Latter Day Fatties

A reader pointed out an interesting fact about the current Ford Mustang GT – in relation to the Mustangs of the past. It is that the current Mustang GT weighs just shy of two tons  (3,827 lbs) which is about 700 pounds heavier than an ’80s-era Mustang (3,167 lbs. for a 1985 Mustang GT).

Most of that weight being due to government regulations – especially those regarding “safety.” The implication being an ’80s-era Mustang was unsafe – which is silly. It would, however, not be compliant with today’s “safety” standards, which isn’t quite the same thing as “unsafe.”

At any rate, the ’25 GT is really heavy for what it is – that being a “pony” car rather than a muscle car. Those are supposed to be heavy because they are bigger cars – but the Mustang is heavier than many of them, too.

It is heavier than my 1976 Trans-Am and that’s saying a lot. My car – derided when it was new for being overweight – weighs about 3,700 lbs. Less than a new Mustang GT. Even though my ’76 Pontiac has a much larger (7.5 liter/455 cubic inch) V8 engine that’s  made entirely of heavy cast iron vs. the entirely aluminum V8 that’s under the hood of the 2025 Mustang GT. That hood is also paper thin such that it can literally be bent by hand while my Trans-Am’s hood (and fenders and door panels) are all made of heavy stamped steel that have to be hit pretty hard to seriously damage.

The Trans-Am also has a heavy cast iron solid rear axle and heavy stamped steel suspension parts such as control arms while much of the current Mustang’s suspension is made of aluminum.

The current Mustang is also a unibody whereas my ’76 Trans Am has a massive bolt-on front subframe that holds the engine and transmission. It also has heavy steel wheels. The Mustang’s are, of course, lightweight alloy.

Yet the Mustang is still heavier than my Trans-Am notwithstanding how much of the Mustang is made of lightweight materials. It is as hilarious as it is sad.

It is also the result of deliberately contradictory federal regs – those demanding ever “safer” (that is, compliant) cars that are at the same time also more “fuel efficient.” You can have the one but not the other. If you want to have both at the same time, it is like expecting to get rid of your belly by eating Big Macs and washing them down with Diet Coke.

The “safety” regs have porked up new vehicles, which causes them to be less “fuel efficient,” so the vehicle manufacturers try to lighten them up by using as much aluminum and plastic and paper-thin sheetmetal as possible, which serves to make them fragile and expensive to repair and still overweight and not very “efficient,” either. The current Mustang GT’s 18 MPG (average) isn’t much better than what my ’76 Trans-Am manages, now that it has a modern transmission with overdrive gearing – notwithstanding that the TA does not have a modern, fuel-injected engine with computer controls to make the most of every drop of gas. It has a four barrel carburetor. It hasn’t got a computer. And despite that, it still average about 16 MPG.

The Mustang would probably average much higher – having all the advantages of technology – if it weren’t such a weighty waddler. It would also be even quicker (and faster) and would not need as much power (which is how it’d be able to average much higher).

But we can’t have that – because of government. More finely, because of this weird and tyrannical idea that government bureaucrats ought to be empowered to decree how “safe” and “efficient” the cars we want to buy must buy – and we get to pay for all of that. 

At the curb – and at the pump. 

. . .

If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos. 

The bitcoin code is: 3GAfymoqSUbaFvY8ztpSoDKJWCPLrkzAmi if you’re unable to scan the QR code above!