SC shootout weight data

I took another 10.4 pounds out of the car today, with more to come.

In related news, whoever torqued the uppermost dead pedal bolt to about 100 lb-ft is a right bastard.
 
I took another 10.4 pounds out of the car today, with more to come.

In related news, whoever torqued the uppermost dead pedal bolt to about 100 lb-ft is a right bastard.

Can you start a weight loss thread so i or we can see what else you strip? Iv stripped pretty much everything i can think of besides my dash, heat and radio. Lookin for ideas
 
Can you start a weight loss thread so i or we can see what else you strip? Iv stripped pretty much everything i can think of besides my dash, heat and radio. Lookin for ideas

I think he already has a thread, or I know that somebody does. Mike Puckett has stripped a lot out of his car too.
 
Some years back I posted a big list of parts I've weighed. That doesn't list everything I've done to the car, though.

Get creative with custom stuff. Mandrel-bent aluminum IC tubes instead of cast. Thin-gauge exhaust tubing. The smallest battery that will start the car. Plastic tensioner pulleys instead of steel. That sort of thing.
 
Just to update my 3892 weight to reflect my race weight, I weighed my street wheels and drag wheels.

Street Wheels, Lugs and concentric hub rings:
Front 19" x 8.5": 59 lbs each
Rear 19" x 8.5": 62.5 lbs each
Weight difference only from tire size difference...275/35 vs 245/40

Race Wheels, Lugs:
Front Bogart Skinnies 17" x 4.5": 29 lbs each
Rear 94 stock wheels and 27" x 10.5" ET Streets: 39.5 lbs each

Savings:
Front: 60 lbs
Rear: 46 lbs
Total: 106 lbs

Race Weight: 3892 - 106 = 3786 + fat driver.
 
I have a Ford document titled "Manufacturer's Motor Vehicle Specifications," originally dated 5/14/93 and revised 10/1/93 that lists the official specs for all 94 Thunderbird models, as well as the weight impact of all available options. The official curb weight for a 5-speed SC with no extra options is 3758, and if I did my math right, an automatic with every conceivable option would top out at 3952. I don't see the early cars weighing an extra 70 pounds, so I'm not sure how to account for the weight of Jim's car.
 
I have a Ford document titled "Manufacturer's Motor Vehicle Specifications," originally dated 5/14/93 and revised 10/1/93 that lists the official specs for all 94 Thunderbird models, as well as the weight impact of all available options. The official curb weight for a 5-speed SC with no extra options is 3758, and if I did my math right, an automatic with every conceivable option would top out at 3952. I don't see the early cars weighing an extra 70 pounds, so I'm not sure how to account for the weight of Jim's car.
I can't say for sure, but it seems like the early wheels would weigh more than the later wheels. Although, I'm sure that difference wouldn't add up to 70 lbs.
 
I can't say for sure, but it seems like the early wheels would weigh more than the later wheels. Although, I'm sure that difference wouldn't add up to 70 lbs.

I was going to say the same thing. Also, some tires weigh significantly more than others.

If the late model #'s you have don't include a full-power passenger seat, that is another big difference.

Rear LCA's too...not sure, but seems like the early stamped arms are a bit heavier than the later cast ones.

Does the data you have include any fuel in the tank (and/or other fluids)?
 
The heavy end of the weight spectrum I posted does include ALL options, power passenger seat included.

The document lists curb weight and "shipping weight" for each Thunderbird model. It doesn't explain in a detailed way what that shipping mass is, but I assume curb weight includes fluids, as is typically the case. It does say:

"Shipping Mass (Weight) = Curb Mass Less

3.8L 64 (142)
4.6L 68 (149)"

Where the number in parentheses is pounds, and the number before that is kilos. The difference between a full and bone-dry tank is only 108 pounds, so there has to be more to it than that. You wouldn't ship a car with no fluids in it at all.

What's odd is that those numbers don't add up properly. The curb mass for a 5-speed is listed as 3758, and shipping mass 3613. That's a difference of 145 pounds, not 142.
 
I would like to add that the stamped steel rear lca's found only on 89's are significantly heavier than their cast counterparts. I weighted them at one point, but I can't remember what they were. I want to say they were like ten pounds heavier apiece.

Phil
 
I would like to add that the stamped steel rear lca's found only on 89's are significantly heavier than their cast counterparts. I weighted them at one point, but I can't remember what they were. I want to say they were like ten pounds heavier apiece.

Phil

I never knew that, but now that you mention it, the 89 also had the thickest/heaviest factory sway bars, and the 89-93 cars had the option for side marker lights that the 94-95 didn't. It's also possible the early interior and bumpers are heavier as a whole than the later pieces.
 
I would like to add that the stamped steel rear lca's found only on 89's are significantly heavier than their cast counterparts. I weighted them at one point, but I can't remember what they were. I want to say they were like ten pounds heavier apiece.

Phil

Geez....I figured they were heavier, but not by that much! Wow....
 
I never knew that, but now that you mention it, the 89 also had the thickest/heaviest factory sway bars, and the 89-93 cars had the option for side marker lights that the 94-95 didn't. It's also possible the early interior and bumpers are heavier as a whole than the later pieces.

I haven't weighed the sway bars, but since they're hollow, I'm not sure the weight difference is much between the years.

Early vs late bumpers may be a little different in weight....I had both and they feel about the same wrestling them around. If I had to guess, I would say the late model bumpers are lighter - especially the front
 
I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few weight saving measures employed for the '90 MY, as the MN12 development team got reamed at the release of the '89 over both budget and weight, IIRC.
 
Okay, I found all the PDFs with Ford's official weights. I thought I had found them on the old SCCoA site, and I was right: http://www.sccoa.com/articles/scspecs.php. These files are almost hidden, and I'd be fairly surprised if even long-time club members have never seen them.

Here are the official (base) SC curb weights for each year. Every option would increase these weights:

1989 manual: 3701
1989 automatic: 3740
1990 manual: 3809
1990 automatic: 3838
1991 manual: 3767
1991 automatic: 3811
1992 manual: 3738
1992 automatic: 3768
1993 manual: 3760
1993 automatic: 3787
1994 manual: 3758
1994 automatic: 3790
1995 manual: 3724
1995 automatic: 3752

I hate to be the guy that says "I know better than Ford," but some of these numbers seem suspect. I doubt the 89 would be the lightest for all the reasons people have already mentioned. Could be Ford tried to fudge the numbers for PR but had to own up to them in 90, then did a bit each year to drop the total weight.
 
Back
Top