Attention Mustang Tuners: Game over. Saleen wins.

[Eye of the Tiger]

I'd buy one.

Me, too.

[SVT666]

If it's all about not revving, maybe Ford should just throw a Cummins B6.7 into the Mustang and call it a day.

I think his point is the same one I always try to make: What's the point in revving the shit out of an engine if there is no need to.

[Eye of the Tiger]

I think his point is the same one I always try to make: What's the point in revving the shit out of an engine if there is no need to.

Maybe they should just get rid of food pedals and make a keypad to simply type in the speed you want to go. Drivers need not worry about what kind of mechanical device is providing the propulsion, let alone what RPM it's running at.

[Danish]

Maybe they should just get rid of food pedals and make a keypad to simply type in the speed you want to go. Drivers need not worry about what kind of mechanical device is providing the propulsion, let alone what RPM it's running at.

moar funny pictures

[FordSVT]

If it's all about not revving, maybe Ford should just throw a Cummins B6.7 into the Mustang and call it a day.

Sarcasm doesn't become you.

The Mustang GT's red line is 6250 rpms, and the Bullitt's is 6500 rpms. Both engines make peak HP about 500 rpms short of that. Does anyone on the board with a want to point out all of the sub $50,000 V8 cars with 7,000 rpm or higher red lines? Exactly, there are none. Most 3.5 L V6s you find in new sedans have 6500-6750 rpm red lines, only some of the more expensive or performance tuned engines on the market (outside of zingy little Hondas) have these massive rpms you think so highly of.

All things the same, in a torquey car like the Mustang I'd rather have 2000-6000 rpm of 150-300 horsepower than 2000-7000 rpm of 80-300 hp, ya dig?

[Eye of the Tiger]

Sarcasm doesn't become you.

The Mustang GT's red line is 6250 rpms, and the Bullitt's is 6500 rpms. Both engines make peak HP about 500 rpms short of that. Does anyone on the board with a want to point out all of the sub $50,000 V8 cars with 7,000 rpm or higher red lines? Exactly, there are none. Most 3.5 L V6s you find in new sedans have 6500-6750 rpm red lines, only some of the more expensive or performance tuned engines on the market (outside of zingy little Hondas) have these massive rpms you think so highly of.

All things the same, in a torquey car like the Mustang I'd rather have 2000-6000 rpm of 150-300 horsepower than 2000-7000 rpm of 80-300 hp, ya dig?

The Mustang has always been based on less-than-exciting engines from trucks, so naturally that is entirely consistent with the character of the car. What is the argument here? Oh yeah, just that Netheaddude perpetually proclaims that the pinnacle paradigm of power and performance is the one and only true car of all cars, the Mustang. We needn't talk about all the cars under $50,000 that don't have 7,000rpm redlines, or that Hondas are soooooo boring because OMFG you have to rev them up a little, or the fact that  my toothbrush is more innovative that the super-incredible manifestation of a lowered pickup truck with a trunk instead of a bed that we call the Mustang. They are Mustangs, bro. Just let Mustangs be Mustangs; they don't have to be anything but.

[FordSVT]

Is your problem with Nethead or the Mustang? If it's the former more than the latter, I've said my peace and I'm out of here, not trying to get into a fight between you.

Why are you getting so riled up?

[Nethead]

The Mustang has always been based on less-than-exciting engines from trucks, so naturally that is entirely consistent with the character of the car. What is the argument here? Oh yeah, just that Netheaddude perpetually proclaims that the pinnacle paradigm of power and performance is the one and only true car of all cars, the Mustang. We needn't talk about all the cars under $50,000 that don't have 7,000rpm redlines, or that Hondas are soooooo boring because OMFG you have to rev them up a little, or the fact that  my toothbrush is more innovative that the super-incredible manifestation of a lowered pickup truck with a trunk instead of a bed that we call the Mustang. They are Mustangs, bro. Just let Mustangs be Mustangs; they don't have to be anything but.

The NahDude's right--Mustang's don't have to be anything but Mustangs to be to sole surviving ponycar and the sole surviving musclecar--with a sorta semi-exception being the Charger, of course, resurrected as a four-door automatic-only...

Just being Mustangs means a gorgeous two-door RWD coupe with four-wheel disc brakes & ABS, 5-speed manual standard with a 5-speed automatic optional, 300 HP from a regular-gas fuel-injected all-aluminum 3-valve SOHC V8 with variable intake timing, 500 watts with 1,000 watts optional, dual one-touch electric windows, power remote mirrors, P/S, P/B, A/C, radio & CD player, optional leather, great wheel & tire combinations, a 60/40 fold down rear seat, 5-star safety rating in all categories including the convertibles, bridge girder frame/body rigidity, a tie with the RX8 for third place as the vehicles least likely to roll over in a collision (the BMW Z4 and the Mazda MX-5 tied for first place), and great resale value, for under $26,000.

Yeah, let Mustangs be Mustangs--they don't have to be anything but.

But owners seldom let Mustangs be Mustangs--which is why SEMA records show that Mustangs are the most-modified vehicles in the history of the Earth, surpassing even the '32 Deuce coupe. And at least thirty-four tuner shops produce greatly enhanced performance Mustangs for those with the desire for more--or much, much more--before they even take delivery. In fact, this very thread is about 580 HP and 620 HP Saleen Mustangs.

It'll be forty-four years of continuous production next Spring, around the time that the nine millionth Mustang will roll off the Ann Arbor assembly line. Affordable performance in a really good car is a formula that worked in 1964, and that concept is alive and well in the Mustang today. NahDude summed it up quite eloquently--Let Mustangs be Mustangs.

And congratulations to LonghornTX, who ordered his today!

[LonghornTX]

The Mustang has always been based on less-than-exciting engines from trucks, so naturally that is entirely consistent with the character of the car. What is the argument here? Oh yeah, just that Netheaddude perpetually proclaims that the pinnacle paradigm of power and performance is the one and only true car of all cars, the Mustang. We needn't talk about all the cars under $50,000 that don't have 7,000rpm redlines, or that Hondas are soooooo boring because OMFG you have to rev them up a little, or the fact that  my toothbrush is more innovative that the super-incredible manifestation of a lowered pickup truck with a trunk instead of a bed that we call the Mustang. They are Mustangs, bro. Just let Mustangs be Mustangs; they don't have to be anything but.

Your point would certainly would be much more elequent and convincing if you didn't throw in the insulting tone seen above, which is wholly unneccesary.  It makes you look like a snob or either very ignorant, or both.  I know neither of those are true, so I will assume you just had a bad day or something. 

[Eye of the Tiger]

Yes, I am an ignorant snob. 

[LonghornTX]

Yes, I am an ignorant snob. 

I stand corrected .

[Danish]

Nick buys a nice car and next thing you know.....

[Nethead]

From www.planetmustang.com:
 
E for Extreme - the Saleen S302E Ford Mustang 
Written by Tim Beggs     
Monday, 26 November 2007 


You have got to see the latest and greatest from Saleen is the incredible Saleen S302E Ford Mustang.  This sexy S197 packs a serious punch with plenty of show and go.  A built-and-blown 302 ci powerplant takes this Ford Mustang from nil to sixty in just under 4 seconds and leads to quarter miles times under the 12 second mark!  This feat is accomplished by 620hp / 600lb-ft of torque?plenty to go around.  The speed is just part of the attractiveness equation?the Saleen 302E is possibly the sharpest aftermarket S197 Ford Mustang we?ve seen yet.

[SVT666]

Under 4 seconds?  Wow.

[ArchBishop]

I just think a low redline, and a large displacement motor with truck like qualities and revving ablity is boring.

[LonghornTX]

I just think a low redline, and a large displacement motor with truck like qualities and revving ablity is boring.

Truck like qualities?  And what would those be?

[FordSVT]

I just think a low redline, and a large displacement motor with truck like qualities and revving ablity is boring.

You've never driven a Mustang GT, or any other high horsepower, high torque, 8 cylinder motor, have you. It's not a diesel one ton with a 3000 rpm redline for Pete's sake... it's got the same red line as a WRX, do you have a problem with that car too? Or just "trucks'?

[Nethead]

You've never driven a Mustang GT, or any other high horsepower, high torque, 8 cylinder motor, have you. It's not a diesel one ton with a 3000 rpm redline for Pete's sake... it's got the same red line as a WRX, do you have a problem with that car too? Or just "trucks'?

FordSVT:  Is ArchJealous the guy who drives his mother's Altima?
If so, that explains his aversion to:
(a) horsepower
(b) torque
(c) speed
(d) reliability (See below)
(e) value
(f) coolness

And this from BusinessWeek:

Most recalled cars 2007
1. VW Beetle 1,002,000
2. Toyota Sequoia 533,124
3. Jeep Liberty 149,605
4. Nissan Altima 140,582
5. Hyundai Tucson 128,300
6. Dodge Nitro, Jeep Wrangler 80,894
7. Suzuki Forenza, Reno 75,697
8. VW Passat, Passat Wagon 58,800
9. Chrysler Sebring, Chrysler 300, Dodge Caliber, Dodge Magnum, Dodge Charger, Dodge Nitro, Jeep Compass, Jeep Liberty, Jeep Commander, Jeep Grand Cherokee, Jeep Wrangler 50,665
10. Infiniti G35 Coupe 23,934

[ArchBishop]

FordSVT:  Is ArchJealous the guy who drives his mother's Altima?
If so, that explains his aversion to:
(a) horsepower
(b) torque
(c) speed
(d) reliability
(e) value
(f) coolness

What do you drive again? I'd put money down I'd embarrass its sorry ass in any objective handing measure. Yes, in my "mothers Altima"

[SVT666]

What do you drive again? I'd put money down I'd embarrass its sorry ass in any objective handing measure. Yes, in my "mothers Altima"

He's got a 1966 Bronco, which is waaaaaaay cooler then any Altima I've ever seen.

[ArchBishop]

Cool is subjective. Being able to accelerate, stop, and turn, and do it well, is not subjective however. Which is what my car does better than his.

The subject at hand however, was how terrible the Mustang engine is, and its shortcomings that can only be remedied by throwing a large blower at it.

[SVT666]

Cool is subjective. Being able to accelerate, stop, and turn, and do it well, is not subjective however. Which is what my car does better than his.

The subject at hand however, was how terrible the Mustang engine is, and its shortcomings that can only be remedied by throwing a large blower at it.

It's not terrible.  You're just jaded.

[ArchBishop]

I'm not jaded, it's shit. Period.

[Nethead]

Cool is subjective. Being able to accelerate, stop, and turn, and do it well, is not subjective however. Which is what my car does better than his.

The subject at hand however, was how terrible the Mustang engine is, and its shortcomings that can only be remedied by throwing a large blower at it.

ArchJealous: One of the SonDude's many automotive purchases includes a 2008 Altima 2.5 six-speed manual. He wanted a comfortable, economical sedan for commuting and hauling around other engineers that work for him to the jobsites and to out-of-town conferences.

I've driven said Altima, purchased just last month, and it is an excellent vehicle for what it is, as were the '93 Sentra and the '73 Datsun pickup the Nethead here has owned in the past. OTOH, it is no match for our four-year-old Focus ZX5 in the twisties in any way, form, or fashion--even with 65,000+ miles on the ZX5's OEM shocks. To be straight up with you, it would handily put down our four-year-old Windstar. At a mixed track like Laguna Seca, a competent track driver would finish a clear first in the ZX5, a clear last in the Windstar, and about dead center between the two in the Altima--further ahead of the Windstar if the Windstar competes with the four-year-old shocks that's on it right now.

But there's trouble in Nissanland: Just this week, the WifeDude read that all '05 and '06 Altimas are being recalled for stalling problems. The SonDude is having the same stalling problems in his '08 Altima, but he'll have to hassle the dealership until Nissan catches up enough on the '05 and '06 recall that they can then recall the '07 and '08 Altimas and fix the same problem that the '05s and the '06s are having.

An Altima with that stalling problem might NOT be able to finish between the ZX5 and the Windstar...

Now, knowing you as we unfortunately do, I know you'll take this as a double-slap at your mother's Altima. Wrong! It is only a single-slap at the Altima for its stalling problem that's now in its fourth model year. There is no shame in a mid-size four-door sedan powered by a 2.5 having nothing to show against a subcompact with a 2.0.

The sad part of this is that the SonDude paid around $2,000 more for the Altima than for the equivalent Mazda6 that he also considered, which was quite the sportier of the two when we drove them both. A little better equipped as well (aluminum wheels instead of wheelcovers, for starters). But the Altima was a little better appointed for haulin' three or four passengers to jobsites and conferences, and that's the primary mission of this daily commuter. A smooth vehicle well-suited to its purpose...

I know this next paragraph sounds totally fabricated just for you, but I swear it's not: There was a Mustang V6 advertised at $1,000 off at Apple (or Appleton or Appleworth or AppleSomething) Ford just south of Baltimore back over the Labor Day Holiday. The SonDude was thinking of maybe picking up a playcar if the payments were right, the trade-in allowance generous, and the fun factor high. With only 210 HP, that Mustang still could handily out-accelerate either the Altima or the ZX5 and has a clutch that was just perfect for this kind of mischief. There was no time to find real twisties that close to Baltimore, so we couldn't wring out the handling sufficiently to accurately predict where it might place in the virtual Laguna Seca track test above. You could stomp it in mid-corner and it would hunker down and wail, and with a little opposite steering wheel work it was slinging us around with relish and abandon! The fun factor was terrific, but the trade-in allowance was sparse (as is commonly found when dickering for a vehicle that's already marked down by a dealership)--too sparse to get the payments below LOL so we thanked them for their time and courtesy and drove back to the SonDude's place in the wheels we came in. You would have to drive more seriously with the V8 because of its inherent ability to effortlessly overwhelm the limits of the rubber. Still fun, but fun of a different nature--and a lot more forgiving than my old Cyclone CJ428 would be in a curve approached too fast. The Cyclone kept you wide awake and thinking hard about every part of any curve you came to at speed--a lot more effort to go not as fast...but I digress...

The '66 Bronco that I usually drive daily, as I did today: raw, basic, wonderful...
Low gearing means the 289 virtually leaps away from a standstill, but it's all over by eighty due to that same low gearing and the three-speed manual w/o any of those three being overdrives. Off-pavement tires wouldn't strike fear into the Windstar at Laguna Seca, either, to say nothing of the flexy suspension sans swaybars.  Fine for the commute--except for the stares, smiles, and occasional come-ons from frisky coeds younger than the DaugterDude. Ya gotta keep your mind on the traffic anytime you're on pavement with the Bronco--it ain't like vehicles you've driven. It's got the original four-wheel drums from 1966, so delectable distractions in Sebring convertibles have to be disregarded or you'll eat bumper. Tricky on ice, too, which meant I had to sacrifice a tire once to keep from gnawing the creosote off a telephone pole one nasty evening. Thank God I was in the city limits where they had curbs! That vehicle would lose to your mother's Altima at Laguna Seca. But if you'll follow me off the pavement, I promise I'll tow you out for free! 'Fair enough?

[SVT666]

I'm not jaded, it's shit. Period.

No, you're definitely jaded.

[Nethead]

I'm not jaded, it's shit. Period.

ArchJealous: I've read and re-read the article below from Ward's Auto World, and for the life of me I can't find a single reference where it states that the engines in Mustangs are made by squeezing your head, so stop boasting until you can prove it. I'll read the article again, just in case I missed that paragraph...

The Mustang's 4.6 liter V8 came out three years ago, and was one of Ward's ten best engines that year--and every year since. As you'll see from their evaluation below, they predict its tenure among the ten best engines available in the US is far from over:

Ford Motor Co. 4.6L SOHC V-8
By Bill Visnic
WardsAuto.com, Dec 20, 2006 9:04 AM       
Special Coverage
Ward?s 10 Best Engines

A funny thing happened while Ward?s 10 Best Engines judges were pondering the expanding list of Mustang variants in search of the best way to sample the auto maker?s modular 4.6L SOHC V-8: Ford?s on-the-ball press-fleet coordinators hustled over one of the first examples of the Shelby GT.

Most of us didn?t get out of the parking garage before scrambling for a pen to wax eloquent about this seemingly innocuous tweak to the 4.6L V-8, the brawny and vocal new generation of Ford?s excellent modular V-8 family that scorched its way to a 10 Best Engines win when launched two years ago.

That?s because the even growlier exhaust note is immediately evident when bouncing off concrete walls. Not that it really needs any augmentation. The 4.6L V-8?s exhaust symphony simply is the best on the market, but the new Shelby GT specification of the 4.6L somehow improves on what we were convinced already was V-8 aural perfection.

This comes by way of Ford?s Racing components unit, which supplies for the Shelby GT a Ford Racing Power Pack that fits a cold-air intake (an import tuner-market staple), a revised crossover pipe for the dual exhaust and some engine-management software fettling.

The result is an extremely noticeable 25-hp improvement over the standard 4.6L V-8?s stout 300 hp and a slight gain in torque, from 320 lb.-ft. (434 Nm) to 330 lb.-ft. (447 Nm). The shorter final-drive ratio, 3.55:1 compared with the Mustang GT?s 3.31:1, also is a likely conspirator in notably nastier in-gear acceleration.

The Shelby GT, by the way, is the civilian version of the Shelby GT-H, which only can be sampled by renting one from Hertz.

Ford 4.6L SOHC V-8 particularly evocative in new 325-hp trim. 
The Ford Racing Power Pack ?really wakes this engine up,? says one Ward?s editor, reminding that one of our only reservations regarding Ford?s modular V-8s is some low-rpm sleepiness that isn?t erased until the engine gets ?on the cam.?

But as usual with this V-8, the sounds leave as much impression as the power.

The cold-air intake, for example, isn?t shy about making it?s presence known. With the Power Pack, the revised 4.6L V-8?s intake bark can single-handedly raise the national terror-threat color. Coordinating with the even more luscious exhaust, the 325-hp 4.6L V-8 is about as subtle as a truck-stop breakfast.

If you don?t yearn for all that sturm and drang, go for the 4.6L V-8 in standard 300-hp trim, which is one of the market?s unqualified excitement-per-dollar leaders and is more convincing than most engines while just idling in the driveway.

And as one reader reminded just minutes after posting this year?s 10 Best Engines winners on WardsAuto.com, you don?t need the admittedly limited-purpose Mustang GT to partake of the 4.6L V-8?s special character: Ford also offers this engine (in iron-block form) for the Explorer and Explorer Sport Trac.

But really, the Mustang Shelby GT ? 325 hp, 330 lb.-ft. and 0-60 mph (97 km/h) in about 5 seconds, all for about $35,000. We see more 10 Best Engines awards in the future with numbers like those.

bvisnic@wardsauto.com

And supercharging? Sure, why not? No mods needed for this engine to go well beyond 500  HP safely. As you approach 600 HP and beyond--not uncommon in modified Mustangs at all, as even you can discern from the power levels of the two Saleens this thread is about--smart builders swap in the usual forged components. 900 HP is available in the Pure Performance Products twin-turbo Mustang Shadrach Edition, if you yearn for triple the power of the basic Mustang GT. That's a little over the top, but the Mustang's engine was designed with over-the-top in mind--SEMA records show that Mustangs are the most-modified vehicle in history, so there's a lot of over-the-top going around since Ford made the Mustang young again...

Want naturally-aspirated performance?  Look at the SCCA, NASA, Grand American, and FIA GT4 record books for how well naturally-aspirated V8 Mustangs perform. A retired golfer won the inaugural FIA GT4 European Driving Championship driving a naturally-aspirated Mustang, winning half the races outright and finishing on the podium in all but two races.

These are the facts. Our country does not mandate that you let them get in the way of your opinion, you being an expert and all--and all of us in the forums duly recognize that you are far more qualified to judge engines than the mere editors at Ward's Auto World...Why, just your degrees in Mechanical Engineering, Vehicular Dynamics, Metallurgy, Applied Physics--uh, where did you get those degrees again?  I apologize, in the excitement of the moment your credentials have momentarily slipped my memory Sorry!

[ArchBishop]

Its nice that you compare a focus to an Altima, but it is not MY altima. Do you even know what my avatar picture is of?

[TheIntrepid]

Its nice that you compare a focus to an Altima, but it is not MY altima. Do you even know what my avatar picture is of?

He claims that a 4.0L 210hp can outaccelerate any Altima. I doubt he knows that the latest Altima has the VQ V6 with a 3.5L displacement, 270hp, and a CVT. It could easily outaccelerate that Mustang.

[SVT666]

Its nice that you compare a focus to an Altima, but it is not MY altima. Do you even know what my avatar picture is of?

Really?  I thought it was your mom's.

[The Pirate]

He claims that a 4.0L 210hp can outaccelerate any Altima. I doubt he knows that the latest Altima has the VQ V6 with a 3.5L displacement, 270hp, and a CVT. It could easily outaccelerate that Mustang.

No, read it again.  He claims that the Mustang V6 5 speed could out-accelerate his Focus and his son's 4-cylinder Altima.  It's a true statement.