In reply to Vigo: eh- the car just did 1000 at Baja, before I judge how the lights don't fit, I'd like to see it's "before" shots.
That, and there are two sets of pictures- ones from the event, which don't show anything, and another set from the show- I just noticed that now....
Some of that could be pictures, some of that could be damage from bouncing all over hells half acre. Other than that, aluminum or steel, thats not going to effect panel gaps. 
They secretly prototyped aluminum panels and baja raced it, and y'all are talking panel gaps?
Wonder how much lighter an aluminum bodied Fiesta ST would be 
In reply to xflowgolf:
Probably 2-300 lbs lighter. I think that was around what the A.I.V. Mercury sable's were over the normal ones back in the early 90's.
4cylndrfury wrote: So, if I wanted to find a car (or truck) with no ac, crank up windows, hydraulic power steering, cable throttle, and plain am/fm/cd with no touch screen navigation and backup camera assist, by your logic, Id be able to find one...right?...*RIGHT???*
i have a 1990 truck for that. and when i really want to feel like a caveman i drive my 68 with manual steering, brakes, and transmission. for everything else, the "luxury" of my avalanche, that for some reason cost someone 46K new, is quite wonderful. all those things i didn't think i'd use, like heated seats, really are quite nice.
yamaha wrote: Some of that could be pictures, some of that could be damage from bouncing all over hells half acre. Other than that, aluminum or steel, thats not going to effect panel gaps.
It will, if they used the steel dies for the aluminum panels. The stamping dies are designed with a bit of "overbend" in them because the metal sheet will spring back a bit after stamping, and steel and aluminum have different characteristics. You CAN stamp aluminum out in dies made for steel but the panels will come out a bit different.
Good info Knurled. I suspected there was some side effect but couldnt muster even a good guess as to what they could be.
I was just making an observation, not trying to E36 M3 talk what's basically a very elaborate camo job. It 100% looks like E36 M3 for a new vehicle, but the disguise served its purpose.
Probably 2-300 lbs lighter. I think that was around what the A.I.V. Mercury sable's were over the normal ones back in the early 90's.
Chrysler did a program to see what could be done by lightening the original Neon. Here's an excerpt from an article on the aluminum use in the Prowler that mentions the Neon Lite:
Among the most interesting elements of its lightweight strategy is that much of its materials technology has been directly transferred from Chrysler's Neon Lite program, unveiled 18 months ago. The program focused on using advanced -- but semi-practical -- alternative materials to chop the Neon's weight by 600 lbs. (272 kg) and improve fuel economy by about 5 mpg. High-priced exotic materials that clearly couldn't be put into production cost effectively -- such as carbon fiber composites -- were ignored.
Now im sure they weren't just replacing body panels but that's a HUGE loss from a 2400lb car.
And here's a thread on neons.org started by also-a-GRM-member Mazda787b: http://forums.neons.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=337900
Reading one of the articles in that forum link, it's interesting to see how many of those things are commonplace 20 years later. Aluminum uprights, aluminum and/or magnesium engine blocks/parts, aluminum brake components, aluminum or "composite" pedals, composite bumpers...
Heck, I just had the dash out of a ten year old Ram pickup and it seemed like Dodge had found a friend in Alcoa. BIG casting for the pedal box/steering column mount, for example.
Vigo wrote: Yup, just trolling, about how the gap from headlight to fender grows along the top, about how the grille is closer to the pass headlight than the driver one, how the hood to fender gap on the pass side looks like ass, how the grille is closer to the valance on the driver side than the pass side. I was just making a joke since it wasnt built to look right, but now i'm surprised how many of you cant see it! Aren't we the same group of people that's supposed to be able to spot a previously wrecked used car?
no one had a VIN to use to run a Carfax on it and never got around to starting a "learn me aluminum panel gaps on prototype pickups" thread..
In reply to Vigo:
I think the AIV sable was only body panels and suspension components(saved 400lbs). But there were 40 built and all were sho powered. IIRC half of them were sold to the public. I would still love to find one and bring it home from canuckistan(All were made for Canada)
yamaha wrote: In reply to Vigo: I think the AIV sable was only body panels and suspension components(saved 400lbs). But there were 40 built and all were sho powered. IIRC half of them were sold to the public. I would still love to find one and bring it home from canuckistan(All were made for Canada)
wait.. there were SHO powered Sables???
And they were 400 lbs lighter than actual SHOs? This sounds pretty cool!
In reply to yamaha:
Are you sure about that? I was here when the aluminum Sables were made, and I recall only a handful of chassis were done- one of which is still used as a show and tell device 20 years after it was made.
I don't recall anything but a few test cars that were actually done with power. But I do remember that they were SHO powered. Test cars don't get out to the public anymore- they are destroyed.
I read that the AIV was actually only 94 lbs lighter than a regular sable but ~360 lbs lighter than an SHO. That is a confusing statement to me since i cant see how an SHO is 200+ lbs heavier than a Sable in the same body style.
In reply to alfadriver:
I'm trusting Wiki at this point, but there are a few documented in private hands in Canada in the sho registry. If I ever see one again, I WILL purchase it.
http://shoclub.com/comment.php?comment.news.150
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_Sable
Wiki said: Also in 1993, Ford Canada hand-built 40 Mercury Sables powered by SHO V6 engines as part of their AIV (Aluminum Intensive Vehicle) program and released 20 to the public. Using aluminum suspension elements and aluminum body panels, held together with a spot welding process and adhesive joining process developed specifically for this vehicle, the end result was a car that was 400 pounds lighter than a SHO Taurus. In 1995 one of these vehicles finished 15th in the 1995 One Lap of America event.
In reply to Vigo:
Well, technically the lightest sho was the '89 with zero options. And I think those were around 2800 or so. My '91 and '95 weigh nearly the same as they both are nearly optionless. The only options my '91 had were keyless entry, full leather, eatc, and the fiberglass "PowerDome" hood. The '95 only has dual full power seats and JBL. Both cars weigh in around 3000-3050. A fully optioned sho from 90-95 will tip the scales at nearly 3400lbs.
In reply to yamaha:
hmm, interesting. I just kind find it hard to believe that we would let prototypes out into public. By that I mean private ownership- I don't doubt a few runners of those are around. Last sho and tell for the SHO, they drug one of those out, and our garage was asked to get it running.
For a long long time there was one of the Aluminium intensive Contour's out back. I used to walk past it's hulk every day during my lunch time excersise. At the time I had my SVT Contour and I wanted those alloy doors, hood and trunk so badly. I just figured getting fired and locked up wasn't worth it 
In reply to alfadriver:
I haven't heard of any on the roads or plated, so it could just be "Museum Display or other use only" I theory you could like the ex-Bondurant sho's that have been made street legal again.
I'd love to just have one of those pieces of history to take to shows.
You'll need to log in to post.
