How do you call new muscle cars? "SOOOOOEEEEE!!""

New Charger SRT, 4500lbs, new Shelby 4150lbs!! New Boss 3665lbs
(nice!). Challenger SRT 392 4200lbs or so. My first 88 LX 5.0L
weighed about 3200lbs. Are we going to blame all of this extra FLAB
on airbags??!!

Thus spake Rich > :

>New Charger SRT, 4500lbs, new Shelby 4150lbs!! New Boss 3665lbs
>(nice!). Challenger SRT 392 4200lbs or so. My first 88 LX 5.0L
>weighed about 3200lbs. Are we going to blame all of this extra FLAB
>on airbags??!!

I can't remember. Isn't the rule of thumb 7 lb = 1 hp? And those
last 50 hp cost as much as the first 500?
--

- dillon I am not invalid

An object's desireability to a dog is directly
proportional to its desireability to another dog.

On 04/12/2011 09:45 PM, Dillon Pyron wrote:
> Thus spake > :
>
>> New Charger SRT, 4500lbs, new Shelby 4150lbs!! New Boss 3665lbs
>> (nice!). Challenger SRT 392 4200lbs or so. My first 88 LX 5.0L
>> weighed about 3200lbs. Are we going to blame all of this extra FLAB
>> on airbags??!!
>
> I can't remember. Isn't the rule of thumb 7 lb = 1 hp? And those
> last 50 hp cost as much as the first 500?

Well, in order to have have 800hp they had to find some way to add
weight. I think, all the wiring is now made of lead, making lead equal
in price to GAS! How ironic! Leaded GAS!

On Apr 12, 5:57*pm, Rich > wrote:
> New Charger SRT, 4500lbs, new Shelby 4150lbs!! *New Boss 3665lbs
> (nice!). *Challenger SRT 392 4200lbs or so. *My first 88 LX 5.0L
> weighed about 3200lbs. *Are we going to blame all of this extra FLAB
> on airbags??!!

The blame goes to 1) safety regs -- i.e. the steel beams required in
doors. And 2) options like ABS, multi-speaker stereos and power
everything -- the **** adds up. Plus 3), with damn near every engine
these days making north of 300 HP, more robust drive lines, chassis/
platforms, brakes, etc. also increase the poundage.

Patrick

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 15:57:19 -0700 (PDT), Rich >
wrote:

>New Charger SRT, 4500lbs, new Shelby 4150lbs!! New Boss 3665lbs
>(nice!). Challenger SRT 392 4200lbs or so. My first 88 LX 5.0L
>weighed about 3200lbs. Are we going to blame all of this extra FLAB
>on airbags??!!

It's all that heavy plastic combined with the weight of that sticker
on the window.

My 1965 C Code fastback could smoke the tires. My 1965 A Code fastback
can smoke the tires.

My mint condition C Code cost me $1000(plus $65 finacing from the bank
for 12 months) in 1970.

My A Code pile of parts cost me $900 in 2002 and after a LOT of work
and $40,000 is doing great.

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

Transmissions for the 1965, 1966 Ford Mustang:
Automatic: 3-speed
Manual: 3-speed, 4-speed


Yep. Gotta be the weight of all that plastic!

But, some pigs can fly quite well!

Dick

Dickr > wrote in news:UElqp.25927$0s5.11905
@newsfe17.iad:

> But, some pigs can fly quite well!
>
> Dick
>

Still, I can't help wondering what would happen if they stuck the Boss
engine in a lightweight, 2500lb body. Yeah, I know, it would cost a lot
more. It could be time to shrink the Mustang, and lose the rear seat.

On 5/9/2011 4:28 PM, Rich wrote:
> > wrote in news:UElqp.25927$0s5.11905
> @newsfe17.iad:
>
>> But, some pigs can fly quite well!
>>
>> Dick
>>
>
> Still, I can't help wondering what would happen if they stuck the Boss
> engine in a lightweight, 2500lb body. Yeah, I know, it would cost a lot
> more. It could be time to shrink the Mustang, and lose the rear seat.
Hi Rich,
Way back in the 70s, I had a "shrunken" Mustang II with a v6 engine. The
Cobra Mustang II with a V8 was also available at that time. The v6 was a
fun car to drive, and I can imagine one of those little buggies with a
Boss engine and very large rear tires. Wahoo!

Dick in MN

Dickr > wrote in :

> On 5/9/2011 4:28 PM, Rich wrote:
>> > wrote in news:UElqp.25927$0s5.11905
>> @newsfe17.iad:
>>
>>> But, some pigs can fly quite well!
>>>
>>> Dick
>>>
>>
>> Still, I can't help wondering what would happen if they stuck the Boss
>> engine in a lightweight, 2500lb body. Yeah, I know, it would cost a lot
>> more. It could be time to shrink the Mustang, and lose the rear seat.
> Hi Rich,
> Way back in the 70s, I had a "shrunken" Mustang II with a v6 engine. The
> Cobra Mustang II with a V8 was also available at that time. The v6 was a
> fun car to drive, and I can imagine one of those little buggies with a
> Boss engine and very large rear tires. Wahoo!
>
> Dick in MN
>

Just like enthusiasts putting 350's in Vegas. What I can't figure out is
why not shrink it a bit, or put it on a diet? The cost of raw materials
alone (4000lbs worth) has got to be up there nowadays. My 1988 had ultra-
thin window glass. How about today?