Sorry guys.

[Ingo]

In my (purely personal) opinion the Subie isn't exactly a light-weight either. Back when I started driving back in Germany, 1 metric ton (about 2200lb) was considered normal for you average car. But then I also like the A/C, 5seats, radio with CD, AWD... So we have to take the trade-offs. If you where to take out all the goodies, yes, you'd end up with a light weight and good performance, but then all the goodies are gone! So I guess we're stuck here. And then look at the Lotus Elise..., man, what a concept! And almost within reach... Just a wee bit tight.

[John M]

As opposed to how many other cars that have the issue of exploding driveshafts while doing a spirited pull? I've never had a driveshaft explode on me at 135. lol It probably wasn't balanced right.

It's a well-known issue with Ford products. The Crown Vic / Grand Marquis has that issue at the same speed. It can be remedied by swapping to an aluminum matrix shaft from the police version. The Thunderbird / Cougar has that problem and I wouldn't be surprised if it happens on the Mark VIII as well.

You can't cheat physics. A resonance can't be tuned out; it has to be fixed with different parts.

[mycologist]

600 lbs over what a GD weighs. This is my main issue with muscle cars. Instead of making them better all around cars, they just try and compensate for the massive amount of weight by throwing more power under the hood. Can you imagine what these cars would be capable of if they shaved 600 lbs off?

It would have to be a new space age type of construction.

It might look something like this (artist's rendition of future concept):



Specifications for the 1965, 1966 Ford Mustang:
Wheelbase, inches: 108.0
Length, inches: 181.6
Curb-weight range, pounds: 2,445-2,800 (1965); 2,488-2,800 (1966)
Width, inches: 68.2

Engine Types for the 1965, 1966 Ford Mustang:
I-6: 170 cubic inches; 101 horsepower
I-6: 200 cubic inches; 120 horsepower
V-8: 260 cubic inches; 164 horsepower
V-8: 289 cubic inches; 200-306 horsepower

[cjm1991]

It would have to be a new space age type of construction.

It might look something like this (artist's rendition of future concept):



Specifications for the 1965, 1966 Ford Mustang:
Wheelbase, inches: 108.0
Length, inches: 181.6
Curb-weight range, pounds: 2,445-2,800 (1965); 2,488-2,800 (1966)
Width, inches: 68.2

Engine Types for the 1965, 1966 Ford Mustang:
I-6: 170 cubic inches; 101 horsepower
I-6: 200 cubic inches; 120 horsepower
V-8: 260 cubic inches; 164 horsepower
V-8: 289 cubic inches; 200-306 horsepower

The horrible things I'd do to have a 65 or 66 with a 289 or 357 stroker.. One of these days.

[mycologist]

The horrible things I'd do to have a 65 or 66 with a 289 or 357 stroker.. One of these days.

I hear you. Z351 maybe?

[Rex_Harrison]

It would have to be a new space age type of construction.

It might look something like this (artist's rendition of future concept):



Specifications for the 1965, 1966 Ford Mustang:
Wheelbase, inches: 108.0
Length, inches: 181.6
Curb-weight range, pounds: 2,445-2,800 (1965); 2,488-2,800 (1966)
Width, inches: 68.2

Engine Types for the 1965, 1966 Ford Mustang:
I-6: 170 cubic inches; 101 horsepower
I-6: 200 cubic inches; 120 horsepower
V-8: 260 cubic inches; 164 horsepower
V-8: 289 cubic inches; 200-306 horsepower

3000lbs or less is easy when you don't have any airbags, no computers, no electric anything, no a/c, and your car has a 1star safety rating.

Seriously it can be done, it is being done. You can have tons of power in a lightweight car, just not in a semi - practical car ie. Lotus Elise. Ford or Chevy could easily build a safe sub 3000lb Mustang or Camaro but they would have to charge 60k+ for an entry level car ( basically a Corvette with a backseat ) Now that defeats the purpose of the muscle car doesn't it. The idea of the muscle car is very similar to the WRX, take an existing relatively inexpensive chasis, put a badass engine in it, give it a sport tuned suspension, and voila, you have affordable speed/fun for the masses.

Sure Subaru could build a much better, much lighter WRX with a nice stereo, better interior materials, and completely ditch its current business model. But that would put most of us out of the market for a WRX, and the world of affordable speed as we know it would be gone.

[mycologist]

3000lbs or less is easy when you don't have any airbags, no computers, no electric anything, no a/c, and your car has a 1star safety rating.

Seriously it can be done, it is being done. You can have tons of power in a lightweight car, just not in a semi - practical car ie. Lotus Elise. Ford or Chevy could easily build a safe sub 3000lb Mustang or Camaro but they would have to charge 60k+ for an entry level car ( basically a Corvette with a backseat ) Now that defeats the purpose of the muscle car doesn't it. The idea of the muscle car is very similar to the WRX, take an existing relatively inexpensive chasis, put a badass engine in it, give it a sport tuned suspension, and voila, you have affordable speed/fun for the masses.

Sure Subaru could build a much better, much lighter WRX with a nice stereo, better interior materials, and completely ditch its current business model. But that would put most of us out of the market for a WRX, and the world of affordable speed as we know it would be gone.

Just reinforce the area around the gas tank, or better yet throw in a fuel cell. 10 point cage at 150lbs.. Done.

A modern design with some crumple zones would be better, but cage > airbag.

[RayfieldsWRX]

It's also tricky comparing 1960's gross hp ratings to modern, net numbers. That 306hp probably pales to something in the low 200's in 2012 terms.

I <3 the '60's pony and musclecars, but have you driven one, lately? All the tech and weight does translate into a much better commuter. I just want a solid-feeling, nimble, relatively powerful car in the 2800-3000 lb. range. Seems like a nice compromise.

[rexxx0486]

I just want a solid-feeling, nimble, relatively powerful car in the 2800-3000 lb. range. Seems like a nice compromise.

BRZ ftw!

[Drews]

It's also tricky comparing 1960's gross hp ratings to modern, net numbers. That 306hp probably pales to something in the low 200's in 2012 terms.

I <3 the '60's pony and musclecars, but have you driven one, lately? All the tech and weight does translate into a much better commuter. I just want a solid-feeling, nimble, relatively powerful car in the 2800-3000 lb. range. Seems like a nice compromise.

My next car will be something RWD, but probably not anything in the muscle car family. I'm just not a fan of the new ones. *shrug* To each their own.

[mycologist]

It's also tricky comparing 1960's gross hp ratings to modern, net numbers. That 306hp probably pales to something in the low 200's in 2012 terms.

I <3 the '60's pony and musclecars, but have you driven one, lately? All the tech and weight does translate into a much better commuter. I just want a solid-feeling, nimble, relatively powerful car in the 2800-3000 lb. range. Seems like a nice compromise.

Nah, it has been a long time. I had a '72 Skylark ragtop that I drove around in the canyons in CO by Boulder, from CO to CA to Atlantic City. I recall driving it those long distances as a pleasure, but it could be the Kodac effect all these years later.

I don't know anything about how power is compared, but in some cases various motors were rather underrated back then reportedly.

[Rex_Harrison]

To put it in perspective a 2012 WRX weighs approx. 3200lbs. A 2013 Mustang GT weighs approx 3600lbs.


Overall the Mustang GT is 8.6 lbs per hp. The WRX is 12.2 lbs per hp.

In comparison the WRX is kind of a fatty.

[Rex_Harrison]

It's also tricky comparing 1960's gross hp ratings to modern, net numbers. That 306hp probably pales to something in the low 200's in 2012 terms.

I <3 the '60's pony and musclecars, but have you driven one, lately? All the tech and weight does translate into a much better commuter. I just want a solid-feeling, nimble, relatively powerful car in the 2800-3000 lb. range. Seems like a nice compromise.

60's muscle was super inefficient, drivetrain loss, skinny primitive thick wall tires, no traction control, you'd be lucky to put half your rated hp to the ground in their stock form.

Not to mention leaf springs and no disc brakes or ABS. Although I would love to have one of those cars, they've come a mighty long way in the refinement department since then.

[kritzell]

60's muscle was super inefficient, drivetrain loss, skinny primitive thick wall tires, no traction control, you'd be lucky to put half your rated hp to the ground in their stock form.

Not to mention leaf springs and no disc brakes or ABS. Although I would love to have one of those cars, they've come a mighty long way in the refinement department since then.

Sure are fun to drive though.The Duster I had sure made me smile a lot. I want another one..

[kritzell]

To put it in perspective a 2012 WRX weighs approx. 3200lbs. A 2013 Mustang GT weighs approx 3600lbs.


Overall the Mustang GT is 8.6 lbs per hp. The WRX is 12.2 lbs per hp.

In comparison the WRX is kind of a fatty.

You'd think the WRX would have much worse acceleration numbers given the 12+ pounds per horsepower. It makes good use of what it makes i guess..