The Official Mustang Thread

[FoMoJo]

I think you mean skirtless pistons.  The Gen3 (and gen 4 and 5) have a deep-skirted cylinder block.  However, the Gen3, in particular, had very short skirts on the pistons which led to piston slap being a common problem.

The LT5 shares literally nothing other than the bore spacing dimension with any other Chevy V8 (and that only because somebody at Chevy forced Lotus to change it from 4.55 to 4.4 after a design review with the muckity mucks at Chevy).  It wasn't even designed by Chevy.  It was a ground-up different engine. 

It was abandoned because the ZR-1 was roughly 2x the price of the regular Vette but didn't offer 2x the performance, particularly once the then-new GenII LT1 hit the scene in '92.  Against the wimpy L98, one could make the case for the ZR-1, but the LT1 closed the performance gap and fewer buyers were willing to step up to the uberVette.  Sales tanked and GM stuck with their higher-volume SBC over the Lotus-designed OHC motor.

Actually, I meant a skirted short block as in the difference between these Chevy small blocks...




The skirting provided more lower end strength to deal with the stresses of higher power.  GM was notorious for blowing out their bottom ends when adding a bit too much power.  Ford's "Y" blocks were much more capable of enduring high bhp because of the skirted blocks; as well as the EF series.  GM only converted to skirted blocks sometime in the 90s I believe; not sure of the gen.

[MX793]

Gen III and later small blocks are skirted.  LT5 was not based on the Gen II or Gen I, but I can't seem to find a picture of the short block for one.

EDIT:  Appears LT5 had a bolted-on skirt (someone on another forum referred to it as an "intermediate girdle assembly") that contained the main caps for the crank bearings.  You can see it here (orange RTV line separates it from the cylinder block, oil pan clearly below)



Here's a picture of one disassembled next to the upper block


Completely unlike any other SBC.  Gen I and II were skirtless, Gen III+ have skirts that are cast into the piston block.

[MX793]

2015 Production Stats (US only):

Total Produced:     110,648
Total 5.0's:             43,862  (39.6%)
Total Ecoboost:       39,264  (35.5%)
Total V6:               27,522   (24.9%)

I was expecting V8 cars to be a smaller percentage, closer to 33%.

Now, the more troubling numbers...

Total Automatics (All Engines):  88,851  (80.3%)
Total Manuals (All Engines):      21,797  (19.7%)

Seems to me that the last time I saw the breakdown on transmission type in Mustangs, the MT was a larger share than ~20%.  Surely this AT bias can be blamed on the "rental spec" cars fitted with lesser engines.  MTs in the V8s will be closer to 50/50.  I seem to recall MTs accounting for somewhere around 45% of V8 Mustangs during the previous generation.  Not anymore...

Total Auto 5.0:      35,221   (80.3%)
Total Manual 5.0:    8,641   (19.7%)

Total Eco Auto:     31,529   (80.3%)
Total Eco Manual:   7,735   (19.7%)

Total V6 Auto:      22,100   (80.3%)
Total V6 Manual:    5,422   (19.7%)

Not sure if Ford intentionally limited MT production to under 20% or if that was based on actual take-rates.  I do find it interesting that the difference in MTs produced across the engine line-up is so uniform.  The differences from one engine to another are down in the hundredths of a percent.  If they're trying to justify killing the MT, simply limiting the number of them produced and then claiming that they don't sell in enough numbers to justify continuing to offer them is one way to do it.  Can't sell more than you make, after all.  Too few people are willing to order a car these days, so most will just settle for the AT Mustang GT on the lot that they got a sweet deal on versus waiting 3-4 months for a special order with an MT.

Not sure what the threshold is where Ford will say that the MT no longer makes business sense.  With the AT now being available with the Performance Pack in the GT, I think/fear the share of MTs will fall even further.

[12,000 RPM]

That new 10 speed auto is really going to knock the piss out of manual sales as well

The sad truth is that with enough HP, gears, shift speed/obedience and smart programming automatics can be OK. Really good, even. If I were to get another manual car, I think I would want something from Factory Five or the like.

[MX793]

I've admittedly not driven the "best" of the latest crop of autos (ZF 8-spd, Nissan's 7-spd, GM/Ford 10-spd).  I have driven a DCT (Mitsubishi) and what were considered among the better ATs of their day from the early 2000s and have been thoroughly underwhelmed.  None of them were as satisfying to drive as an old-fashioned MT.  Not even close.  The DCT was the best of them, with the crispest and most responsive shifts and the least "slushiness" in the driveline, but even that left me cool.  I didn't like the very limited control over launch aggressiveness, which matters in inclement weather conditions as much as spirited driving.

Also, rocking a car out of deep snow when stuck is much easier with an MT than any torque-converter equipped vehicle I've ever driven.  Having more control over how much power gets meted out to the wheels with control over both the clutch and throttle makes getting unstuck easier as well.

[SJ_GTI]

I've admittedly not driven the "best" of the latest crop of autos (ZF 8-spd, Nissan's 7-spd, GM/Ford 10-spd).  I have driven a DCT (Mitsubishi) and what were considered among the better ATs of their day from the early 2000s and have been thoroughly underwhelmed.  None of them were as satisfying to drive as an old-fashioned MT.  Not even close.  The DCT was the best of them, with the crispest and most responsive shifts and the least "slushiness" in the driveline, but even that left me cool.  I didn't like the very limited control over launch aggressiveness, which matters in inclement weather conditions as much as spirited driving.

Also, rocking a car out of deep snow when stuck is much easier with an MT than any torque-converter equipped vehicle I've ever driven.  Having more control over how much power gets meted out to the wheels with control over both the clutch and throttle makes getting unstuck easier as well.

Is your Jetta a DSG?

IMO VW/Audi's DSG is the best I have driven. BMW's DCT is also very good (I thought their clunky SMG was kind of cool way back when). I have never driven a Mitsubishi DCT though. I have driven a few cars with the vaunted ZF 8-speed and it is basically just likely any other slushbox. Yes it shifts relatively quickly but there has always been that mushy feeling when using the throttle.

I don't see myself going with a auto (torque converter or DSG/DCT) any time soon but if I was forced to make a choice I would greatly favor a DSG/DCT setup.

[MX793]

Is your Jetta a DSG?

IMO VW/Audi's DSG is the best I have driven. BMW's DCT is also very good (I thought their clunky SMG was kind of cool way back when). I have never driven a Mitsubishi DCT though. I have driven a few cars with the vaunted ZF 8-speed and it is basically just likely any other slushbox. Yes it shifts relatively quickly but there has always been that mushy feeling when using the throttle.

I don't see myself going with a auto (torque converter or DSG/DCT) any time soon but if I was forced to make a choice I would greatly favor a DSG/DCT setup.

No, it's their "good old" Tiptronic, which was lauded in its day as being among the best of the manu-matics.  It's garbage.  Wonky ratios aside, it's slow to respond to commands to shift (or will outright ignore them), upshifts when you approach redline whether you tell it to or not, and provides almost no engine braking when you do command a downshift since I think it uncouples the converter when coasting.  In automatic mode, it runs almost as much with the converter unlocked as locked.

Haven't driven a VW DSG.  Mitsu's DSG was OK in terms of not having that rubbery/slushy feeling in the driveline and shifts were quick and pretty smooth (I could match the smoothness, but not the speed, with a traditional stick).  Better than any torque-converter auto I've ever driven, but still not a viable alternative to an honest-to-goodness 3-pedal manual gearbox in terms of driving experience.

[12,000 RPM]

I've driven VW's DSG, Ferrari's DCT, and the ZF8. None are as engaging as a good old stick, but IMO the Mustang GT is in the realm of speed where an auto can begin to make sense. The lack of ability to meter out power at launch is def annoying though.... one of my gripes with the G. In the dry it takes off but in the wet forget about it.

It does look like Ford capped manuals at 20% artificially.

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

I've said it a million times. Back in th day there was no way you could get me to buy and Auto if there was a manual available. Now I could care less! ESPECIALLY since the autos are actually FASTER and get better MPGs now.... 

[CaminoRacer]

If it isn't a stickshift, I still prefer a torque converter auto over anything but the best DCT.

[MX793]

I've said it a million times. Back in th day there was no way you could get me to buy and Auto if there was a manual available. Now I could care less! ESPECIALLY since the autos are actually FASTER and get better MPGs now.... 

Don't give a damn about straight line speed, they are less engaging.  And in AutoX, I've yet to see an auto prove itself faster than, or even as fast as, an equivalent car with a stick.  At autoX speeds, they don't lock their torque converters up and frequently hunt between first and second (and maybe third) gears.  You also can't utilize launch control at an AutoX because the launch zones are too short, so a 3-pedal manual has an advantage at the launch since the driver has more control.

[giant_mtb]

If it isn't a stickshift, I still prefer a torque converter auto over anything but the best DCT.

I don't think I've driven a DCT yet. 

[FoMoJo]

I don't think I've driven a DCT yet. 

Had one on a rental car a couple of years ago.  Didn't like it. 

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

they are less engaging. 

I agree 100%! Given the choice I'll always pick the manual but it's not a deal breaker (Unless it's a 5th Gen Camaro) for me.

[CALL_911]

DCTs are awesome, but I couldn't see myself giving up an old-fashioned manual.

[Raza]

DCTs are awesome, but I couldn't see myself giving up an old-fashioned manual.

[68_427]

Had one on a rental car a couple of years ago.  Didn't like it. 

Was it a Ford or Hyundai?  If so then nobody will be surprised as they might be the worst out there.

[FoMoJo]

Was it a Ford or Hyundai?  If so then nobody will be surprised as they might be the worst out there.

It was a Fiesta.

[MX793]

It was a Fiesta.

Ford's PowerShit, I mean Shift, is possibly the worst DCT on the market.  Terrible shift quality and attrocious reliability.  They went cheap with a dry clutch pack and it bit them.  I'm not sure they even offer it anymore.

[FoMoJo]

Ford's PowerShit, I mean Shift, is possibly the worst DCT on the market.  Terrible shift quality and attrocious reliability.  They went cheap with a dry clutch pack and it bit them.  I'm not sure they even offer it anymore.

Focus seems to be on smaller 9 spd auto transmissions for cars; another joint Ford/GM enterprise.

[MX793]

Ford finally released power specs for the '18.  460 hp, 420 lb-ft (increases of 25 and 20, respectively).  Claimed 0-60 in under 4 seconds.

[FoMoJo]

Ford finally released power specs for the '18.  460 hp, 420 lb-ft (increases of 25 and 20, respectively).  Claimed 0-60 in under 4 seconds.

Direct injection?

[MX793]

Direct injection?

Yes.  And a 10 spd auto with a drag strip mode (which is what you'll need to get Ford's claimed sub-4 0-60).

[CaminoRacer]

Yes.  And a 10 spd auto with a drag strip mode (which is what you'll need to get Ford's claimed sub-4 0-60).

I agree with The Grand Tour about any sort of launch control. It's useless in the real world.

[MX793]

I agree with The Grand Tour about any sort of launch control. It's useless in the real world.

I agree.  I've yet to use mine.  Too much for either the street or auto-x.

On the new car, the drag strip mode goes beyond launch control and also does some stuff with the shift mapping once under way.

[FoMoJo]

Yes.  And a 10 spd auto with a drag strip mode (which is what you'll need to get Ford's claimed sub-4 0-60).

Time to trade up.

[giant_mtb]

What an age we live in where a Mustang is breaking the 4-second 0-60 barrier.

[GoCougs]

Actually, I meant a skirted short block as in the difference between these Chevy small blocks...




The skirting provided more lower end strength to deal with the stresses of higher power.  GM was notorious for blowing out their bottom ends when adding a bit too much power.  Ford's "Y" blocks were much more capable of enduring high bhp because of the skirted blocks; as well as the EF series.  GM only converted to skirted blocks sometime in the 90s I believe; not sure of the gen.

None of this true, almost intentionally so (no offense).

[GoCougs]

I agree with The Grand Tour about any sort of launch control. It's useless in the real world.

Word up, too much time and complexity to use. So many cars' stats are inflated because of it.

[GoCougs]

What an age we live in where a Mustang is breaking the 4-second 0-60 barrier.

Ford though does have a conundrum on its hands. Not only was the GT350 not any quicker than a lowly Camaro SS, it's soon to be not any quicker than a lowly Mustang GT (with an AT).