650-3699 does it not? Are you really going to wring your hands about 50 pounds? Ouy....If the choices in that poll were broken down in increments of 100 instead of 50, you would have chosen -- (wait for it -- here it comes -- 3600-3700 )

And by the way, since you're so busy lashing out at the interior size of the Mustang....just how are you certain that the 5th Gen will meet your interior space requirements? Personally, if I was on Team Camaro, a backseat comfortably seating 2 adults would take precedence far below other targets such as weight and general performance with reasonable for this segment levels of practicality. By "reasonable for this segment", I basically mean 150,000 Mustang owners a year don't seem to mind "your" definition of non-comfort.

 

Charlie......I drive a Corvette, so I've already made my decision...BUT, Guys' already covered this years ago and many times since....remember his threads about the 'enthusiast being the one who killed the Camaro'?? "Engine in a box" ring a bell?

There wasn't a magazine review EVER that didn't deride the pony cars rear seating as being only for midgets, children or amputees...and lamented the total lack of trunk / package space.

We simply can't go that route again and expect to survive beyond this current incarnation.

Overhangs are not where the weight is....it's everywhere else....and unless you're willing to give up many important options or useablility...there isn't much a well built, great car can afford to lose and remain affordable.

 

Nope. It does not. 3600 to 3700 does not fall WITHIN 3650 to 3699. It's 3600 < 3650 < 3699 < 3700.
Well they weren't. And the 50 isn't that big a deal to me, but with your compounded error you had things off by 150 as far as trying to characterize my concerns and priorities.
I'm not expecting the new Camaro to have a huge back seat, or even GTO-sized legroom. My boys are only 8 and 11 yr. old so call me selfish, but I really don't care if the car holds adults comfortably in the back.

 

Playing the semantics game, I'm pretty sure he meant that the range of 3600-3700 covers the range of 3650-3699.

Surely we're not now going to argue over 50 lbs? How silly would that be?

there is some sarcasm in that last line, for those that might pick it up

 

As I've said, the 50 in and of itself means little. Let's take a look at his statement again, shall we? (For the sake of being accurate about characterizing someone else's position )

The first problem with that statement, is its assumption that I think the new Camaro might weigh between 3600 and 3650 lb. That is not my position. I clearly chose in the poll, a window of 3650 - 3699. Not 3500, not 3600, not 3900. It just so happens that by mischaracterizing my vote in that way, it helped his cheesy argument. How conveeeenient

But the other problem with that statement, well it just goes back to the circus aspect of all this. I guess the lack of concrete knowledge about the new production Camaro wasn't enough mystery for some. Now we also need to drag in all the unknowns and speculation about the next Mustang too

 

Yeah, I know Paul. My point was that a "lighter hood" isn't going to take all of that and make it mass neutral.