backtop


Print 142 comment(s) - last by XSpeedracerX.. on Mar 12 at 1:44 AM


The 2011 Mustang V6 at the LA Auto Show  (Source: AutoBlog)
Who says saving the Earth and your wallet from harm can't be fun, says Ford

The 2011 Ford Mustang V6 has slimmed down, and it's a change that was badly needed.  After all, the previous base V6 engine put out a measly 210 hp (240 lb-ft of torque) from a 4.0-liter V6 engine. That engine is rated at 18 mpg in the city and 26 mpg on the highway with a 5-speed manual transmission (16 mpg/24 mpg with a 5-speed automatic transmission).

The new engine offers a world of difference.  It takes up 3.7 L and is 40 lb lighter, yet it can muster 305 hp and 280 lb-ft of torque (at 6500 rpm and 4250 rpm respectively).  And the best part was just confirmed this week -- it has been EPA rated at 31 mpg on the highway and 19 mpg in the city.

That's a dramatic turnaround for the veteran brand that languished in recent years from poor internals.  No longer will base Mustangs be the laughingstock of the sports coupe market. 

In fact that 31 mpg highway rating is a record for a car with 300+ hp -- no car with 300+ hp has previously broken 30 mpg highway fuel economy.  The rating gives it bragging rights over GM's Camaro V6, which has exactly 1 hp less and gets 29 mpg on the highway.  The Camaro V6 also gets beat by the new Mustang in city mileage as it gets a mere 17 mpg.

The improved performance is aided by faster valve timings --
the Twin Independent Variable Camshaft Timing (Ti-VCT) on the new 3.7L engine adjusts the valvetrain in microseconds -- plus aerodynamic improvements and an Electric Power Assist Steering (EPAS) system.

Despite that the "aerodynamic improvements" the car looks pretty good, with powerful lines.

Ford's new sports coupe is a great example of a company doing what is needed to achieve the incoming stricter CAFE regulations, while not sacrificing an ounce of performance (in fact substantially increasing the performance).

It should be exciting to see in coming models what Ford can do if it adds some of its other progressing technologies like turbocharging and hybrid powertrains to the base Mustang mix.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Other vehicles
By umrdyldo on 3/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Other vehicles
By BZDTemp on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Other vehicles
By HotFoot on 3/4/2010 4:19:42 PM , Rating: 4
Not that I'm planning to buy one, but other than the audio tones coming out of the car, this thing should press you back into your seat just as well as older V8s.


RE: Other vehicles
By Hiawa23 on 3/4/2010 8:12:10 PM , Rating: 2
pretty impressive. My 4cylinder 2006 Mitsu LAncer Ralliart doesn't get that, with only 162horses.


RE: Other vehicles
By SilthDraeth on 3/5/2010 1:19:33 AM , Rating: 2
My lil Aveo which I know is a Korean car, I don't think gets 31 mpg on the highway though it should.

My 93 Corolla gets over 40.

But boy, would I love one of these Mustangs. To bad I am way to poor to be able to afford one.


RE: Other vehicles
By Calin on 3/5/10, Rating: -1
RE: Other vehicles
By theapparition on 3/5/2010 7:16:31 AM , Rating: 4
Seriously, what good is horsepower per liter? This is about the most pointless and idiotic measurement ever used as a comparison. I still have no idea why people try to claim this as some metric. Absolutely pointless in any reguard.

Would you rather have a 10L engine that got 500hp and 30mpg (50hp/l), or a 1L engine that got 200hp and 20mpg (200hp/l). <ricer>Dude, I'z got me 200hp/l that's the mack daddy-o</ricer>.

See how ridiculous that is.

In the end, the only metrics that matter are power/torque and fuel economy. Larger engines don't weigh signifigantly more (hint, larger displacement also means larger holes in the block), with most low tech V8's actually weighing in less than lower hp V6's.

Please, please, put the hp/l metric away. It only makes you look foolish every time you bring it up.

Back on topic, I believe the Mustang and Camaro's V6 are both very comparable. It's the Camaro's 400lb weight dis-advantage that is the cause of the differing EPA numbers. Also, I believe the base Camaro may have a little more agressive gearing than the base Mustang.

In any event, kudos to Ford for making another fine american product. Now if they could just do something that makes Mustangs look good, IMHO.


RE: Other vehicles
By Hulk on 3/5/2010 10:41:56 AM , Rating: 1
If you were an engineer you might want ALL of the information about an engine.

HP/l is just another metric to help define engine performance, technology, efficiency, etc...

Torque is meaningful but how the torque "feels" to the driver is different when it comes from turbocharging, supercharging, or displacement. And the implimentation of each always has different results.

In addition a smaller, lighter engine will generally provide better handling dynamics than a large "V10" as you described in your fictional example.

If you need to simplify your world of performance metrics so as not to confuse yourself that's fine. But as a Mechanical Engineer who has studied engines and vehicles for many years please don't try to limit me on having ALL of the information.


RE: Other vehicles
By theapparition on 3/5/2010 12:24:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
HP/l is just another metric to help define engine performance, technology, efficiency, etc...

No, it does absolutely nothing. Only bragging rights for automotive marketing teams and ricers. It doesn't help define a single thing you mentioned.

quote:
Torque is meaningful but how the torque "feels" to the driver is different when it comes from turbocharging, supercharging, or displacement. And the implimentation of each always has different results.

How is related to the topic at hand? Torque and power curves accurately describe everything you ever need to compare different engines. I'll agree that peak numbers are just fluff without contex. Yet hp/l does nothing, so why defend it?

quote:
In addition a smaller, lighter engine will generally provide better handling dynamics than a large "V10" as you described in your fictional example.

I wasn't aware that engines could actually do any handling by themselves. Please enlighten me. Seriously though, the thought that all "big" displacement engines are heavier is absolute bunk. I can go into numerous examples of large displacement engines that are lighter, smaller, cheaper and have better fuel economy then their small displacement competition. For example, in what way would a big aluminum block be worse than a heavier small iron block? As I said previously, hp/l does nothing to help describe this.

quote:
If you were an engineer you might want ALL of the information about an engine.

quote:
If you need to simplify your world of performance metrics so as not to confuse yourself that's fine. But as a Mechanical Engineer who has studied engines and vehicles for many years please don't try to limit me on having ALL of the information.

Trust me, I'm not the one confused. Happily, I am a Mechanical Engineer, and own a successful engineering consulting company. I'm also an avid racer and do many track events per year. Watkins Glenn is coming up soon. ;)
Considering that I've been in the industry well over 20 years, I'd say my experience trumps yours. So please stop defending a useless metric that only use is to help marketing.

I can't believe another engineer would try to defend this practice. It doesn't acurately describe an engines power, torque, RPM band, size, weight, technology, fuel efficiency or any other useful real world measurement and is especially worthless when used (as it is all to frequently) to comapare different engines.

Trying to find good engineers these days is getting harder and harder.


RE: Other vehicles
By Calin on 3/6/2010 2:49:19 PM , Rating: 2
Turbo and supercharged engines respond different to fast movement of the accelerator pedal, and different from the naturally aspirated engine (even assuming their have similar torque curves).


RE: Other vehicles
By tastyratz on 3/8/2010 11:56:01 AM , Rating: 2
I think your "almost there" and right "to a point"

All of these metrics have 1 slice of a very large pie for a well rounded understanding.

hp/l is a metric that determines how efficient an engine is at making power, period.
Gas mileage determines the efficiency of the vehicle in a predetermined set of normal driving conditions determined by the epa, not power delivery.

quote:
I wasn't aware that engines could actually do any handling by themselves. Please enlighten me.


Larger "holes" for more displacement don't mean you can fit the engine in the same packaging - you still need ample metal for structural integrity. That means the longer the stroke the taller the block the wider the bore the wider the block (oversimplified)

The heavier the engine the more weight it adds to the front of the car. The larger the engine the more size/weight it requires all things equal. Yes there are some 4 cylinders heavier than some v8's and some v8s that are dimensionally smaller than 4cylinders... but this is a generalization so don't cite examples that are the best and the worst.

A small lightweight engine is much easier to toss around. Less weight mounted lower and closer to the center of gravity.

Someone who drives competitively should realize this advantage.

Many things make up the torque curve but the dyno isn't the end all determination for an engines personality, ESPECIALLY when forced induction is involved. It only paints the picture for 1 scenario - full throttle to redline power figures. Is that the only way you drive your car? what about for best gas mileage, can that tell you how the car drives?

I disagree that hp/l should be the only figure viewed, but I don't believe it should be omitted when looking at the MANY factors involved.


RE: Other vehicles
By Keeir on 3/5/2010 3:28:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you were an engineer you might want ALL of the information about an engine.

HP/l is just another metric to help define engine performance, technology, efficiency, etc...


Your right in a way. I want a good idea of hp/L to know which engines to avoid!

Seriously though, high Hp/L just gives you an idea of the end direction of the engine design process.... which is usually to squeeze as much power possible into the smallest physical space. (I'd perfer Hp/Fuel Economy or Hp/Cost or Hp/Reliability personally)

Since an Enigne typically wieghs less than 10% of the total wieght of a car, I would say other things are more important for handling such as total wieght, wieght balance, suspension type, wheel type, turning radius, steering ratio, etc, etc

rather than some half-baked assumption based on a Hp/L number.


RE: Other vehicles
By cruisin3style on 3/6/2010 3:08:10 PM , Rating: 2
an engine is usually accompanied by a transmission. together they are usually heavy in relation to the overall weight of the car.

engine placement within the car is very important to the handling characteristics of an automobile.


RE: Other vehicles
By Keeir on 3/6/2010 9:50:06 PM , Rating: 2
sigh

Lets look at the Honda F20C engine. 2.0L, 240 hp in the US.

Wieght ~ 300 lbs

Then the GM LS3 Engine. 6.2L, 424 hp in base form

Wieght ~ 400 lbs

Now some will say the F20C is the better engine because it has high hp/L. But hp/wieght in clearly in favour of the LS3. When you add in increased mass due to more strength in tranmission, mounting, etc, I think the LS3 "premium" over the F20C is less than 300 lbs. Now, 200 lbs will make a difference in handling, but considering the car wrapper for the engine is 2,000+


RE: Other vehicles
By Calin on 3/6/2010 2:52:35 PM , Rating: 3
More horsepower per liter is good if you pay your taxes (and especially your car insurance) based on the engine displacement. If you don't (or if you don't care), take the biggest engine you want. However, in Europe, you pay dearly for a big displacement engine in your car.


RE: Other vehicles
By Alexvrb on 3/6/2010 4:31:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Back on topic, I believe the Mustang and Camaro's V6 are both very comparable. It's the Camaro's 400lb weight dis-advantage that is the cause of the differing EPA numbers. Also, I believe the base Camaro may have a little more agressive gearing than the base Mustang.
Bingo. The article (written by a well-meaning techie, not a true automotive enthusiast) completely fails to notice that weight and gearing are bigger factors here. Also the base V6 model might even come with very low rolling resistance tires, for better MPG marketing rights. Put a set of grippy tires on it for better handling and stopping power, and watch your mileage drop a notch.

If you could bolt this engine up to either of the V6 Camaro's 6-speed transmissions without significant modifications, I think you would find it gets startlingly similar mileage as it does with GM's 3.6L. Especially if you feed them both the same exact fuel (for example, 87 octane with roughly 10% ethanol content).

I would certainly be interested to see some real performance numbers of this thing, either way. 0-60, quarter mile, stopping distance, curb weight and weight distro, lap times, etc. I'm even more interested in seeing the performance of their new V8, even though long-term durability is an unknown.


RE: Other vehicles
By mircea on 3/10/2010 5:07:10 PM , Rating: 2
posted by theapparition:
quote:
Seriously, what good is horsepower per liter? This is about the most pointless and idiotic measurement ever used as a comparison. I still have no idea why people try to claim this as some metric. Absolutely pointless in any reguard.

I have no knowledge of mechanical engineering at all. But I do know 2 very important facts that make your statement a stupid rant.

1. Part of the taxes I pay on my car is based on it's capacity. So having a smaller engine giving good power to move around the city is important to me and anyone in my country, and any other country having this tax (and especially those living in London - I feel for you).
2. The basic regulation I know of, to the F1 and MotoGP engines is to the capacity - F1-2400CC; MotoGP-120CC/250CC and 800CC -. So engineers like the ones you bash might want to know all there is about that in order to get involved in the top sports of 4 wheel and 2 wheel racing.


RE: Other vehicles
By 91TTZ on 3/5/2010 10:11:30 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Your Mitsubishi probably has only about 2 liter displacement, so it has better power per liter than the Mustang.


Only clueless fanboys use "power per liter" as a measurement.

Given the same level of technology, a smaller displacement engine will always have higher power per liter. It has nothing to do with more advanced engineering and everything to do with basic physics.

A small RC car/airplane engine has tremendous power per liter and it's using technology that has remained about the same since the 1940's.


RE: Other vehicles
By 91TTZ on 3/5/2010 10:07:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not that I'm planning to buy one, but other than the audio tones coming out of the car, this thing should press you back into your seat just as well as older V8s.


Not quite. This has almost as much horsepower as the older V8's but not nearly as much torque and the torque peak comes at a much higher RPM. So you're not going to get that instantaneous thrust that you got with the old V8.


RE: Other vehicles
By amirite on 3/4/2010 4:24:50 PM , Rating: 5
This Mustang has a "clever" v6.


RE: Other vehicles
By bhieb on 3/4/2010 4:32:39 PM , Rating: 2
Some would argue the styling is an attractive reason to buy even if you stick with the V6. There are other reasons to buy the car than just the power, some like the looks. I've not shopped that range of car, but it would be on my list I'm sure.


RE: Other vehicles
By RealTheXev on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Other vehicles
By Calin on 3/5/2010 2:34:18 AM , Rating: 1
Focus RS is a different kind of car than the Mustang (the Mustang is a muscle car, while the Focus is just a small, fast car). As for a 4-cyl turbo, it just doesn't sound like a Mustang.

The Mustang is not about fast driving, extreme performance, back-breaking acceleration, neck-twisting handling or whatever else you might think. The Mustang is about looks, sounds, and a general impression of "powerful".
If I'd value fast driving, I'd take a 4WD, Rally-type (WRC) car (Subaru Impreza, Mitsubishi Lancer, maybe even a Skoda Octavia or something else). The Mustang is a classic (even the new Mustang that looks somewhat like the original cars), and its selling points are looks, the impression of strength, the sound (low rumble at idle, growling beast).


RE: Other vehicles
By BZDTemp on 3/5/10, Rating: -1
RE: Other vehicles
By 91TTZ on 3/5/2010 10:55:32 AM , Rating: 2
The Mustang already had a 4 cylinder turbo. It wouldn't be a surprise to have one again.


RE: Other vehicles
By ecktt on 3/5/2010 2:42:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Mustang is not about fast driving, extreme performance, back-breaking acceleration, neck-twisting handling or whatever else you might think. The Mustang is about looks, sounds, and a general impression of "powerful".


So the Mustang is ricer's car? That explains a lot.


RE: Other vehicles
By SmCaudata on 3/6/2010 1:53:52 AM , Rating: 2
Except when comparing it to other cars in it's horsepower range and even those light fast cars you are describing it can turn in lap times better than the other "muscle cars" on the market right now. The mustang had some bad years that led to decreased sales, but if I were looking for a 300hp car and didn't mind only 2 doors the 2011 Mustang is arguably the best out there. It handles well, brakes well, turns well, and accelerates well. Ford can build a car. They are far an away the best American manufacturer out by nearly any metric.


RE: Other vehicles
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 3/6/2010 4:24:26 PM , Rating: 2
You might not include the "sound" category if you just heard the 4L V6 'stang out front. I thought it was a 4 cylinder truck at first. Awful sound. I can see why they want to improve it on the base model.


RE: Other vehicles
By stimudent on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Other vehicles
By Keeir on 3/4/2010 5:19:59 PM , Rating: 5
Errr...

31 MPG HWY is poor?

B-Segement Cars <125 hp
The tiny Honda Fit gets 33 MPG HWY
The tiny Toyota Yaris gets 36 MPG HWY
The tiny, 2 seat, Honda CRZ is supposed to get ~37 MPG HWY

C-Segment Cars with ~ 200-250 hp
Civic Si - 29 MPG HWY
Impreza WRX (not STI) - 25 MPG HWY
VW CC - 31 MPG HWY
Toyota Camry - 33 MPG HWY (when using 2.4L I4)

Overall, 31 MPG is average for the class Mustang is in (Large C/Small D or D-segment Coupe)

Considering it market segment, compeditors, this Mustang gets amazing mileage. The fact that the VW CC barely ties it, while being a smaller car, that costs more, and has 2/3rd the Horsepower, while using a Turbo'ed Engine (means the Mustang will likely have a more reliable engine)

::Shrug:: what more do you want?


RE: Other vehicles
By lelias2k on 3/4/2010 6:17:19 PM , Rating: 2
I think he meant overall, counting city mileage.

We don't drive 100% of the time on the highway, and 19 mpg is far from ok...

Good for this car, but overall... :)


RE: Other vehicles
By Keeir on 3/4/2010 8:32:08 PM , Rating: 5
Errr... I still say the same thing.

Camry I4 22/32 - 26/27 --> 10% less fuel economy, 100% more power, similar cross section
Camry V6 20/29 - 24 --> Same Fuel economy, 30% more power, similar cross section
Civic Si 21/29 - 24/25 --> Same Fuel economy, 33% more power, larger cross section
Subaru WRX 18/25 - 21 --> 15% better fuel economy, 15% more power, larger cross section
BMW 328i 18/28 - 22/23 --> 10% better fuel economy, 30% more power, larger cross section

Ford M. V6 19/31 - 24/25

Overall for passenger cars (light trucks are even worse), EPA averages less than 25 combined for the past 5 years for sales inside the US. Overall, the fuel economy is standard for the American market, and ground setting for the "near-sport" market.

You can say "meh" if you want, but 2009 Ford Mustang V6 was somewhere around 20 combined. A fuel economy jump of ~20% combined with a power increase nearly 30%. That's what I call progress.


RE: Other vehicles
By Calin on 3/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: Other vehicles
By web2dot0 on 3/5/10, Rating: -1
RE: Other vehicles
By theapparition on 3/5/2010 7:27:00 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
If you're car is twice the weight and at higher speeds, it has to use up more energy.

Wrong.

Actually, your equation is for acceleration only. And mass does play a role in acceleration, hence a sub 20mpg for city driving.

For highway driving at constant speed, mass is rather irrelevant (in it's most simplistic form). The only energy it takes to continue motion of a body (reguardless of mass) is to compensate for the effects of drag and friction. So a car with less rolling friction and better overall drag (all else equal) will always have better highway mileage.

quote:
If you really want to save the environment, drive slow and get a electric car.

And if you want to save the enviroment, stop breathing and light yourself on fire, you know, to return your carbon back to the enviroment.


RE: Other vehicles
By HammerZ on 3/6/2010 2:57:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
For highway driving at constant speed, mass is rather irrelevant (in it's most simplistic form). The only energy it takes to continue motion of a body (reguardless of mass) is to compensate for the effects of drag and friction.


You are conflicting with yourself. The original poster is correct. While at highway speed, it is indeed that drag plays a bigger role than rolling friction. However, friction (static or rolling) is proportional to the mass of the object by definition. Thus, weight does indeed affect MPG. To think of this in another way...suppose that you have two exact identical cars. One is loaded with 2000lb of cargo inside the car to not affect drag. The other car is driven by a 100lb person. It is obvious that the lighter car will get better MPG.


RE: Other vehicles
By ekv on 3/6/2010 4:10:48 AM , Rating: 2
Not to be overly picayune, while your analysis is correct I think you missed his point. Implicit is that friction is a square-law (to the 2nd power) relationship, while drag is to the 4th power. Hence the OP's point about slowing down is well taken, but obviated when theapparition said
quote:
So a car with less rolling friction and better overall drag (all else equal) will always have better highway mileage.

You can assume "less rolling friction" implies lower weight.

And besides, it is actually totally freaking DANGEROUS to drive slow on LA freeways. Scarier than driving 100+. Try it some time. Or better yet, don't.

To theapparition ... you seem like a highly educated person. Your posts have been informative, so thanks. However, please use "regardless" [without the "u"]. Just saying.


RE: Other vehicles
By theapparition on 3/8/2010 8:09:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can assume "less rolling friction" implies lower weight.

Not at all. While I know everyone would like to simplify life to be one of the idealized problems in the back of a textbook, it is not so.
The effects of rolling friction due to the weight of the car are incredibly minimal when compared to more signifigant factors such as tread compound and driveline friction. Overall rotating friction does not just come from tires. Close to 15-25% of a cars power never reaches the pavement due to driveline loss. Plus tire hysteresis varies wildly between tire types.

It is entirely probable to have a heavier car with better overall rolling friction due to more efficient driveline characteristics and lower friction (eg. harder compound) tires. So no such assumption can be made about a cars weight.

Again, I was trying to simplify a very complex problem, and when attempting to do so, some factors are going to be overlooked as negligable. It is inevitable that someone is going to look at the neglected terms and try to find fault with the original assertion.

quote:
you seem like a highly educated person. Your posts have been informative, so thanks.

Thank you.

quote:
However, please use "regardless" [without the "u"]. Just saying.

I've found that spelling tends to be inversely proportional to overall inteligence. ;)
At least that's the story I'm going to stick with.

Engineering and Science doesn't require a degree in grammar. Anyone ever look at Einstein's own writtings?


RE: Other vehicles
By humbleman on 3/6/10, Rating: 0
RE: Other vehicles
By walk2k on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Other vehicles
By Samus on 3/4/2010 5:43:47 PM , Rating: 2
And the Corvette still has leaf springs. What's your point? You saying 50+ year old technology can't be adapted to compete with modern wishbone suspension?

There is a lot the owner can do (and some Ford has already done in recent years) to make a solid axle corner well, such as progressive rate springs, monotube shocks, adaptive sway bar links, limited slip differentials and better weight distribution.

Considering most cars in this class (with the exception of the RX8 and perhaps the Camaro if it were less expensive) have poorly engineered suspension or handling dynamics, I'd take a properly engineered, proven and reliable solid rear axle over some shitty strut implementation any day. Stop watching Top Gear and bashing live axles just because they do, its just old fashioned British snobery. When's the last time they made a reliable car? The brief time Ford owned Jaguar comes to mind, thats it. Land Rover? Yea right, they have the highest number of complains for reliability in the entire industry, and a LOT of it is suspension related.

Now dead axles, that's another debate :)


RE: Other vehicles
By SoCalBoomer on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Other vehicles
By PrinceGaz on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Other vehicles
By TOAOCyrus on 3/4/2010 8:34:13 PM , Rating: 2
Hey the Corvette and Dodge Viper can corner with the best of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordschleife_fastest_...

Both in the top 10 and the Viper beats all the famous European automakers.


RE: Other vehicles
By Keeir on 3/4/2010 8:44:53 PM , Rating: 3
Your not seriously suggesting we should compare
20,000+ US muscle cars and
40,000+ US performance cars to

80,000+ Porchses and
150,000+ Ferraris

Right?


RE: Other vehicles
By johnr81 on 3/4/2010 9:14:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Anyway I've watched movies and know that American motorways (interstates?) are generally dead straight

That's a gross generalization, the United States is a big place with a very wide variety of roads. Sure there are lots of roads like that, especially in the interior plains states, but there's also mountains, hills, swamps, etc. We have over 2x the land area of the European Union.


RE: Other vehicles
By Runiteshark on 3/4/2010 9:38:55 PM , Rating: 3
Haha wow, the end was the best part. I'll just leave you in your dreamworld.


RE: Other vehicles
By walk2k on 3/4/2010 10:06:45 PM , Rating: 2
Hehe funny post. I have to say though, what Ferrari is "similar" price to a Mustang or Vette? Even the $100k Vette ZR1 is still about half the price of the cheapest Ferrari.. (not counting used of course). What Porsche (besides the POS Boxter) is even in the same range as a Mustang?? A well equipped V8 Mustang is in the $30k range... The cheapest Porsche worth owning (911) is like $76k.

I wish all American roads were like you describe though :) Sadly we still have highway patrols and local-yokel cops all too willing to slap you with a $400 speeding ticket for going 10 MPH over..


RE: Other vehicles
By afkrotch on 3/5/2010 12:14:37 AM , Rating: 3
Lived in Germany for 2 years, driving their cars. Guess what? They're just as poor on the turns as their American counterparts. If you want any kind of really good handling, you're going to have to modify the car.

The only extremely well handling cars I've driven have been Japanese, but they lack the top end of the American and Euro cars. Compare your Porsche or Ferrari to a Evo, STI, or GTR on a curvy road. Might as well give the Porsche or Ferrari a headstart.


RE: Other vehicles
By mindless1 on 3/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: Other vehicles
By mindless1 on 3/7/2010 11:37:08 PM , Rating: 2
It's curious how people rate down factual posts. Holding grudges? lol, at least some are wasting their time clicking buttons on the internet instead of causing any real problems.


RE: Other vehicles
By walk2k on 3/4/2010 9:56:23 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
And the Corvette still has leaf springs.
And the first thing anyone who races them does is install coil springs.

I don't need to watch "Top Gear" (though it's a great show) to know that solid rear axles are junk. I think their main problem with the GT500 wasn't the rear axle it was the fact that Ford added a ton of power without really upgrading other bits, like the brakes.

Anyway I actually like the new style Mustang, very reminincent of the 60s ones. If you like Mustangs and big V8 American muscle it's not a bad choice at all. The new DOHC/4 valve engine looks great. But there's simply no excuse for that rear axle, no matter how you spin it.


RE: Other vehicles
By Spuke on 3/5/2010 4:42:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't need to watch "Top Gear" (though it's a great show) to know that solid rear axles are junk.
Trust me, I'd rather have the multilink (my car does have it) but unless you're lapping Willow Springs, you won't know the difference between a well done multilink and a well done live axle. All of the car rags agree that the new Mustangs suspension is good and I'm willing to bet it's MUCH better than most of the half-assed MacP strut garbage that's (still) on the market.

On topic, I hear the Track Pack will be available on the V6 Stang too.


RE: Other vehicles
By afkrotch on 3/5/2010 12:07:51 AM , Rating: 2
I'll take my struts, thanks.


RE: Other vehicles
By Atheist Icon on 3/4/2010 8:03:38 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Nope, it still has the stagecoach-era solid rear axle.


Really, dude, really? Top Gear said the same thing when they tested the GT500 on their track with the live axle. They then stated that for an additional 5K or 10K pounds, you could then get the IRS. Guess how much faster it went through the twisties on their track? 5 secs faster? Nope. .5 sec faster through their track...woooohooo! That's worth the money.

Not only that, but 305hp from a base model v6 is nothing to sneeze at. Hell, my 93 SC Tbird only came with 210hp/310tq...from a Supercharged 3.8 v6!


RE: Other vehicles
By Pneumothorax on 3/5/2010 8:59:36 AM , Rating: 2
It's really not in the track where an Idependent rear suspension shines over an archaic solid beam axle, it's in the real world of our $i!!ty american roads. yup, it's lots of fun to feel the rear-end buck around like a rodeo when trying to accelerate out of a corner with a 300+hp live axle car with bumps/mini-potholes on the road.


RE: Other vehicles
By JediJeb on 3/5/2010 10:27:56 AM , Rating: 2
But which type suspension will survive longer on those rough bumpy roads? An IRS will be worn out before 100k miles on the roads I drive on while the solid axle will be going strong after 200K miles most likely. For a professional race car the IRS can't be beat, but for something that 90% of the time you are driving to work or to get groceries, the solid axle will do just fine. The Mustang handles great for how 95% of the people who drive it will drive it, those that want to race it will upgrade it and still have less money invested than those who purchase $50k+ cars.


RE: Other vehicles
By Spuke on 3/5/2010 4:52:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But which type suspension will survive longer on those rough bumpy roads? An IRS will be worn out before 100k miles on the roads I drive on while the solid axle will be going strong after 200K miles most likely.
I guess you've never owned a car with IRS before, have you? What exactly "wears out" on a IRS car? LOL!


RE: Other vehicles
By siuol11 on 3/4/2010 9:55:30 PM , Rating: 2
How awesome would it be if they imported this car, or made the American version look even remotely as cool?
Sadly that day will never come, due 50% to their market and 50% to the industry having their thumbs up their asses. Sadly, I know many people in the target market, and they will never by anything that doesn't look like a bloated breadbox.

PS let the flame wars begin!


RE: Other vehicles
By The0ne on 3/8/2010 9:43:06 AM , Rating: 2
I would buy the Focus RS if it were sold here, in a heartbeat. Sadly, latest news is we're going to be getting a Focus SVT variation in the future which is not as powerful as the RS /cry


The right direction but not impressed...
By chunkymonster on 3/5/2010 10:44:38 AM , Rating: 1
While I do support Ford for being (one of, if not) the only US car maker that did not need tax payer money to stay in business, the Mustang has been and will continue to be the laughing stock of the sports coupe market.

305HP @ 6500RPM! WTF! 6500 to reach 305HP! And, only 285ft/lb torque! C'mon...puh-leez!

To quote Mustang Project Design Chief Joe Oros, "I told the (design) team that I wanted the car to appeal to women..." 'Nuff said!

When I think of the Mustang, I remember the slicked hair guidos cruising their 5.0liter Mustang GT's up and down the strip in Seaside Heights, NJ blasting Vanilla Ice so loud their bass speakers buzzed with a stupid self gratified smirk on their faces. But mostly, I remember leaving them in my rear view mirror with my 1966 Pontiac Catalina hardtop with a 389, 4bbl 750 Edelbrock, and dual exhaust...now that was a car!




RE: The right direction but not impressed...
By Pneumothorax on 3/5/2010 11:13:56 AM , Rating: 2
I'd like to see how your Pontiac would do against the new "5.0" 400+HP mustang...


RE: The right direction but not impressed...
By JediJeb on 3/5/2010 1:39:52 PM , Rating: 2
Or a 1966 Shelby GT350 Mustang, might as well compare cars of the same period.


By chunkymonster on 3/8/2010 10:17:18 AM , Rating: 2
In all fairness, the 1966 GT350 Shelby Mustang is more a custom/conversion car than an off the assembly line muscle car like the GTO, Roadrunner, or Camaro of the same year. An off the showroom floor Catalina wouldn't have kept up with the GT350, especially if it came with the supercharger.


By chunkymonster on 3/8/2010 10:09:09 AM , Rating: 2
A lot of HP is nice, on paper, but in the end, cubic inches always wins; that's why the older American muscle cars were so kick-a$s. But the new 5.0 Mustang would beat my poor old Pontiac. The Pontiac would give it a run, but it was 3800lb of American steel running on 1960's engine technology. Newer (1990's+) cars are much lighter, have OH cams, VVT, and composite materials which gives them a much better power/weight ratio.

btw...sold the 1966 Pontiac in favor a more practical ride when I had to begin commuting 120+ mile daily...shame to see it go... :(


RE: The right direction but not impressed...
By xprojected on 3/5/2010 11:25:40 AM , Rating: 2
So you used to be able to accelerate fast in a straight line at the stop light a long time ago.. good for you. These days, American cars can do much more than that.


By chunkymonster on 3/8/2010 10:21:42 AM , Rating: 2
Going in a straight line...hahahaha...sounds like much the same comments I would hear from the folks I'd leave in my rear view mirror.

The Catalina was a big heavy car just about 20ft long but it could corner just fine.

Of course American cars today can do much more than that. But, in the 1950' to the early 1970's (pre1972 gas crunch) going fast in a straight line was what American muscle cars were all about!


RE: The right direction but not impressed...
By humbleman on 3/6/2010 10:48:11 AM , Rating: 2
You're saying Puleeze like its all so bad ? They couldve squeezed more HP out of this V6.. but the driving factor was balancing that with fule economy.. whats going to make this car a money maker is the number of V6's sold.. This is the first car in auto history that has both 300HP and 31mpg.. Good Job Ford!


By chunkymonster on 3/8/2010 10:44:20 AM , Rating: 2
I'd be more impressed with the 300+HP @ 6500rpm if the red line wasn't at 7000rpm!

Really though, who consistently drives any car at over 4250rpm so they can actually take advantage of ~300Hp and 280ft/lb torque! And, if folks run their 2011 Mustangs at 4250+rpm, they can kiss 31 mpg good bye!


how did they do it?
By shin0bi272 on 3/5/2010 10:40:40 AM , Rating: 2
Did they change the compression ratio or something? They dont mention if it has a turbo or super charger so I assume they didnt do that.

I suppose I could go do some research to find out the compression ratios of the old model and the new one but I really dont care that much. Ive got a car that works fine and has about 39k miles on it (pretty good for a car bought dec 31 05).




RE: how did they do it?
By xprojected on 3/5/2010 11:18:00 AM , Rating: 2
They added an extra gear (5->6) and tightened the gear ratios a bunch to keep the RPMs down at high speed.. good for highway cruising, not so great for performance though. Electric power steering seems to help.


RE: how did they do it?
By Davelo on 3/5/2010 2:00:12 PM , Rating: 2
Electric power steering does not instill any confidence from me. I remember the problematic Magnasteer from GM. Hydrolic steering may be old school nut it works without hassle.


RE: how did they do it?
By Alexvrb on 3/7/2010 11:38:15 AM , Rating: 2
Electric assisted power steering is already on a ton of vehicles on the road and does just fine. It is probably MORE reliable than a conventional hydraulic system.

Also, what does magnasteer have to do with this type of electric power steering? That was a type of advanced (though occasionally problematic, sometimes due to misdiagnosis) Delphi variable-assist power steering system, which used a hydraulic rack+pump AND electronic components to decrease the amount of assist as speed increased. On the other hand, modern day electric assisted power steering is quite different, simpler and more reliable.


RE: how did they do it?
By Spuke on 3/5/2010 6:11:57 PM , Rating: 2
I'm guessing the 6 speed combined with the variable valve timing and lift. Not sure what the compression is though.


RE: how did they do it?
By jjmcubed on 3/6/2010 12:18:42 AM , Rating: 2
4.0 SOHC was based on the Ford Cologne design from 1968...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Cologne_V6_engin...

The 3.7 is based on the Duratec engines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Duratec_engine

They might have found a couple of tricks to find hp/tq in the past 40 years since the Cologne engine was introduced...


RE: how did they do it?
By Masospaghetti on 3/7/2010 10:33:26 AM , Rating: 2
The 4.0 cologne shared very little from the version in 1968. It shared little even with the 2.9 V6 used in the 80's. Not to mention it had overhead cams, not pushrods.

I think the 4.0 was a lot better than people gave it credit for.


LOL
By Soldier1969 on 3/4/2010 5:27:09 PM , Rating: 1
I wouldnt have a V6 if it was free! The v6 has always been for chicks and kids that cant afford the insurance on the V8. I would only have the Cobra model if I was to get one. Got to be faster and better than the average person in my book!




RE: LOL
By MadMan007 on 3/4/2010 9:48:59 PM , Rating: 5
Absolutely, otherwise people might think your penis is small.


RE: LOL
By 67STANG on 3/5/2010 12:01:37 PM , Rating: 3
"Absolutely, otherwise people might know your penis is small. "

There, fixed.


RE: LOL
By xprojected on 3/5/2010 11:28:23 AM , Rating: 2
If you need a car to be better than the average person, then I'm guessing you aren't without it.


good job Ford!
By corduroygt on 3/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: good job Ford!
By uibo on 3/5/2010 4:56:45 AM , Rating: 2
What? It still does not have independent suspension?


RE: good job Ford!
By Atheist Icon on 3/5/2010 8:30:36 AM , Rating: 2
Ford had IRS on the 03-04 Cobras...guess what happened when people starting making 500-600 hp. The IRS's couldn't handle it, so people starting bolting the solid axle back in.

Solid axles suck, yes, but they are a hell of a lot better than what they were 5 or even 10 years ago. It's also another reason why Mustangs are still cheaper than their pony car variants.

People like you probably think drum brakes are archaic, but they are reliable. That is why a majority of Large vehicles still utilize them to this day.


RE: good job Ford!
By exdeath on 3/7/2010 12:34:43 PM , Rating: 2
Some people also beefed up their IRS with solid bushings, billet diff covers and rear mounts, and spherical steel joints. World of difference, and it can do wheel stands with the best solid axles. Most don't care to put the time and effort in if all they are going to do is drag race, as it costs a few thousand dollars to make the IRS perform that way.

Btw, modern solid axles are extremely advanced.

Coil springs over shocks, multiple control arms, Watts links and Panhard bars, etc. These aren't some leaf spring located Ox cart axles like some of you wanna be engineers wish to believe. A properly built modern solid axle will run circles around your poorly built comfort compromised IRS.


RE: good job Ford!
By Atheist Icon on 3/8/2010 2:19:15 PM , Rating: 2
Ford does not make very reliable CV Axles for the 8.8 IRS. Seen quite a few break either at the joints or shear off at the diff, 28 spline ford axles are not that great. While I do not dispute that and IRS can be made to be just as reliable as a Solid Axle, I highly doubt the wheel stands...at least not on any American IRS.

The biggest thing that all IRS have in common that I ever touched would be the horrendous wheel hop.


BMW 135i
By Captain Orgazmo on 3/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: BMW 135i
By xprojected on 3/4/2010 4:41:11 PM , Rating: 4
Nope.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/compx2008f.jsp?year...

If you're quoting UK mpg, they're based on imperial gallons which are larger than US gallons, so 30 UK mpg = 25 US mpg.


RE: BMW 135i
By Keeir on 3/4/2010 5:50:09 PM , Rating: 4
To further the other commentor

http://www.bmwusa.com/standard/content/vehicles/20...

BMW claims 300 HP and 25 EPA HWY for its US Spec 2010 BMW 135i Coupe


Super Charged
By Ammohunt on 3/5/2010 2:58:59 PM , Rating: 2
I will take one as long is i can install a super charger.




RE: Super Charged
By Davelo on 3/6/2010 1:58:06 PM , Rating: 2
That doesn't make any sense. Why buy a V-6 and then go through the hassle, expense and loss of longevity installing a supercharger when you could have simply bought the 425 HP V-8 version?


RE: Super Charged
By Ammohunt on 3/8/2010 3:03:27 PM , Rating: 2
425HP + a Super charger good idea.


Congrats Ford
By ralniv on 3/4/2010 6:12:02 PM , Rating: 2
Ford has my respect for making it through tough economic times without a government bailout, developing more compelling products and improving reliability.

The new Mustang and Mustang GT are fantastic sports coupes for the money. The small cars they are bringing to the US from Europe (Focus, Fiesta, etc) are also very compelling (affordable, attractive, fun to drive, efficient). Decent middle class cars to boot (e.g. Fusion and Taurus).

I see a common thread for Ford. They seem to be shifting towards developing smaller cars that handle and perform well (i.e. more European). Yes, I'm aware that they offer a lot of big trucks too.




RE: Congrats Ford
By KCjoker on 3/4/2010 7:46:18 PM , Rating: 3
I'd clearly get the new V8 instead but this V6 is damn impressive. Way to go FORD!!!


Gearing
By NA1NSXR on 3/4/2010 7:46:36 PM , Rating: 2
30+ MPG highway but at what combined gear ratio? Something actually with power on tap or rolling along on a "super" overdrive? This is important. Anyone can slap a just-barely-adequate to maintain 55mph gear in a car and say they have good milage. I am not saying this is good or bad, but I want to know how much of this achievement is due to the new powerplant and how much of it is goaded from a disproportionately long 5th gear.




RE: Gearing
By humbleman on 3/6/2010 10:52:39 AM , Rating: 2
Power is on tap.. and if you get the 6 speed manual.. mileage is only 1 mpg less i beleive ( yes less ) .. automatics are so efficient now they get better mileage - not worse then the manuals.. the 2011 curb weight is also 350 pounds lighter then the Camaro .. so it'll be faster as well


wonder how this would be rated in EU
By juuvan on 3/5/2010 9:34:56 AM , Rating: 2
As stated many times before EPA and EU consumption ratings are not equal. What struck me most was that although Audi TT RS is rated for 30,7mpg(UK) _average_ in uk, it still has mere 26mpg(US) highway rating in states. Seems to me a car maker must choose the target market and optimise the drive train accordingly. I think there is no way the US model Mustang can undercut the Audi in test for EU average consumption.

Would be nice to see how it would faire though.

The Ford claim should be lowest consuming 300+hp car in US market.




By xprojected on 3/5/2010 11:15:40 AM , Rating: 2
See my comment above on how UK mpg > US mpg. Otherwise, bear in mind that the US EPA enacted more "real world" testing in 2008 which lowered figures by around 10%. The European cycles still seem to be cruising-at-constant-speed.


Must be recycle day at Dailytech
By Crucial on 3/4/2010 4:02:23 PM , Rating: 1
By UNHchabo on 3/4/2010 7:11:34 PM , Rating: 2
That article was published when Ford estimated what the V6 Mustang would be rated at. This article was published after the EPA test, confirming Ford's estimates.


Eww
By Sazabi19 on 3/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Eww
By JediJeb on 3/4/2010 4:17:05 PM , Rating: 2
I think they have been getting better looking the last few years. The styling from the 65-69 was the best, these are finally coming back to that.


By Johnmcl7 on 3/4/2010 8:27:21 PM , Rating: 2
Audi's 4.2 TDI V8 develops more power at 321bhp but is considerably more efficient - its extra urban mpg is 39mpg (US, not UK), the Mustang can barely match the TDI's combined mpg of 31mpg (again US) when fitted to a two ton car.

The Mustang may be the most efficient 300bhp car sold in the US but most certainly not the first in the world.




Still waiting...
By goku on 3/5/2010 3:29:16 AM , Rating: 2
Waiting for Ford to re-release a Straight 6, maybe a 2-3L. 3L Straight 6 Naturally Aspirated and or a 2L Turbo Charged Straight Six.. That would be sweet...




Three Things
By XSpeedracerX on 3/12/2010 1:44:48 AM , Rating: 2
1 Its a girl's Car!
Well, of course it is. More women buy it, which is why it's been allowed to continuously exist for the past 47 years: more than can be said for the 'manly' challenger and the camaro. Face it fellas, women own the vehicle market and whatever they don't buy DIES . See the smoldering corpses of the 4th gen F-body for reference to that rule. Also, I have yet to see the car loan contract that requires the owner to be in possession of a penis, hence a female's ability to buy the v8 version and drive it just as well as any man could.

2 My v8 gets better mileage IRL than that!
No, it doesn't. The EPA test methodology will differ (radically in some cases) from your own, which means the numbers you get will differ from the EPAs numbers. If car A does 20% better that car B in the EPA test, but you, owner of car B see even better results that what the EPA reported about your car in your own driving habits, that we can assume that car A will STILL outperform car B if you drove car A using your habits. Comparing The EPAs numbers which were returned using EPA methods to your numbers which were returned using your own methods - especially against different cars - is apples to oranges. Totally useless.

3 Hey, better Horsepower per Liter!
So? What does that tell us? How efficient the engine is? No, that's MPG. How powerful the engine is? Nope, that's HP. How efficient the engine is at making power? Nope, that consumption (fuel) compared to output (horsepower). How much power we make for how much engine we have? Nope, thats power to weight. How much better one engine is than another? Nope, thats not quantifiable as a single value as all the other measurements just mentioned as well as some measurements that can't be quantified (like block design construction method and materials) must be considered. Any way you want to look at it HP\L is useless.




31 is the record..?
By WayneCoffee on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: 31 is the record..?
RE: 31 is the record..?
By WayneCoffee on 3/4/2010 3:54:01 PM , Rating: 2
I guess the official Lexus and Infiniti showed the measurements when they went downhill on a highway..lol


RE: 31 is the record..?
By Keeir on 3/4/2010 5:27:11 PM , Rating: 2
RE: 31 is the record..?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 3/4/2010 3:49:13 PM , Rating: 2
G37 Coupe is rated at 17 mpg / 25 mpg with a stick.


RE: 31 is the record..?
By FITCamaro on 3/4/2010 5:17:09 PM , Rating: 2
They might not have been rated at it but Corvettes with a 6 speed have been doing this since 97 depending on the rear gear ratio you get.

A guy at work bought an 06 Z06 a few months ago from a guy in Miami and drove it back here to Charleston. Averaged 27 MPG on the trip. 505 HP 427 ci V8.


RE: 31 is the record..?
By Keeir on 3/4/2010 5:33:40 PM , Rating: 2
Sigh...

I've driven my 26 MPG HWY rated car on a trip an averaged above 33 MPG as measured at the pump for the trip (1,213 miles, 36.2 gallons purchased)

The important things is the Mustang acchieved its 31 MPG rating based on the EPA Highway cycle which includes limited cruising at ~65 mph. It also includes combination Hot/Cold Start. The Corvette Z06 you mention gets around 24 MPG on that EPA HWY Cycle.

If the Mustang was driven in a similar way, the Mustang might return 34-35 MPG.


RE: 31 is the record..?
By FITCamaro on 3/4/2010 6:45:44 PM , Rating: 1
Point is that this is hardly anything of note. Potentially 3 MPG better but with 2/3 the power.


RE: 31 is the record..?
By donxvi on 3/4/2010 7:00:38 PM , Rating: 2
And twice the seats. At half the cost.


RE: 31 is the record..?
By FITCamaro on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: 31 is the record..?
By twhittet on 3/4/2010 11:19:52 PM , Rating: 2
And who gives a crap about your "a guy at work" you know got xx number of mpg this one time? EPA numbers versus "a guy at work" - that's like comparing apples to stool samples.


RE: 31 is the record..?
By Titanius on 3/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: 31 is the record..?
By Keeir on 3/4/2010 8:48:28 PM , Rating: 2
Errr..

your making the same mistake Fit.

The V6 mustang gets approx 25-30% better HWY milage on the EPA test than the Z06. Just because someone somewhere gets 27 MPG out of a Z06 doesn't say the Z06 within 3 MPG of this mustang V6. Have your friend drive the same car, at the same time of year, in the same weather, then you will get a good picture of the real difference... which will likely be 25% or so.


RE: 31 is the record..?
By FITCamaro on 3/4/2010 10:10:23 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not talking about a Z06. A standard Vette with a 6-speed gets better mileage than the Z06.


RE: 31 is the record..?
By Keeir on 3/5/2010 3:40:08 PM , Rating: 2
So which one are you specifically talking about?

Even the Base Corvette gets 16/26.

16/26 --> 19/31 is a 20% improvement.


That's not a good title...
By zshift on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: That's not a good title...
By AssBall on 3/4/2010 3:41:29 PM , Rating: 2
78 mpg for the first 18 miles.... then you are out of gas AND charge... they forgot to mention that.


RE: That's not a good title...
By slimg00dy on 3/4/2010 3:46:03 PM , Rating: 3
Not to mention that the porsche is a hybrid.


RE: That's not a good title...
By Iaiken on 3/4/2010 3:46:02 PM , Rating: 2
Not really...

So that Porsche gets "78.2MPG"...

Hypothetically speaking...

Of course.


RE: That's not a good title...
By Keeir on 3/4/2010 5:48:02 PM , Rating: 2
Hahaha

if you accept that 78.2 MPG claim... you also ought to accept the Chevy Volt's 230 MPG claim. Both are based on the same methodology.

Not only is the 78.2 MPG based on average over multiple driving trips with electrical usuage, it also omits the electrical usage factor entirely. It may be entirely possible that the Mustang uses less overall energy per mile, though not really probable since electric drivetrains are sufficiently more efficient at using energy in the battery.


God, that's an ugly car.
By samoya22 on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: God, that's an ugly car.
By Runiteshark on 3/4/2010 4:35:35 PM , Rating: 3
STIs are a full 10k over what this one will cost. Besides, what idiot would get a STI over the regular Impreza these days?


RE: God, that's an ugly car.
By tallcool1 on 3/4/2010 7:13:10 PM , Rating: 2
The new Mustangs are nice for sure and would be high on my list, but the EVO for me is more usefull. (year round traction with AWD, 4 doors with decent back seat room, top of the line performance, etc.)

http://mitsubishicars.com/MMNA/jsp/evo/10/index.do...


RE: God, that's an ugly car.
By samoya22 on 3/6/2010 7:04:17 PM , Rating: 2
An idiot who cares about handling and a bigger turbo?


RE: God, that's an ugly car.
By JediJeb on 3/4/2010 4:48:01 PM , Rating: 5
http://autos.aol.com/cars-Subaru-Impreza+WRX+STi-2...

Surely that isn't what you are saying looks better than the new Mustang. That thing looks hideous.


RE: God, that's an ugly car.
By NaughtyGeek on 3/4/2010 5:28:39 PM , Rating: 3
Lol, yeah. If I was going to pay that for a 2011 model I'm quite sure I'd go with the 5L Mustang GT making 412 HP and getting 25 MPG over that hideous monstrosity. But hey, there are still those that think "rice is boss." LMAO!


RE: God, that's an ugly car.
By samoya22 on 3/6/2010 7:14:21 PM , Rating: 2
Nice. Who goes to AOL Auto or Cars.com looking for good photos of cars? Everyone and their mother knows Mustangs are ugly, underpowered, overweight hogs...before Saleen gets to them. $20,000 later and you're looking at a modestly fun car.

Now, put $5,000 into an STi (or even a WRX for the sake of this argument), and you're looking at 500bhp/550lbs of torque on an AWD platform with an 80/20 differential.

I dare you to find a car that will put down that much power that efficiently and still be drivable during a Minnesota winter. EVO owners know what I'm talking about. WOOT!

We'll lose you in the snow; we'll lose you on the twisties; and we'll pull quarter miles that'll soak your mama's panties.


By Masospaghetti on 3/7/2010 10:46:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Everyone and their mother knows Mustangs are ugly,


You're calling a Mustang ugly, and you want an STI or EVO? seriously?

quote:
underpowered,

412 hp stock from the GT is underpowered? Tell me again, how much does a EVO or STI come with stock? Hint: its less than 412.

quote:
overweight hogs...

2010 Mustang GT curb weight ~ 3500 lb. 2010 STI curb weight ~3300 lb. Keep in mind the 2011 Mustang GT is lighter becuase of the alloy engine.

quote:
Now, put $5,000 into an STi (or even a WRX for the sake of this argument),

That's nice...nobody cares what you can do for $5,000. You could put a big blower on the GT for less than $5,000 and have way more than 500 bhp/550 lbs of torque.

quote:
I dare you to find a car that will put down that much power that efficiently

STI fuel economy is 17/23 on premium, stock...GT is 16/24 on regular. Same economy, cheaper fuel, more power. And before you begin to say how much better the STI is modified, realize nobody cares because everyone can make a sh!tload of power with a modified vehicle.
quote:
and still be drivable during a Minnesota winter


This is the one point that you're right about.

quote:
we'll pull quarter miles that'll soak your mama's panties.

If you say so, but you still will look like a tool driving a car that looks like a Corolla.


RE: God, that's an ugly car.
By exdeath on 3/7/2010 12:28:52 PM , Rating: 2
Let me introduce you to my little friend.

It's name is SVT Terminator.

Good god so much ignorance and misinformation in this thread by arm chair engineers you didn't even take physics in high school.


By yorkpatties09 on 3/8/2010 1:21:11 AM , Rating: 2
sounds like ford is overrating their HP numbers again

anyways you will average 22mpg as hardly anyone breaks 30mph average speed


RE: God, that's an ugly car.
By The0ne on 3/8/2010 2:41:24 PM , Rating: 2
I don't get your comment at all. I know you're responding to a kid talking about STI and EVO but what's your point? I'm a huge rally fan. What do you think we, I'm an engineer, don't get? It's like the morons here saying the styling is for rice out kids not realizing the car is made so the car can compete in Rallys. Meh, whatever floats their boat.

And yes, the SVT Terminator is a amazing vehicle. I saw one the other day and it's pretty amazing. He even reved up to make me race with him in my EVO. Uh, sure kid; not to mention the street has lights every 20 yards or so LMAO. Ignorance, you are definitely right on!


RE: God, that's an ugly car.
By afkrotch on 3/5/10, Rating: 0
"looks pretty good?"
By notfeelingit on 3/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: "looks pretty good?"
By JediJeb on 3/4/2010 4:24:14 PM , Rating: 2
I think the look great, but still not the best.

This is the Mustang I think looked the best of all.

http://www.nzmustang.com/history/boss429.htm

http://www.amclassics.com/Sold/69%20Black%20429.ht...

Though I doubt the mileage was anywhere near what the new one is lol.


RE: "looks pretty good?"
By Camikazi on 3/4/2010 4:42:47 PM , Rating: 2
OMG that Raven Black Boss is beautiful, I want it, I want it now.


RE: "looks pretty good?"
By JediJeb on 3/4/2010 4:52:38 PM , Rating: 2
I knew a guy who owned two 69 Boss 429s, one white the other Royal Maroon. Sold them for about $8k each when he got divorced back in about 1985. Oh how I wished I had been working then instead of still in high school.


RE: "looks pretty good?"
By bhieb on 3/4/2010 4:47:46 PM , Rating: 2
As with most Stangs the plain jane always looks...well... plain. It is the specials such as the boss and shelby that looked the best.

Something like this would be the modern comparison.

http://www.2010-mustang.com/wp-content/uploads/200...


RE: "looks pretty good?"
By mindless1 on 3/5/2010 8:27:02 PM , Rating: 2
Call me a crazy minimalist but I'd rather the plain jane looking version, BUT anodized aluminum alloy not painted steel and plastic... If I'm preserving something to keep for a really long time I see no need for high gloss at the expense of rust. Same goes for the underpinnings, make them anodized so you're not altering the stock car to reach that end.


"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki