Weight savings for a 64.5 mustang....

[Joey120373]

I heard someone say that HP is much cheaper than carbon fiber, but I still think the lighter the better.

Though I’m still in the daydreaming phase of rebuilding my mustang, I figure it’s still a good idea to trim weight where I can and within reason. For instance, upgrading the brakes gave me the opportunity to buy some willwood dynalite stuff, as well as an aluminum master cylinder. Win win there, and for not a while lot more coin than OEM iron stuff.

So on the engine side of things, aluminum heads, intake and water pump are a given.
But I am wondering how much weight can be saved by going to an aluminum block (302) ? I’m guessing, based on the internet, that it’s somewhere in the neighborhood of 60-90 pounds?
I’ve also read that the stock 302 crank is pretty light, and that aftermarket cranks tend to be heavier, but looking at some of the scalloped higher end ultra light forged crank offerings I have a hard time believing that there can’t be some weight savings there. And ( still daydreaming here ) getting a super light weight rotating assembly might be a whole lot of fun.

So has anyone here ever built up a light weight 302 based engine, and did you weigh it compaired to a stock, iron everything motor?

[hbstang]

is this for a drag car road race or what?what is your weight goal?you could shave at least 150 pounds off a stock 302 engine,but its not going to be cheap with aluminum block etc.i see people go this route,and then add a/c power steering and brakes which defeats the purpose.
theres a lot to be saved on the interior and saftey as well.chromoly roll cage vs mild steel.composite windows vs stock glass,lite weight seats,remove radio heater etc.it can be never ending.ultra lite weight batteries etc.
if you want to see the extreme weight loss,see what the top sprint cars do.they shave the motor mount bosses off an aluminum block!

[rockhouse66]

What transmission?  Aluminum toploader case saves quite a bit of weight.

[frnkeore]

Don't forget about a aluminum 3rd member and housing, with gun drilled axles.

Titanium headers and exhaust system would also be a must.

A all aluminum engine could get down to about 350 lb, that is what Fords, push rod, Indy engine weighed, including it's dry sump system.

The old saying, "Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go", will ALWAYS apply.

[plovett]

I don't know about the specific engine weights, but since a low deck SBF is so small anyway, I don't think the switch from an iron block to aluminum would save a huge amount.   

On a tall deck SBF or a big block the weight savings would be greater.

Also forged, not cast, aluminum wheels can save a bunch of weight.  And it's rotating weight.

paul

[plovett]

Tony DeFeo (Uncle Tony's Garage) is a weight saving nut.   You might watch some of his Youtube videos on it.

paul

[JERICOGTX]

What ever you do, don't use a Fat Man Fab front suspension kit. A Counterweight on a Forklift weighs less.

[gt350hr]

   Joey120373,
     I have been down this road before. First replace all unimportant steel fasteners with aluminum. This would be fender bolts , window retaining bolts and anything "non structural" . Aluminum bolts are lighter and cheaper than Ti bolts.
   The "S302" block I have weighs 90 lbs and is 30-70 lbs lighter than a stock or aftermarket block BUT it was several thousand dollars MORE and it WILL NOT make as much power because the bores do not stay round as the block warms up. I've run a mag third member and aluminum spool , "mag" wheels , aluminum lug nuts , and these "unsprung" parts have little affect. In my case a 50lb reduction in "driver weight" would be a BIG gain!!!!

[Mbowling]

I’m not sure on a early mustang  although I do have a nice all stock 66 coupe...
But I can speak to weight savings. I had dirt track 410” wing sprint cars for many years back when there was no weight rule like today where it is 1425 with driver.  Every piece and I mean every bolt was massaged in some way to make it lighter.  There is no end to it.

[Gaugster]

They make composite  leaf spings that are lighter than stock or mono springs.

[cjshaker]

In my case a 50lb reduction in "driver weight" would be a BIG gain!!!!

LOL, I always avoid this subject, but since it was brought up...
I always grin when I see long threads on weight loss for performance reasons....only to see a 300 lb driver.  Seems nobody wants to go to THAT extreme to gain some weight savings..lol  At 140 lbs, I figure I already have a .10 ET advantage on most people..lol

One hint; if you have a fold down rear seat, you can save a quick and easy 50+ pounds by ditching it and either making it a 2 seater or putting in a basic rear seat. An aluminum radiator is another easy weight loss. Fiberglass hood and bumpers is another easy savings. Factory Mustang bumpers are worthless for protection anyway, especially in the front.

[Joey120373]

is this for a drag car road race or what?what is your weight goal?you could shave at least 150 pounds off a stock 302 engine,but its not going to be cheap with aluminum block etc.i see people go this route,and then add a/c power steering and brakes which defeats the purpose.
theres a lot to be saved on the interior and saftey as well.chromoly roll cage vs mild steel.composite windows vs stock glass,lite weight seats,remove radio heater etc.it can be never ending.ultra lite weight batteries etc.
if you want to see the extreme weight loss,see what the top sprint cars do.they shave the motor mount bosses off an aluminum block!

This will be a road cruising daily driver. Might take it to the drag strip on occasion. So not going overboard on power or weight savings. It may get A/C at some point. But manual brakes and steering for now. subframe stiffeners and upgraded suspension front and rear are in the works.
Not going for the end all be all stripped down lightest thing ever, but looking for weight Gaines wherever I can get them without an astronomical budget.
The aluminum block is a big chunk of cash for not a whole lot of weight savings, but it’s not out of the picture, the Man-o-war alloy block costs about 3K more than the iron block, all to save 60-90 pounds.

However, an aluminum headed stock block 347 can get pretty good power, still pretty light and way cheaper.

[Joey120373]

What transmission?  Aluminum toploader case saves quite a bit of weight.

Yea, that’s where I’m conflicted. I have a T-56 that is essentially free. It’s a 130-135 pound trans.
Where something like a T5 is 75 pounds and still gets me an overdrive. The new Tremec 5 speed would be better suited to the power level in at and save a bunch of weight over the T-56. And if I were ok with only a 4 speed the top loader would be the best I imagine.

But I’ve got a T-56....... kinda want to use it even though it’s a good 55-69 pounds heavier...

[Joey120373]

I don't know about the specific engine weights, but since a low deck SBF is so small anyway, I don't think the switch from an iron block to aluminum would save a huge amount.   

On a tall deck SBF or a big block the weight savings would be greater.

Also forged, not cast, aluminum wheels can save a bunch of weight.  And it's rotating weight.

paul

Yea, agree on all points. The little 302 just doesn’t gain as much in the Jenny craig department when compared to most other motors. Forged wheels are are on the list, as well as an aluminum third member. I didn’t know about gun drilled axles and alloy housings though, have to look into that.

[Joey120373]

Tony DeFeo (Uncle Tony's Garage) is a weight saving nut.   You might watch some of his Youtube videos on it.

paul

Ha! That’s where I really got to thinking about it, that Swiss cheese car of his is really cool, not what I’m going for but I’ll bet that thing will be all kinds of fun.

[Joey120373]

In my case a 50lb reduction in "driver weight" would be a BIG gain!!!!

LOL, I always avoid this subject, but since it was brought up...
I always grin when I see long threads on weight loss for performance reasons....only to see a 300 lb driver.  Seems nobody wants to go to THAT extreme to gain some weight savings..lol  At 140 lbs, I figure I already have a .10 ET advantage on most people..lol

One hint; if you have a fold down rear seat, you can save a quick and easy 50+ pounds by ditching it and either making it a 2 seater or putting in a basic rear seat. An aluminum radiator is another easy weight loss. Fiberglass hood and bumpers is another easy savings. Factory Mustang bumpers are worthless for protection anyway, especially in the front.

Yep! Couldn’t agree more! I’m not a small guy but I am down about 40 pounds from a year ago, another 15-20 to go. 220 or so now.
Bumpers are a good call, and I need at least 1 new front quarter panel.

[Falcon67]

If you are interested in "weight" as limiting performance, you need to focus on rotating weight.  That is 5 times more effective than eating salads or using aluminum bolts.  Drive shaft, internal trans parts, wheels, rear end gears, etc, etc.  Rotating mass eats power.  Doesn't hurt to lose statis weight, but the average is 100 lbs static to gain about .01 in the 1/4.  You can gain 10~100 times that with just a converter change.

[Joey120373]

If you are interested in "weight" as limiting performance, you need to focus on rotating weight.  That is 5 times more effective than eating salads or using aluminum bolts.  Drive shaft, internal trans parts, wheels, rear end gears, etc, etc.  Rotating mass eats power.  Doesn't hurt to lose statis weight, but the average is 100 lbs static to gain about .01 in the 1/4.  You can gain 10~100 times that with just a converter change.

I knew rotating weight was more beneficial to cut than static, just didn’t know it was that much.
I’ve been seriously considering spending $1600-$2000 on one of the “ultra light” crank forgings, as well as a light weight balancer and flywheel/clutch. To me that seems a better use of money than an alloy block. Of course those same parts in an aluminum block is better, but cost IS an issue.

[gt350hr]

   I have a new aluminum ring Romac balancer for a small block . PM if interested.

[jayb]

You have to be careful about rotating weight, I've done lots of moment of inertia calculations on that and the results in most cases are not that big.  Where you can really save on rotating weight is the wheels and tires, and the flywheel, those two items will have a big effect.  The reason is that the inertia of the parts increases with the square of the radius, so the larger the diameter, the bigger the power gain (or loss) potential.  An aluminum flywheel will pick you up a significant amount of HP over a steel flywheel.  A lightweight wheel and tire combo will help even more.  Cranks, rods, harmonic balancers, axles and driveshafts, not so much.  Here's a post I did quite a while back, explaining this issue:

There's a recent message on the forum regarding using an aluminum flywheel versus a steel flywheel in a performance application.  To quantify this you need to do a torque calculation using something called the moment of inertia of the flywheel.  I thought it might be of general interest here to show this calculation, at least if you are an FE tech geek like me 

For the purposes of an example, let's pretend that we have a choice of two flywheels, a 15 pound aluminum flywheel or a 40 pound steel flywheel.  The 40 pound flywheel has more inertia, and will be harder to accelerate than the 15 pound flywheel.  How much more torque will it take to accelerate the 40 pound flywheel at 1000 RPM per second than the 15 pound flywheel?

First, we have to calculate the center of mass of the flywheels.  This is the imaginary ring, some distance from the center of each flywheel, where if all the weight of the flywheel was concentrated it would behave the same under acceleration as the flywheel itself.  The easiest way to do that is to find the imaginary ring where half the flywheel's weight is outside the ring, and half is inside the ring.  If we approximate the flywheel as a simple disc 13" in diameter, the diameter of the imaginary ring is 0.707 X 13", or 9.19".  We actually will need the radius of this ring, which is 4.595".

Next we have to calculate the moment of inertia of each flywheel, but we need to get the values into a form that we can use.  In English units, this means that we will calculate the moment of inertia in slug-feet.  In order to do this, we have to convert the radius of our imaginary ring to feet, which is 4.595/12, or 0.383 feet.  We also have to calculate the mass of the flywheels, by dividing their weight in pounds by the acceleration due to gravity, 32.2 feet per second per second.  For the aluminum flywheel, this is 15/32.2, or 0.466, and for the steel flywheel this is 40/32.2, or 1.242.  Moment of inertia is the mass times the radius of the ring squared:

Moment of inertia of aluminum flywheel = 0.466 X 0.383 X 0.383 = 0.068

Moment of inertial of the steel flywheel = 1.242 X 0.383 X 0.383 = 0.182

To calculate the torque required, we have to multiply the acceleration rate by the moment of inertia.  We need the acceleration rate in radians per second per second, but we have it in rotations per minute per second.  To convert one rotation to radians, multiply by 6.28, and to convert minutes to seconds, divide by 60.  So, 1000 RPM (Rotations per minute) per second = (1000 X 6.28)/60, or 104.66 radians per second per second.

Torque required to accelerate the 15 pound aluminum flywheel at 1000 RPM per second is 0.068 X 104.66 = 7.12 lb-ft of torque.

Torque required to accelerate the 40 pound steel flywheel at 1000 RPM per second is 0.182 X 104.66 = 19.05 lb-ft of torque.

So, if you switch out the 15 pound aluminum flywheel in your 428CJ Mustang and replace it with a 40 pound steel flywheel, as you accelerate in third gear at 1000 RPM per second, you have lost about 12 lb-ft of torque all along the acceleration curve.  In terms of horsepower, at 3000 RPM this is a 6.85 HP loss, and at 7000 RPM it is a 16 HP loss.

This calculation can be applied to any part of the rotational drive components of the vehicle, including the driveshaft, axles, transmission components, wheels and tires, and of course the reciprocating assembly.  For anything other than a round disc, the center of mass portion of the calculation is more complex, but an estimate can be made in most cases.

Hope this is of some general interest 

[Joey120373]

Fantastic post there Jay, thanks.

That leads  to the next big question I have, smaller diameter clutches, single or multiple disk.
An aluminum flywheel is on my list, it has one now that’s ~ 40 years old.
But seems to me bolting up a large, heavy clutch to that light weight flywheel is taking a step in the wrong direction.

I’ve seen some really sexy looking multi disk, light weight clutches for modern vehicles, some of them look to have aluminum cover plates too.
But google “light weight clutch for a Ford 302” and all I see are big center force clutches as far as the eye can see, or full race sprint car stuff. Seems to me there ought to be something in the middle that doesn’t cost $1600-$2000.
Dunno, but seems to me that would be a worthwhile expense at 2 to 3 times what a “good” stock replacement clutch would cost.
I remember the engine masters episode where they took a basically stick motor, and dynoed it with a heavy stock dampener and flywheel, and then with basically a hub at either end. The way the lighter stuff revved on the dyno still gives me goosebumps thinking about it.

[rockhouse66]

Very small diameter multi-disc clutches are the norm for fully developed high performance engines.  Some of the motivation may be packaging, but the dynamic advantages are real, as Jay has illustrated.

[cjshaker]

Just remember, there is no free lunch. Going to trick lightweight rotational parts means you better have a really fat wallet (except for maybe wheels). Stuff gets expensive, quick, when you start looking at lightweight engine components, carbon fiber driveshafts, gun drilled axles, lightweight pressure plates and other driveline parts. There can also be a sacrifice in longevity and durability. Short skirt lightweight pistons will have a limited lifespan compared to a 'regular' performance piston that is more stable in the bore. Carbon fiber driveshafts are prone to damage and can not be repaired. Lightweight housings and third members wear out quicker. You get the idea.

Other stuff just might not make sense, in a given scenario. A short stroke small block with a manual trans and a fat cam can get dicey on the street with a lightweight flywheel. A heavier flywheel smooths out the idle and takeoff and makes the car more street friendly. Not saying an aluminum flywheel won't work, but there are tradeoffs, and they have to be taken into account with the overall combo.

As for the rotational math on flywheels, I'd be interested in hearing back to back comparisons. There's no shortage of instances where theory and what the math says, doesn't match reality in ET gains. Just a 'devils advocate' question to ask yourself; is it worth living with a combo that is nearly impossible to drive on the streets, just to gain .01 or .02 in ET?

Remember, you started out by saying "This will be a road cruising daily driver." Most of the trick stuff being discussed here does not belong on a daily driver. It's fun bench racing though...lol Personally, I'd stick with removing what you don't need, maybe throw some fiberglass at it (hood, decklid, bumpers), relocate some weight with the battery in the trunk to make the car more balanced. You would definitely feel the difference, and you won't sacrifice anything.

[Joey120373]

.  As for the rotational math on flywheels, I'd be interested in hearing back to back comparisons. There's no shortage of instances where theory and what the math says, doesn't match reality in ET gains. Just a 'devils advocate' question to ask yourself; is it worth living with a combo that is nearly impossible to drive on the streets, just to gain .01 or .02 in ET?     

Good points, as for some of the things mentioned, carbo fiber or even aluminum drive shaft, I’m thinking “nah” , just don’t see the benefit justifying the cost, for all the reasons mentioned.
As far as making a 302 based engine too wild for the street, don’t think that’s possible with any reasonable fore thought. Light weight Mahle pistons, I beam rods, light crank, balancer and flywheel/clutch, all those are going to be lighter for sure but I doubt so much lighter than stock that it’s going to make it un-drivable.  Overly large heads, cam and CR, guessing that would do it. Could be wrong. And, for me, it’s not about an ET, if I were going for an ET, I would be chasing HP, cause “it is a lot cheaper than carbon fiber” .
Would be looking at shoe horning a bigger motor in there or power adders or both. For me it’s as much about making the car more responsive as it is quicker. Reducing unsprung weight and rotating mass on a 55 year old car, within reason, I’m guessing will only do good.

[Joe-JDC]

In back to back dyno testing with 26# flywheel vs. 34# flywheel, the torque curve was more round with no dips with the 36# flywheel, and horsepower difference was not measurable.  Acceleration rate was quicker by less than a second after everything was optimized.  Just my experience, but maybe we needed more of a difference in flywheel weight to see the horsepower advantage, if any.  Joe-JDC

[Gaugster]

The flywheel (I.e. Manual) argument has some secondary considerations. At least that's what I've been led to believe. A heavy flywheel will have more stored energy in a drag race launch situation. When the clutch is dropped that energy can result in a more powerful launch. This may or may not result in a faster overall ET. Perhaps with a lower trap speed but it gets real vehicle specific. This is probably true for an automatic (flexplate) using a stutter box.

Of course you can just increase the launch RPM to compensate for a lighter flywheel. As always it's the combination of vehicle and powertrain that gets the win light.

[blykins]

So, you all know my thoughts on aluminum blocks, and I'm not here to re-hash that.   

However, if you look at it from a cost efficiency standpoint, a brand new Ford Racing cast iron Boss block is $2200.  A new Dart cast iron block is similar (if they can ever get away from their 14 week delivery backorder right now).  A Dart aluminum block is $6800.   You could quite literally buy 3 cast iron blocks for the cost of one aluminum block.  That money would go a long way toward lightening the car, driveline, rotating assembly, or even adding *a lot* of horsepower by cylinder head porting, forced induction, etc. 

There is a big difference in weight between the aluminum and cast iron aftermarket Ford 302 blocks, because the aftermarket blocks are quite beefy.   I've had the aluminum Dart Ford 302 blocks in here and I could quite literally pick one up off the floor with one finger, when the block was sitting on the floor on its bellhousing flange.  They weigh about 85 lbs.   The Dart cast iron blocks weigh 160 with a 4" bore.  It goes down a bit when you take them to a 4.125-4.170" bore.

The aftermarket cast iron blocks will support 370-380 cubes with a 3.400" crankshaft.   "Streetable" horsepower would be around 475-500 in that trim. 

[frnkeore]

Of course, another way to save 170 lb, is to dump the Mustang and build on a early Falcon (6 cyl, 2390 vs 2562 curb wt).

There is very little difference between the two, the Mustang is built on the basic Falcon chassis. The Falcon wheel base is 3" longer but, everything on the chassis, will swap from one to the other.

With a lot of time and money, you could come up with a 2000 lb, SBF car.

[TomP]

Or a Lotus Super7, I think you could get that below 1200lbs with an aluminum SBF ... but i'd think he was wanting to know abou the Mustang. All the hardtops compared to sedans are heavy because of the way the door and quarter window mechanisms are.
 The door glass and vent window frames are heavy.... there is weight to be saved there.

[Joey120373]

. There is a big difference in weight between the aluminum and cast iron aftermarket Ford 302 blocks, because the aftermarket blocks are quite beefy.   I've had the aluminum Dart Ford 302 blocks in here and I could quite literally pick one up off the floor with one finger, when the block was sitting on the floor on its bellhousing flange.  They weigh about 85 lbs.   The Dart cast iron blocks weigh 160 with a 4" bore.  It goes down a bit when you take them to a 4.125-4.170" bore.

The aftermarket cast iron blocks will support 370-380 cubes with a 3.400" crankshaft.   "Streetable" horsepower would be around 475-500 in that trim.       

Seems I have to keep reminding myself of these things, you are quite correct. An extra 4K to save 65 pounds is a tad bit on the unreasonable side. I know the aftermarket iron blocks are heavier than a stick block, but how much heavier? 20-30 pounds? Seems to me that’s a good trade off for more cubes and a bullet proof block.

[blykins]

. There is a big difference in weight between the aluminum and cast iron aftermarket Ford 302 blocks, because the aftermarket blocks are quite beefy.   I've had the aluminum Dart Ford 302 blocks in here and I could quite literally pick one up off the floor with one finger, when the block was sitting on the floor on its bellhousing flange.  They weigh about 85 lbs.   The Dart cast iron blocks weigh 160 with a 4" bore.  It goes down a bit when you take them to a 4.125-4.170" bore.

The aftermarket cast iron blocks will support 370-380 cubes with a 3.400" crankshaft.   "Streetable" horsepower would be around 475-500 in that trim.       

Seems I have to keep reminding myself of these things, you are quite correct. An extra 4K to save 65 pounds is a tad bit on the unreasonable side. I know the aftermarket iron blocks are heavier than a stick block, but how much heavier? 20-30 pounds? Seems to me that’s a good trade off for more cubes and a bullet proof block.

Yes sir, that's a good estimate.  The Dart blocks are about 160 lbs. 

[Joe-JDC]

One of the best things I ever did for my '66 2+2, 4 speed was install a 351W.  Turned the car into a beast with simple upgrades that were completely streetable.  The torque difference alone was worth the few pounds difference in weight, and going to aluminum heads, aluminum intake manifold, aluminum water pump, headers, aluminum radiator, aluminum driveshaft, fiberglass front valence panel, fiberglass hood/hood scoop, and it was a pure joy to drive.  Didn't need more than a 3.50:1 gear to keep up with just about anything the street could throw at it.  With the 351W, you can go huge stroker builds today, and still keep the weight down to that of the original 260/289 iron engine.  Joe-JDC

[cjshaker]

One of the best things I ever did for my '66 2+2, 4 speed was install a 351W.  Turned the car into a beast with simple upgrades that were completely streetable.  The torque difference alone was worth the few pounds difference in weight, and going to aluminum heads, aluminum intake manifold, aluminum water pump, headers, aluminum radiator, aluminum driveshaft, fiberglass front valence panel, fiberglass hood/hood scoop, and it was a pure joy to drive.  Didn't need more than a 3.50:1 gear to keep up with just about anything the street could throw at it.  With the 351W, you can go huge stroker builds today, and still keep the weight down to that of the original 260/289 iron engine.  Joe-JDC

+1
Best advice yet.

[Joey120373]

Years ago, when I got the car, that was exactly what I had in mind. Only of course, since I was building it in my head, it was going to be a 460 inch aftermarket block with really good heads and the works.
I am still a big fan of cubic inches.

Now that I have the car on wheels and running ( not driving yet  ), I am liking the idea of keeping it a 302 based deal. While it’s fun to talk about all the “what if’s” , getting a good 450-500 HP under the hood, and getting the rest of the car upgraded to properly handle the power, the car will be all kinds of
Fun and hold its own rather well I think. Of course, the little voice in the back of my head is telling me that it would cost almost exactly the same amount of money to put together a stroker 460 cobe 351 block as it does to build a 302 based 363..... .

But for now at least, I’m liking the little 302, looks good in the engine bay and I can get to the spark plugs......

Saw a really nice (65 I think ?) mustang that CJ pony parts put together with a coyote motor, looks like a really nice car, but I could not get over how massive that engine looked in the engine bay. But I’ll bet that thing freaking scoots.

[Joe-JDC]

351W is a bolt in with headers available for the swap.  500 hp with a 351W is a lot easier to get than with 302, IMO.   Joe-JDC

[cammerfe]

...Saw a really nice (65 I think ?) mustang that CJ pony parts put together with a coyote motor, looks like a really nice car, but I could not get over how massive that engine looked in the engine bay. But I’ll bet that thing freaking scoots.

That Coyote motor has an aluminum block and is about the same width as a BBF.

On another note, I did a swap of many of the factory parts on my '65 1/2 Mustang for Shelby stuff back within a few months of getting the
car new. With a four-point mild-steel roll-bar it finally weighed about 2800. Gratiot Auto had a bunch of Shelby hoods and rear decks that were made-up for the GT350s.

KS

[Joey120373]

Want to thank everyone for the advice, warnings and input.

I think I’ll make a few lists, one list for no-brain-er mods, one for possible mods
And a third list of “would be cool but cost to much”
Of course this is my list, so I suspect things will change and move around as time goes by,
but I welcome any input.

So,
“No brainer, weight savings stuff “
1, aluminum heads, intake and WP
2, aluminum flywheel
3, light weight disc brakes ( already have those )
3a, aluminum. Master cylinder ( dual cast iron thing weighs a ton in comparison ! )
4, light weight forged wheels
5, aluminum radiator and electric fan
6, light weight, relocated battery
7, light weight starter and alternator
8, headers

“Wish list, possible weight saving stuff”
1, light weight crank and balancer
2, mono leaf composite leaf springs. ( have read good things about these )
3, aluminum 3rd member
4, lighter weight front suspension ( this should probably be in the no brain-er list)
5, lighter weight 5 speed ( TKX ?)
6, full stainless exhaust

“Cost too much for me but cool”
1, aluminum block
2, aluminum or composite driveshaft
3, aluminum rear end housing ( this may change? )
4, any carbon fiber body panels
5, gun drilled axles ( no idea what they cost but can’t imagine the weight savings being all that great )


And the bonus list, things I will or may do to the car that will add weight
1, sub frame connectors
2, rear panhard bar
3, upgrade to 9 inch rear end
4, install a T-56 6speed
5, aftermarket iron block



I’ll edit this list as I go along. And hopefully, as I start working on it this summer, I will weigh everything as I go along and keep track of everything.

Joe