The 2010 Detroit Motor Show will see Ford reveal the 2011 Ford Mustang GT with a new 5.0 liter V8 powerplant but thanks to the wonderful world of the Internet, we now have two leaked images of the new Mustang GT to show you. The Mustang in the image above has the 5.0 badge on its fenders and the other image which can be found after the jump shows us the 5.0 liter engine under the hood.
This new V8 is said to produce 412hp at 6,500 revs and 528Nm of torque. The outgoing 4.6 liter V8 outputs a mundane 315hp (for its engine size) and 440Nm of torque. There should be two transmission options including a 6-speed manual as well as a 6-speed automatic. The engine is also rumored to deliver about 25 mpg, believed to be based on highway calculation. That figure translates to about 9.4 liters per 100 kilometers.
(http://www.icars.sg/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/2011-ford-mustang-gt-1.png)
(http://www.icars.sg/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/2011-ford-mustang-gt-2.png)
I believe I'm now a Mustang convert. :wub:
I just noticed that it's already talked about in the Mustang thread. :hammerhead:
The new 32V VVT 5.0 Mustang GT is significant enough to warrant its own thread. :ohyeah:
That's a fine looking motor.
But those wheels are terrible.
I hate the wheels too. Hopefully they have some choices.
Quote from: GoCougs on December 26, 2009, 09:22:02 PM
But those wheels are terrible.
Yes, they do suck. A mustang looks best in a classic 5 star rim. I also do think this red looks very good on them. A dark blue or black would be better.
Quote from: Onslaught on December 26, 2009, 09:20:25 PM
That's a fine looking motor.
Quite reminiscent of another fine looking motor, the original SHO Yamaha V6:
(http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/7250/91shov6.jpg) (http://img268.imageshack.us/i/91shov6.jpg/)
I think those wheels would look good in a larger size. And of course I was hoping that they'd pay homage to the 5.0 of the 1980's. The badge on the engine cover is a dead ringer for the one on the Fox body fenders.
The improved power:weight ratio and better transmission now makes the Mustang the unquestionable performance king among its American competitors, but I can't help but think that the Camaro still looks much better. It's as if I was hoping the new engine would help the Mustang look more fresh again, to no avail. Well, at least the Mustang has a better interior.
They look like the same wheels that are on the GT500KR, but on the KR they're painted silver instead being chrome and they look much better. I don't want to have to wait until 2015 to buy another Mustang, but I might have to. I mean, how am I supposed to buy a 300 hp version with this thing out there? I guess I'll just have to supercharge it.
Quote from: Vinsanity on December 26, 2009, 11:14:09 PM
I think those wheels would look good in a larger size. And of course I was hoping that they'd pay homage to the 5.0 of the 1980's. The badge on the engine cover is a dead ringer for the one on the Fox body fenders.
The improved power:weight ratio and better transmission now makes the Mustang the unquestionable performance king among its American competitors, but I can't help but think that the Camaro still looks much better. It's as if I was hoping the new engine would help the Mustang look more fresh again, to no avail. Well, at least the Mustang has a better interior.
I have seen both in the flesh.... the Camaro looks sharp, but it also carries a lot of visual heft (even in what's supposed to be slimming; black). The Mustang is still big, but not as big, and it has some pretty cool details. I still wish it were about 90% as big though; and I get the feeling they could save a lot of space by moving to an IRS, in-wheel suspension setup. IMO most of the Mustang's heft is in the rear; they cleaned up the front a lot.
Still, this motor is a big step in the right direction. I wonder if this is the same 5.0 that's in the new Jags? I mean it has the same level of complexity lol. Can't see this costing any less
Quote from: sportyaccordy on December 27, 2009, 04:50:38 AM
I have seen both in the flesh.... the Camaro looks sharp, but it also carries a lot of visual heft (even in what's supposed to be slimming; black). The Mustang is still big, but not as big, and it has some pretty cool details. I still wish it were about 90% as big though; and I get the feeling they could save a lot of space by moving to an IRS, in-wheel suspension setup. IMO most of the Mustang's heft is in the rear; they cleaned up the front a lot.
Still, this motor is a big step in the right direction. I wonder if this is the same 5.0 that's in the new Jags? I mean it has the same level of complexity lol. Can't see this costing any less
I'm pretty certain this is an entirely different motor from the 5.0L Jag motor. The Jag motor was unique to Jag, and went to Tata Motors along with the rest of the brand. I'd be very surprised if Ford let Tata have that motor if they were planning to use it in Ford vehicles.
I think I've grown out of the shiny rims age.
Quote from: Onslaught on December 27, 2009, 09:53:24 AM
I think I've grown out of the shiny rims age.
Unfortunately, Ford and GM haven't.
Quote from: Onslaught on December 27, 2009, 09:53:24 AM
I think I've grown out of the shiny rims age.
I'm so over chrome as well.
Quote from: nickdrinkwater on December 27, 2009, 03:32:11 PM
Unfortunately, Ford and GM haven't.
GM is really hung up on chrome wheels. I never liked them. I don't understand the appeal.
I like black wheels that has a chrome trim ring:
(http://image.eurotuner.com/f/10023928/eurp_0806_24_z+2008_wustefest_las_vegas_show+vw_gti_black_on_black+black_wheels.jpg)
Nope, I'm over that too.
Quote from: Raza on December 27, 2009, 09:43:30 PM
Nope, I'm over that too.
They look so cool on the '80's 911 Turbo.
Quote from: Payman on December 27, 2009, 10:07:15 PM
They look so cool on the '80's 911 Turbo.
I'd be okay with that. The cassette tape wheels are classic.
Quote from: Payman on December 27, 2009, 06:33:21 PM
I like black wheels that has a chrome trim ring:
(http://image.eurotuner.com/f/10023928/eurp_0806_24_z+2008_wustefest_las_vegas_show+vw_gti_black_on_black+black_wheels.jpg)
That's not chrome. That's polished aluminum.
That's not a trim ring either, that's the rim.
I can't wait to see what kind of numbers this five point oh puts up!
Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on December 28, 2009, 01:18:18 AM
I can't wait to see what kind of numbers this five point oh puts up!
With an additional 125 hp and ~400 lbs the GT500 only gained but 0.1 sec 0-60 and 1/4 mile on the Camaro SS. Using that as a yardstick the 5.0 GT should still be short of the Camaro SS. If the GT is as fast or faster than the Camaro SS, Ford has some ultra mega 'splain' to do to both past and current (unhappy) GT500 customers and shoppers...
Quote from: GoCougs on December 28, 2009, 02:14:22 AM
With an additional 125 hp and ~400 lbs the GT500 only gained but 0.1 sec 0-60 and 1/4 mile on the Camaro SS. Using that as a yardstick the 5.0 GT should still be short of the Camaro SS. If the GT is as fast or faster than the Camaro SS, Ford has some ultra mega 'splain' to do to both past and current (unhappy) GT500 customers and shoppers...
Holden found themselves in a similar situation when the LS1 replaced the Holden V8 - the $85,000 HSV models bought the year before were suddenly no more faster than $30k base-model Commodores optioned with the new engine.
And I'm not sure what to think about this new V8. It's good from the Mustang's perspective, but what this means for the Falcon V8 I'm not sure. Come 2012 when it's (well past) time for the current 422hp 5.4 to be put out to pasture, unless there's a fundamental weight reduction program on the cards, a new engine with less horsepower, torque and displacement (from a marketing perspective) than both the current engine and Holden's 6.2 doesn't bode well.
Mind you, a lighter Falcon with a 412hp 5.0 V8 would be mighty fine indeed.
(http://cache-foo-02.gawkerassets.com/gawker/assets/images/12/2009/12/500x_mustang_5.0_v8__2_.jpg)
I want this engine and the new 6 speed for my Comet. At just over 400 lbs, it's the same size as the Lexus engine I already have and about the same weight as the old school small block V8 that was in it, stock.
But oh...
(http://www.jontanis.com/gallery/d/4099-1/boss00.jpg)
(http://www.jontanis.com/gallery/d/4102-1/boss10.jpg)
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on December 27, 2009, 10:18:02 PM
That's not chrome. That's polished aluminum.
That's not a trim ring either, that's the rim.
Yes... and yes, I was just describing the look of the rim. Black inside with a shiny lip.
Quote from: ChrisV on December 28, 2009, 07:37:27 AM
(http://cache-foo-02.gawkerassets.com/gawker/assets/images/12/2009/12/500x_mustang_5.0_v8__2_.jpg)
I want this engine and the new 6 speed for my Comet. At just over 400 lbs, it's the same size as the Lexus engine I already have and about the same weight as the old school small block V8 that was in it, stock.
But oh...
(http://www.jontanis.com/gallery/d/4099-1/boss00.jpg)
(http://www.jontanis.com/gallery/d/4102-1/boss10.jpg)
I wonder what it costs from Ford. This 302 would be great in my future FFR Cobra... a perfect melding of old and new.
The BBS RSRs on the racer look nice though...
I actually would put a set of these wheels on there, along with the BOSS 302 stripe package...
(http://www.automobilesnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/twinturbopj_lead.jpg)
Finally a Mustang that doesn't have to make excuses for a lackluster power train. Now if only they'd get with the 21st century on that rear axle design... ;)
Quote from: R-inge on December 28, 2009, 05:11:42 PM
Finally a Mustang that doesn't have to make excuses for a lackluster power train. Now if only they'd get with the 21st century on that rear axle design... ;)
R-inge: A 540 horsepower GT500 with a Tremec 6060 6-speed powertrain is lackluster? :confused:
What's in your garage?
Quote from: ChrisV on December 28, 2009, 11:43:58 AM
I actually would put a set of these wheels on there, along with the BOSS 302 stripe package...
(http://www.automobilesnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/twinturbopj_lead.jpg)
That looks absolutely fantastic. Only problem I see is that I don't own one!
Quote from: The Pirate on December 29, 2009, 12:11:36 PM
That looks absolutely fantastic. Only problem I see is that I don't own one!
I've only ever seen one of those in person. The only thing I don't like i the headlight splitter. If they were going to do that, they should have changed the headlight assembly instead of sticking on a tacky piece of plastic.
Quote from: Nethead on December 29, 2009, 11:50:28 AM
R-inge: A 540 horsepower GT500 with a Tremec 6060 6-speed powertrain is lackluster? :confused:
What's in your garage?
He's talking about the GT, compared to it's competition.
Quote from: Payman on December 29, 2009, 01:25:54 PM
He's talking about the GT, compared to it's competition.
He knows Payman. But he'd rather dodge the issue! Classic Nethead! Gotta love this guy!
Quote from: Payman on December 29, 2009, 01:25:54 PM
He's talking about the GT, compared to it's competition.
And the base Mustang, too, which along with the GT account for 95%+ of all Mustang sales (meaning, the GT500 is essentially irrelevant).
Quote from: Nethead on December 29, 2009, 11:50:28 AM
R-inge: A 540 horsepower GT500 with a Tremec 6060 6-speed powertrain is lackluster? :confused:
What's in your garage?
I think this thread was about the GT, no?
Anyway, in current form the GT would be thoroughly embarrassed by one machine in my garage...
Quote from: R-inge on December 29, 2009, 02:30:04 PM
I think this thread was about the GT, no?
Anyway, in current form the GT would be thoroughly embarrassed by one machine in my garage...
Thoroughly embarrassed?
Quote from: GoCougs on December 29, 2009, 02:03:29 PM
And the base Mustang, too, which along with the GT account for 95%+ of all Mustang sales (meaning, the GT500 is essentially irrelevant).
Well, to be fair, the Mustang V6's crappiness never came into play until the 2010 Camaro V6 blew it out of the water. All the V6 pony cars always sucked.
:hesaid:
Anyway, Craig that wasn't meant as a jab at the Stang as much as it was an answer to Nethead's ridiculous call-out. Ironically what I drive doesn't actually have any relevance to my opinion, insofar as my right to jab at design elements that I don't find particularly endearing, even if I do in fact like the car overall.
I'd rather have your turbocharged lesbian station wagon.
Quote from: Payman on December 29, 2009, 01:25:54 PM
He's talking about the GT, compared to it's competition.
To be fair, the comment was "Finally
a Mustang that doesn't have to make excuses for a lackluster power train" as thouh there have been no other Mustangs available at the dealership that had strong powertrains, even available with factory warranties.
Now had the comment been "Finally a
base Mustang [/i]GT that doesn't have to make excuses for a lackluster power train" then Netdude would probably not have responded (though the Bullitt cars have always been well recieved, and they aren't the high end GT500s, either).
Not that it actually matters. The point of the jab was that Mustangs, other than the GT500, have been outgunned by the latest competition. It hasn't mattered much because overall the Mustang is still quite good, good enough to beat the others in some rankings.
I really don't have a dog in this fight, so don't confuse my jabs for serious posting please.
Quote from: the Teuton on December 29, 2009, 02:52:59 PM
I'd rather have your turbocharged lesbian station wagon.
Of course you would. You are a lesbian. :ohyeah:
Quote from: HEMI666 on December 29, 2009, 03:05:23 PM
Of course you would. You are a lesbian. :ohyeah:
And you're a northern cowboy. Go back to listening to your Alan Jackson and drinking your Bud Light. ;)
Quote from: the Teuton on December 29, 2009, 02:52:59 PM
I'd rather have your turbocharged lesbian station wagon.
I'd love to have one of each honestly... get the convertible for la Wifa.
Quote from: the Teuton on December 29, 2009, 03:06:59 PM
And you're a northern cowboy. Go back to listening to your Alan Jackson and drinking your Bud Light. ;)
:lol:
Alan Jackson is great, but I haven't listened to him in years. Oh and the only Bud Light that gets near these taste buds is Bud Light Lime.
Quote from: HEMI666 on December 29, 2009, 03:08:35 PM
:lol:
Alan Jackson is great, but I haven't listened to him in years. Oh and the only Bud Light that gets near these taste buds is Bud Light Lime.
But you have decent Canadian beer up there! Traitor! Fool!
Bud Light is for college partygoers and the unsophisticated masses.
Quote from: the Teuton on December 29, 2009, 03:55:17 PM
But you have decent Canadian beer up there! Traitor! Fool!
Bud Light is for college partygoers and the unsophisticated masses.
Oh I drink the good stuff, but if someone has a Bud Light Lime hanging around, I'll drink that too. It's actually pretty good. You just won't get drunk off it.
Quote from: HEMI666 on December 29, 2009, 06:31:00 PM
Oh I drink the good stuff, but if someone has a Bud Light Lime hanging around, I'll drink that too. It's actually pretty good. You just won't get drunk off it.
I'll have to try it then. :lol:
Getting drunk off beer is a little insipid anymore.
Quote from: the Teuton on December 29, 2009, 06:45:32 PM
I'll have to try it then. :lol:
Getting drunk off beer is a little insipid anymore.
Who the fuck do you think you are? You aren't a 60 year old man. You're in college. Act like it, you lesbian!
Quote from: MrH on December 29, 2009, 08:01:32 PM
Who the fuck do you think you are? You aren't a 60 year old man. You're in college. Act like it, you lesbian!
:lol:
Teuton: The Sober Lesbian College Student
Quote from: the Teuton on December 29, 2009, 06:45:32 PM
I'll have to try it then. :lol:
Getting drunk off beer is a little insipid anymore.
We were in Seattle in September for the Yankees and Mariners, and Bud Light Lime is all we drank because we had to drink a case of it before getting drunk.
According to this Ford press release the 2011 V6 Stang will weigh less then 3,500 lbs, so I have a hard time believing the GT will weigh almost 500 lbs more.
- Hemi666
2011 FORD MUSTANG V-6 PERFORMANCE PACKAGE BOOSTS HANDLING, BRAKING; CAR NOW ROAD-COURSE READY
All-new 2011 Mustang V-6 joins the ranks of performance-tuned Mustang offerings worldwide; available Performance Package combines lightweight 305-horsepower all-aluminum V-6, a 3:31 performance rear axle and Mustang GT-based suspension and braking components
Unique 19-inch wheels and Pirelli performance tires provide superb grip and aggressive appearance
Electronic stability control calibration features Sport mode for high-performance driving and track-oriented events
DEARBORN, Mich., Nov. 30, 2009 ? Around the globe, Ford?s performance-tuned cars are known to provide an uncompromised driving experience in a remarkably civilized package. Growing from that tradition, the new 2011 Ford Mustang V-6 will offer an optional factory-installed Performance Package that combines high-tech horsepower and a taut suspension in a package that will appeal to track-day fans and sports car aficionados alike.
Powered by the same 305-horsepower all-aluminum Ti-VCT V-6 as the new 2011 Mustang, the Performance Package takes advantage of the new engine?s lightweight and high-revving nature to deliver a nimble performance car equally at home on a road course or a road trip.
?The new Performance Package delivers on fast, fun and affordable, combining the all-new 2011 V-6 with Mustang GT prowess,? said Dave Pericak, Mustang chief nameplate engineer. ?It?s a true sports car for the new generation and a smart choice for the environmentally-conscious enthusiast. It is a perfect marriage of power, performance and value.?
Borrowing from the Mustang GT, the Performance Package includes numerous suspension, braking and body stiffening upgrades to deliver unparalleled handling performance. That road-holding is helped by a near-equal front/rear weight distribution, providing exceptional transient response along with the car?s slimmed-down curb weight of less than 3,500 pounds.
2011 Mustang Performance Package upgrades include:
A 3.31 rear axle ratio for quicker off-the-line acceleration
Mustang GT coupe front and rear stabilizer bars
Mustang GT front struts and rear shocks/springs
Shelby GT500 rear lower control arm
Unique 19-inch wheels
Pirelli performance tires for improved grip
Mustang GT front and rear brake calipers with Performance Friction pads
A strut tower brace for increased body rigidity
Unique electronic stability control calibration with Sport mode for performance driving
Unique badging
The 2011 Mustang V-6 Performance Package will be available beginning late next summer, built at the Auto Alliance International Plant in Flat Rock, Mich. The new 3.7-liter V-6 will be built at Ford?s retooled Cleveland Engine Plant No. 1.
How heavy is a comparable current-model Mustang?
Quote from: omicron on December 30, 2009, 04:49:02 AM
How heavy is a comparable current-model Mustang?
From Wikipedia: (take with a grain of salt)
2005-2009:
V6 coupe MT/AT:
3,350 lb (1,520 kg)/3,420 lb (1,551 kg)
V6 convertible MT/AT:
3,475 lb (1,576 kg)/3,555 lb (1,613 kg)
V8 coupe MT/AT:
3,480 lb (1,579 kg)/3,525 lb (1,599 kg)
V8 convertible MT/AT:
3,610 lb (1,637 kg)/3,655 lb (1,658 kg)
GT500 coupe:
3,920 lb (1,778 kg)
GT500 convertible:
4,040 lb (1,833 kg)
2010:
V6 coupe MT/AT:
3,401 lb (1,543 kg)/3,454 lb (1,567 kg)
V8 GT coupe MT/AT:
3,533 lb (1,603 kg)/3,575 lb (1,622 kg)
V8 GT500 coupe MT:
3,940 lb (1,787 kg)
Netgear, you should go issue yourself a sense of humor and not take everything so seriously. You'll get carpal-tunnel if you keep this up!
Quote from: Nethead on December 30, 2009, 06:48:18 AM
I know there are those that wish the GT500 did not have 540 horsepower--but again, there it is...They would be OK with that 540 horsepower if there was a bowtie in the grille! But there ain't :evildude: Smirk!
No, I just wish it didn't cost as much as a Corvette
http://www.carsdirect.com/build/options?zipcode=92782&acode=USB90FOC211A0&restore=false (http://www.carsdirect.com/build/options?zipcode=92782&acode=USB90FOC211A0&restore=false)
http://www.carsdirect.com/build/options?zipcode=92782&acode=USB90CHC062A0&restore=false (http://www.carsdirect.com/build/options?zipcode=92782&acode=USB90CHC062A0&restore=false)
Quote from: Vinsanity on December 30, 2009, 08:24:16 AM
No, I just wish it didn't cost as much as a Corvette
Me too, but I also wish a Honda Odyssey EX-L didn't cost as much as a GT500. You're comparing two different cars that have two different body styles, and have different levels of refinement and interior appointments. You simply can't compare the two on price tags. I'm sure you're okay with the price tag of the ZR1 despite the fact that the Porsche 911 is better in every possible way but outright speed. Fact is, the GT500 is the cheapest way to get into a very fast, very high performing car with over 500 hp on tap. Who can argue?
It certainly is one of the better looking cars on the road as well, IMO.
The V6 PP looks like it'll be a winner when it comes out. I wonder how well it will compete with the 370Z
Quote from: Xer0 on December 30, 2009, 11:00:37 AM
The V6 PP looks like it'll be a winner when it comes out. I wonder how well it will compete with the 370Z
The Z will likely trounce it (the current GT can't keep pace with the Z, and it's got more power and a fatter torque curve than the 3.7L V6), but it should certainly give the Genesis coupe a run for its money, not to mention the V6 Camaro. That is, assuming they don't jack the price up to current Mustang GT prices.
Quote from: HEMI666 on December 30, 2009, 10:32:17 AM
Me too, but I also wish a Honda Odyssey EX-L didn't cost as much as a GT500. You're comparing two different cars that have two different body styles, and have different levels of refinement and interior appointments. You simply can't compare the two on price tags. I'm sure you're okay with the price tag of the ZR1 despite the fact that the Porsche 911 is better in every possible way but outright speed. Fact is, the GT500 is the cheapest way to get into a very fast, very high performing car with over 500 hp on tap. Who can argue?
Sure you can (actually MUST) compare the two - you don't like it because it doesn't work out too well for your world view.
Quote from: MX793 on December 30, 2009, 11:02:55 AM
The Z will likely trounce it (the current GT can't keep pace with the Z, and it's got more power and a fatter torque curve than the 3.7L V6), but it should certainly give the Genesis coupe a run for its money, not to mention the V6 Camaro. That is, assuming they don't jack the price up to current Mustang GT prices.
They won't. They can't. It would be automotive suicide.
Quote from: HEMI666 on December 30, 2009, 11:19:46 AM
They won't. They can't. It would be automotive suicide.
Well, bear in mind that right now, in the US at least, a Mustang V6 Premium costs $100 more than a Genesis V6GT with similar equipment and about the same as an LT2 Camaro. Even stepping down a level, the base Genesis V6 has comparable equipment to a Mustang V6 Premium with no added options and is only a few hundred dollars more ($400). Assuming they don't touch base prices to reflect the pricier powertrain (unlikely), I'm guessing the performance package will cost at least a grand, if not $1500. That will result in the Mustang being a good chunk of change more expensive than the Hyundai or Camaro.
The 370Z flat out moves; it'd give a Camaro SS a real run for its money let alone stand over the Mustang GT - the last test I saw showed 0-60 in 4.7 sec and the 1/4 mile in 13.1 sec.
Quote from: Nethead on December 30, 2009, 12:59:23 PM
A 370Z has nothing whatsoever to fear from a Camaro SS, other than being hit by an out-of-control SS on a corner somewhere. But then again, one is a two-passenger sportscar and the other is a four-passenger laughingstock, so different design parameters astonishingly produce different vehicles yet again. :nutty: Evidently, different quality control parameters apply as well...
Who woulda thunk? :huh:
The 370Z is a GT car, the Camaro is a muscle, or "Pony" car. The Camaro never pretended to be a sportscar, yet it is far from being a laughingstock. And sure, the GT500 has a Ford warranty, but the real laugh is a $50,000 Mustang that weighs 4000 lbs and placed dead last in a recent magazine performance test. Why don't you try and learn about other cars instead of being such a Mustang troll?
They both fit firmly in the definition of a GT car.
And I'd take the Camaro over the 370Z coupe without a second thought.
Quote from: Nethead on December 30, 2009, 01:16:01 PM
Did you miss the Ten Best Driver's Cars competition where the GT500 finished fifth overall and the Camaro SS finished tenth overall? The ZR1 finished sixth or seventh, and even a Jaguar finished ahead of the Camaro SS--the ultimate putdown of anything on four wheels.
Or do we ignore that since it ain't what we want to hear?
I was referring to the Laguna Seca test where Randy Pobst took each car out and rated them. I can't find a link to the article, and I have not seen the one you refer to. The GT500 a better driver's car than the ZR1? Who did that test... Consumer Reports?
Quote from: Nethead on December 30, 2009, 01:16:01 PM
Did you miss the Ten Best Driver's Cars competition where the GT500 finished fifth overall and the Camaro SS finished tenth overall? The ZR1 finished sixth or seventh, and even a Jaguar finished ahead of the Camaro SS--the ultimate putdown of anything on four wheels.
Or do we ignore that since it ain't what we want to hear?
I have an aside I'd like to admit to:
Every time I stop at that little roadside diner/gas station right off the turnpike in Beaver Falls (which is just about every time I make my way back to school), I imagine some eccentric will roll up in a Windstar with custom wheels and racing stripes on it. Out will walk four identically dressed people -- Netdude, Wifedude, and two kiddudes -- all in Ford duds and sunglasses, even in the dead of night.
You're the sort of person who I imagine would drive this.
(http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_dec2006/MustangLimo.jpg)
My bad. It was the previous year's test (2008), and it was a GT500KR.
Pobst loved his laps in the Ford Shelby GT500KR (10th place), exiting the car while whooping and hollering as if he'd just won the Daytona 500. "Man! That was fun!" he crowed. Yet after the adrenaline rush had subsided, Pobst admitted that, while the KR was a gas to hurl around Laguna Seca's curves, in terms of sheer handling performance it left much to be desired -- a view confirmed by our instrumented tests and on-road drives. The Shelby finished 9th in our lane-change runs, 6th in step-steer reaction time, and next to last in ride quality. One look at the KR's computer tracing in our figure-eight test sums up its overall handling flavor: messy. The Shelby team has massaged the old live-axle Mustang chassis well enough to bring out the boy racer even in a racing pro, but in this sophisticated field the GT500KR comes off as decidedly old-school.
Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/features/performance/112_0810_americas_best_handling_car_conclusion/index.html#ixzz0bCxv0qJF
Quote from: Vinsanity on December 30, 2009, 08:24:16 AM
No, I just wish it didn't cost as much as a Corvette
http://www.carsdirect.com/build/options?zipcode=92782&acode=USB90FOC211A0&restore=false (http://www.carsdirect.com/build/options?zipcode=92782&acode=USB90FOC211A0&restore=false)
http://www.carsdirect.com/build/options?zipcode=92782&acode=USB90CHC062A0&restore=false (http://www.carsdirect.com/build/options?zipcode=92782&acode=USB90CHC062A0&restore=false)
+1,000,000! That it can't outrun with it over 100hp more! But we've beat this horse to death!
[
Quote from: Nethead on December 30, 2009, 12:59:23 PM
A 370Z Corvette has nothing whatsoever to fear from a Camaro SS GT500, other than being hit by an out-of-control SS GT500 on a corner somewhere. But then again, one is a two-passenger sportscar and the other is a four-passenger laughingstock, so different design parameters astonishingly produce different vehicles yet again. :nutty: Evidently, different quality control parameters apply as well...
Who woulda thunk? :huh:
:evildude:
Quote from: MX793 on December 30, 2009, 11:02:55 AM
The Z will likely trounce it (the current GT can't keep pace with the Z, and it's got more power and a fatter torque curve than the 3.7L V6), but it should certainly give the Genesis coupe a run for its money, not to mention the V6 Camaro. That is, assuming they don't jack the price up to current Mustang GT prices.
Yeah, you're probably right. But it should prove a killer for the V6 Gen and V6 Camaro.
Just read a PDF that the M/T weight will be 3,600 (est.)
Can't wait to see the real weight
http://media.ford.com/images/10031/2011_Mustang_GT_Specs.pdf
Quote from: HotRodPilot on December 30, 2009, 03:45:55 PM
Just read a PDF that the M/T weight will be 3,600 (est.)
Can't wait to see the real weight
http://media.ford.com/images/10031/2011_Mustang_GT_Specs.pdf
I expect that one is very close. Ford was claiming 8.7 lb/hp so that seems to jive.
How much does the current GT weigh?
Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on December 30, 2009, 03:29:22 PM
+1,000,000! That it can't outrun with it over 100hp more! But we've beat this horse to death!
Who cares about 100 more horsepower when it's a heavy pig?
well to do more power the proper way means heavier axles, driveshafts, clutch, suspension and chassis components... its the price you gotta pay when the "omfg i needz at least 400 horse powers to make my car go up the hill" crowd comes out
Quote from: MX793 on December 30, 2009, 05:00:41 PM
Who cares about 100 more horsepower when it's a heavy pig?
:lol: :lol: :cheers:
Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on December 30, 2009, 05:52:58 PM
:lol: :lol: :cheers:
Did you not just see the PDF on the previous page? The GT will weigh 3600 lbs and have 412 hp. The Camaro is toast.
Uh, the GT500 with 225 more hp can nip the Camaro only by a 0.10 sec in both 0-60 and the 1/4 mile, and its running 285 meats in the rear...
Quote from: GoCougs on December 31, 2009, 03:10:38 AM
Uh, the GT500 with 225 more hp can nip the Camaro only by a 0.10 sec in both 0-60 and the 1/4 mile, and its running 285 meats in the rear...
Wait, which Camaro, the SS? No way the RS hangs ten with a GT500... and I'm pretty sure the SS is only about 120 HP short of the GT500, and lighter as well
Quote from: HEMI666 on December 31, 2009, 02:47:53 AM
Did you not just see the PDF on the previous page? The GT will weigh 3600 lbs and have 412 hp. The Camaro is toast.
We were talking about the GT500 vs the Corvette...
Quote from: GoCougs on December 31, 2009, 03:10:38 AM
Uh, the GT500 with 225 more hp can nip the Camaro only by a 0.10 sec in both 0-60 and the 1/4 mile, and its running 285 meats in the rear...
YOU continue to ignore the Road & Track test that backs up other tests that have the GT500 hitting 60 mph in 4.3 seconds which would be 0.3 faster then the Camaro, and it's 114 more horsepower and 285 tires are too narrow for 540 hp. Ford always undertires the Mustang for some reason. The GT500 needs 315 rubber.
So basically minor differences for thousands more. ;)
Quote from: Nethead on December 31, 2009, 12:30:32 PM
Just found some very worthwhile info at this link:
http://media.ford.com/images/10031/2011_Mustang_GT_Specs.pdf
Three pages of 2011 Mustang specs:
2011 Ford Mustang GT Technical Specifications , bottom of page 1:
Base Curb Weight in Pounds
3.7L V6 5.0L V8
Manual: 3603 (est.) 3720 (est.)
Automatic: 3658 (est.) 3770 (est.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My, my, my...so much added power, so little added weight :thumbsup:
Nethead. Learn how to read. That spec sheet is for the GT only.
Base Curb Weight in Pounds 5.0L V8 COUPE 5.0L V8 CONVERTIBLEManual: 3603 (est.) 3720 (est.)
Automatic: 3658 (est.) 3770 (est.)
Quote from: R-inge on December 31, 2009, 11:30:41 AM
So basically minor differences for thousands more. ;)
LOL - Nethead there walked right into that one - infinitesimal incremental improvement in performance for 50% more cost...
Quote from: Nethead on December 31, 2009, 02:29:10 PM
Hardly--the GT500, and all Mustangs, are constructed much more solidly and out of much better materials than any of the Camaro models, and offer much better options too (SYNC > OnStar, for instance). Camaros do offer nice stripes-&-emblems packages, though!
As someone who has worked on Fords for over 16 years I can tell you that this ^^^^ statement is full of shit.
Quote from: Onslaught on December 31, 2009, 02:35:13 PM
As someone who has worked on Fords for over 16 years I can tell you that this ^^^^ statement is full of shit.
Nethead there knows that, especially for the current generation; the Zeta chassis is literally a generation newer/better than the older DEW98 derivative the Mustang rides on (which hearkens back to the Linclon LS of the '90s).
Plus it's kinda funny the fanboyism has stooped so low so as to be talking of solidity and quality of materials in trying to justify the teeny incremental gain in performance of the GT500 in light of its ~50% cost premium over the base Camaro SS.
Quote from: GoCougs on December 31, 2009, 03:00:11 PM
Nethead there knows that, especially for the current generation; the Zeta chassis is literally a generation newer/better than the older DEW98 derivative the Mustang rides on (which hearkens back to the Linclon LS of the '90s).
If it's so good it wouldn't be so heavy and would handle better.
Quote from: GoCougs on December 31, 2009, 03:00:11 PM
Plus it's kinda funny the fanboyism has stooped so low so as to be talking of solidity and quality of materials in trying to justify the teeny incremental gain in performance of the GT500 in light of its ~50% cost premium over the base Camaro SS.
I've been saying the same thing all year.
Quote from: R-inge on December 31, 2009, 11:30:41 AM
So basically minor differences for thousands more. ;)
Tens of thousands more! :cheers:
Quote from: GoCougs on December 31, 2009, 03:00:11 PM
Nethead there knows that, especially for the current generation; the Zeta chassis is literally a generation newer/better than the older DEW98 derivative the Mustang rides on (which hearkens back to the Linclon LS of the '90s).
Plus it's kinda funny the fanboyism has stooped so low so as to be talking of solidity and quality of materials in trying to justify the teeny incremental gain in performance of the GT500 in light of its ~50% cost premium over the base Camaro SS.
Two things..
One, this is a thread about the 3600 lb GT with 412 hp, which will still cost less than the SS, and two, saying the new Mustang is a Lincoln LS is about as accurate as saying the chassis dates back to the '60 Falcon.
Quote from: Nethead on December 31, 2009, 08:31:20 PM
Onslaught: OK, dude, explain this:
http://jalopnik.com/5437915/chevy-camaro-drops-ghetto-brake-weights
Smirk! Only GM...
Gm makes fuck ups. They all make some big fuck ups.
Would you like me to list some of the Ford fuck ups I've had to fix over the years as warranty jobs?
Even the ones on you're beloved Mustang?
Quote from: Onslaught on December 31, 2009, 08:54:57 PM
Gm makes fuck ups. They all make some big fuck ups.
Would you like me to list some of the Ford fuck ups I've had to fix over the years as warranty jobs?
Even the ones on you're beloved Mustang?
List the ones about the cruise control units that catch fire. And I garuntee that you don't have enuff space to post all of the problems the Focus had!
Wow, I really would like one of these.
Jesus, this thread is exhausting. :facepalm:
:lol:
(http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/2/4666/4822/24164910837_large.jpg)
Was talking with a guy that does engine software development with the majors, and he was relating that Ford's already seen 440-450 crank hp reliably with just a tune on the 5.0 running 93 octane. The stock headers, while excellent, are still restrictive. he says this motor needs 1 3/4" primaries and aftermarket 300cpi high flow cats or off-road mids vs an OEM 500-600cpi met. cat. to see major gains. The potential is there for 500 N/A crank hp without getting inside the engine...
Quote from: ChrisV on January 11, 2010, 01:38:26 PM
Was talking with a guy that does engine software development with the majors, and he was relating that Ford's already seen 440-450 crank hp reliably with just a tune on the 5.0 running 93 octane. The stock headers, while excellent, are still restrictive. he says this motor needs 1 3/4" primaries and aftermarket 300cpi high flow cats or off-road mids vs an OEM 500-600cpi met. cat. to see major gains. The potential is there for 500 N/A crank hp without getting inside the engine...
TOWELS...I NEED TOWELS!!!
As for Ford Australia, the local arm has confirmed that the 'Coyote' will power the Falcon's V8 variants after July of this year, at which time those variants must comply with the upcoming Euro IV-based emissions standard. Ford President Marin Burela had previously hinted that the V8 sporty sedan variant would remain in the lineup until such time as customers stopped buying it.
The Carsales Network asked Sinead McAlary for an update on Coyote for the XR8 this morning. McAlary, Ford Australia's Communications Manager, responded that she was limited in what she could say at this time, but did confirm that the XR8 models would continue with an engine from the Coyote family.
"You will see engines from that family of engines in our local line-up," she said, but further advised that she was not in a position to provide any additional information. She did however insinuate that the engine(s) for the Australian-built cars -- including the FPV models -- would not necessarily match the Mustang engine in all specs. In other words, power and torque delivery could be different for Australia.
Asked whether the new engine is physically smaller than the current Boss engines powering XR8 and FPV models, McAlary advised that she was expecting a full briefing on that during her sojourn to Detroit for the North American International Auto Show next week. With its aluminium block, the Coyote V8 will undoubtedly be lighter than the current Falcon V8 powerplants, and it may also provide a lower centre of gravity, as well as being easier to service from the point of view of accessibility. All of that taken into account, expect suspension calibration and steering geometry changes for the new engine. Given its development for the Mustang -- a passenger car -- the more compact architecture would seem to be a given. But if the engine is physically smaller, will it lend itself to larger-displacement configurations?
'5.8' would be a nice number for the badge at the rear...
http://www.carpoint.com.au/news/2010/large-passenger/ford/falcon/ford-reveals-new-v8-17839 (http://www.carpoint.com.au/news/2010/large-passenger/ford/falcon/ford-reveals-new-v8-17839)
Quote from: Nethead on January 12, 2010, 11:18:33 AM
ChrisV: It's good to know people! ;) And it's good to get 440-450 HP at the crank with just a reflash! :ohyeah: While it is splendid that the stock 5.0's shortie headers are welded (stainless?) steel tubes, they aren't stepped long-tube headers and thus place some limits upon the engine's power in stock form.
And full-warranty OEM cataclysmic perverters can't flow like the aftermarket performance cats, but those who want that extra power will hit the aftermarket catalogs as soon as their budgets permit--FRPP could rake in some big bucks offering upgrades to stepped long-tubes, full-flow cats, and a reflash to match! Especially since they have the dimensional specs of the cylinder heads and the engine compartment clearances right there, right now!
Shelby's people are considering a G.T. 350 resurrection with the 5.0 that could break out of the gate quickly with such power available from such simple mods, but there's that dilemma of the EcoBoost 3.5L V6 that offers lotsa oomph totally "as is", and could exceed the 5.0's N/A power with some boost-bumping and a reflash--probably on nothing but OEM EcoBoost parts (although every tuner MUST have their own CAI--you probably get your tuner license suspended if you wuss out and use the factory hardware :nono:). For its part, Ford says a twin-turbo 5.0 GT500 isn't feasible in the current Mustang's engine compartment, so Shelby's folks have the enviable dilemma of:
(A) Offering an EcoBoost V6 version (dropped in "as is" except for mods that might be required by the longitudinal engine position within the engine compartment--exhaust clearance of the steering gear, for one)
(B) Offering a 5.0L with sufficient N/A power mods to perform significantly better than the 5.0 Mustang GT
(C) Offering an EcoBoost V6 version ("as is" or enhanced) AND a supercharged or single-turbocharged 5.0 version. The natural order of things would designate the V6 a "GT350" and the V8 a "GT500", but the possibilities here are such that Shelby may break with the traditional nomenclature and call 'em somethin' else. I like "Terlingua" for the V6, although a "standard" EcoBoost V6 version could be a "GT350" and a much-enhanced EcoBoost version (Shelby CAI, air-to-water intercooler, aftermarket cats/headers (from Borla, Shelby' exhaust system supplier), reflash, and all the suspension/wheel/tire upgrades) could be a "Terlingua". :rockon:
The V8 issue is complex: There's the new 5.0L, but there's the current 5.4L which is now available with an aluminum block and should up the GT500's ponycar dominance still further in all aspects. Decisions, decisions. :cry: The Nethead here ain't a Shelby insider so I don't know what brews in the GT500 pot. :huh: I should be a Shelby insider :rolleyes:, but I don't know people so there it is. :frown:
I've seen plenty of twin turbo V8 Mustangs, so I think they are just making excuses for not having the R&D money to develop it.
That's one of the most beautiful intake manifolds produced today.
Quote from: HEMI666 on January 12, 2010, 12:20:57 PM
That's one of the most beautiful intake manifolds produced today.
Ha, I thought it looks kinda odd. Same with the headers.
I want a Mustang.
87 octane with an 11.1:1 compression ratio? Nice.
Quote from: R-inge on January 12, 2010, 02:35:01 PM
87 octane with an 11.1:1 compression ratio? Nice.
I wonder if that's why it appears to have a steel insert for the top ring.
Quote from: Cobra93 on January 12, 2010, 02:41:45 PM
I wonder if that's why it appears to have a steel insert for the top ring.
That does seem like a very thick ring, but I'm not sure how that would relate to that. IRDumb.
The first picture is with the plastic shroud, and the second picture is without it. Hey nickdrinkwater, how is this "odd"?
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/12/2011-mustang-5.0_opt.jpg)
(http://z.about.com/d/mustangs/1/0/A/Z/-/-/coyoteV8-jan09-priddy1.jpg)
Quote from: R-inge on January 12, 2010, 02:44:04 PM
That does seem like a very thick ring, but I'm not sure how that would relate to that. IRDumb.
The ring isn't thick. The piston has a steel insert in the top ring land for the top ring. I've seen that before, but only in some heavy duty engines.
Quote from: Cobra93 on January 12, 2010, 02:55:36 PM
The ring isn't thick. The piston has a steel insert in the top ring land for the top ring. I've seen that before, but only in some heavy duty engines.
Oh, I see. The insert is there to reinforce the ringland then.
Quote from: HEMI666 on January 12, 2010, 02:44:59 PM
The first picture is with the plastic shroud, and the second picture is without it. Hey nickdrinkwater, how is this "odd"?
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/12/2011-mustang-5.0_opt.jpg)
(http://z.about.com/d/mustangs/1/0/A/Z/-/-/coyoteV8-jan09-priddy1.jpg)
Because it's a big powerful V8 and I'm used to is sub 1.6l 4-cyl shitboxes? :lol:
Quote from: nickdrinkwater on January 12, 2010, 04:22:10 PM
Because it's a big powerful V8 and I'm used to is sub 1.6l 4-cyl shitboxes? :lol:
:lol:
Quote from: Nethead on January 12, 2010, 10:16:07 AM
omicron: OmiDude, stuff I've read says the 5.0L "Coyote" (a pre-production nickname, AFAIK--Ford will apparently just call it "the Five-Point-Oh") will likely be limited to five liters--or very close to it. To save costs Ford reportedly went with the bore spacing of the current 5.4 (probably so that cylinder boring equipment could be used "as is") instead of a larger bore spacing that would have allowed larger bore diameters later on. Stroking may still be an option, but the nearly square dimensions of the new 5.0L's cylinders may limit that unless a raised-deck-height block is introduced down the road.
Not unheard of with local Fords, which is why V8 Falcons have the bonnet bulge. Still, it would probably defeat the purpose of an all-new engine to bring back one of the limitations of the current 5.4 - the surprising lack of space in the engine bay. In this era of One Ford, it's probably unlikely that Ford Australia will be allowed to scurry off on a tangent of its own - more likely they'll go down the same route as a GT500 and employ supercharging (or are turbos earmarked for the upper-spec Mustangs?).
Quote from: Nethead on January 12, 2010, 01:34:24 PM
HEMI666: 'Could be. Development costs might be high for a limited-volume application, especially if the next Mustang does in fact keep the outer surfaces of the tires/wheels/fenders as widely apart as they are now, but the cabin will be narrowed to only one inch wider than that of a Focus--which makes for a very bold stance with the wheels & tires and the fenders that cover them sticking out so far from the body of the car (the early Turbo 911 look?) but cuts the engine compartment room greatly I should think. 'No need to develop the twin-turbo hardware if it'll be obsoleted after just two model years when the width of the wheels/tires/fenders stays the same but the rest of the car shrinks around it to the tune of three hundred pounds in the coupes, although the three-point-something percent setback of the V8/6-speeds may open up some room aft of the inner wheelwells that's not there in the current S197...This sounds to me like Ford intends to go to '65 Mustang GT general dimension and appearance but with really wide fender flares to cover the wide stance (and which supposedly will make it possible to fit gynormous width tires legally within these "Turbo 911ish" fender flares. Supposedly, the full fastback will have sort of an RX8 roof profile to allow a more upright backseat stance that retains/increases the rear seat length and foot room on the '65 Mustang GT overall dimensions (excepting the width, of course, which matches the S197 or is possibly a half inch wider still at the fender flare lips).
Photoshoppers, get to work! :heated:
Actually, I think I just figured it out. The new 6.2L will be massaged to over 500 hp for the GT500. Thereby being lighter then the current car and still get the big power. I'm still trying to figure out why Ford developed a 6.2L V8 with the same power rating as the 5.0L if more powerful versions aren't in the books.
I'm trying to figure out if the next Mustang and Falcon will share a platform. I hope so.
The 6.2L was developed to replace the gas 6.8L V10 in Ford's SuperDuty and commercial duty vehicles. Be very surprised if you find it in factory car from Ford anytime soon.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 13, 2010, 02:12:27 PM
The 6.2L was developed to replace the gas 6.8L V10 in Ford's SuperDuty and commercial duty vehicles. Be very surprised if you find it in factory car from Ford anytime soon.
I knew that, but now I feel stupid. Thanks. I really do think we may see an aluminum block high performance version for the GT500 in the next two years.
Quote from: the Teuton on January 13, 2010, 02:01:42 PM
I'm trying to figure out if the next Mustang and Falcon will share a platform. I hope so.
They'd
have to, surely. The Falcon is too far removed from the rest of the Ford world and too reliant upon the Australian market for it to exist as a wholly-unique model beyond the current generation - unique platform, unique six-cylinder engine, unique configuration of the modular V8, unique automatic transmission, and so on (then again, similar arguments were made against the 1988 EA, and the 1994 EF, and the 1997 AU, and the 2002 BA.....).
Quote from: Nethead on January 14, 2010, 06:38:12 AM
omicron: Omi, the Falcon seems pretty excellent "as is"--couldn't they just continue producing it with its straight six and maybe sub in the Mustang's 5.0L V8 for the modular V8?
If it ain't broke, don't fix it...
I'd love to see it hang around. It's as economical, powerful and reliable as any comparable V6 with a unique, effortless power delivery that some high-revving sixes lack these days, but with only 31,000 Falcons sold in '09 I imagine the dollar equation doesn't look so good.
Isn't the '11 Mustang meant to have a sharp new six, though?
i am a fan of the mustang, but not crazy about the recent refreshing of it. fmc is great about finally improving upon it's cars sooner than most, but i am not crazy about the rear lights and other cosmetic "enhancements". still a great product, but it does leave me wanting more (and less). functionally, it is outstanding!
Quote from: Atomic on January 16, 2010, 05:30:12 PM
i am a fan of the mustang, but not crazy about the recent refreshing of it. fmc is great about finally improving upon it's cars sooner than most, but i am not crazy about the rear lights and other cosmetic "enhancements". still a great product, but it does leave me wanting more (and less). functionally, it is outstanding!
There is only one spot on the 2010 Mustang that I don't like. The huge amount of black plastic on the back bumper. I would have just had the cut line go straight around the back of the car instead of going up. I also would have not given that black plastic any shape. The shape brings attention to it, when it shouldn't be noticed. Otherwise, I love everything about this car.
(http://blog.planetc1.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/2010-ford-mustang-red-candy-gt-coupe-02.jpg)
(http://image.musclemustangfastfords.com/f/14938784/mmfp_0904_06_z+2010_mustang_gt+backview.jpg)
Quote from: HEMI666 on January 16, 2010, 08:56:32 PM
There is only one spot on the 2010 Mustang that I don't like. The huge amount of black plastic on the back bumper. I would have just had the cut line go straight around the back of the car instead of going up. I also would have not given that black plastic any shape. The shape brings attention to it, when it shouldn't be noticed. Otherwise, I love everything about this car.
Once again, in perfect agreement.
I'd suggest that without it the rear would look even larger than it does now.
I don't like the plastic thing on the red car, but on the blue stang it looks like a diffuser which I don't mind and actually like. But it is a little big, but diffusers are more usable the longer they are :(
I like the new care very much. My only criticism is some of the OEM wheels.
New California Special
(http://images.thecarconnection.com/lrg/2011-gtcs-mustang-gt_100303934_l.jpg)
Quote from: HEMI666 on January 16, 2010, 08:56:32 PM
There is only one spot on the 2010 Mustang that I don't like. The huge amount of black plastic on the back bumper. I would have just had the cut line go straight around the back of the car instead of going up. I also would have not given that black plastic any shape. The shape brings attention to it, when it shouldn't be noticed. Otherwise, I love everything about this car.
I agree. And it's why I think that black and dark blue ones look the best. You don't notice it all that much in the dark colors.
I'm not a huge fan of the chrome GT badge on the deck lid. It's just a little too big I think.
A car hit a power pole at or dealership last week and it's lines fell across 5 brand new 2010 Mustang GT's. I'm having to fix most of them this week.
Quote from: HEMI666 on January 17, 2010, 10:17:56 PM
New California Special
(http://images.thecarconnection.com/lrg/2011-gtcs-mustang-gt_100303934_l.jpg)
Drat. Not an improvement, from that angle at least.
It needs to sit like...1" lower. Then I think I'd be pretty damn pleased.
I really hate seeing the mustang from that angle, I love it when it's more from a top down perspective and you can see the angry glare it has.
Where have I seen that lean-forward grille before...?
Oh, yeah!
(http://www.chryslerpedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/2009_dodge_ram_press_image002.jpg)
:lol:
...or (http://www.aa1car.com/library/1968mustang.jpg)
:huh:
Quote from: FoMoJo on January 18, 2010, 11:19:18 AM
...or (http://www.aa1car.com/library/1968mustang.jpg)
:huh:
...or this 1912 electric delivery truck
(http://www.gwtechonline.com/greenwood/carshow_files/1912%20truck.jpg)
:huh: :lol:
:lol:
...or
(http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u45/robot.jpg)
Okay, it's stupid :nutty:.
Quote from: giant_mtb on January 18, 2010, 10:53:03 AM
Where have I seen that lean-forward grille before...?
Oh, yeah!
(http://www.chryslerpedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/2009_dodge_ram_press_image002.jpg)
:lol:
How about every Mustang before 1973.
It was a joke y'all. Hence the whole "smiley face" thing. :huh:
Quote from: giant_mtb on January 18, 2010, 01:12:59 PM
It was a joke y'all. Hence the whole "smiley face" thing. :huh:
:facepalm:
What? :huh:
Quote from: giant_mtb on January 18, 2010, 02:02:48 PM
What? :huh:
people apparently take their Mustangs seriously around these parts
That Mustang CS looks a little like a George Barris car.
Quote from: giant_mtb on January 18, 2010, 10:20:40 AM
It needs to sit like...1" lower. Then I think I'd be pretty damn pleased.
2 inches.
And the grill doesn't do anything for me. It's not bad, but it's not better looking than the normal grill. I don't know why either - that was my favorite grill style for the 2005 design.
Quote from: hotrodalex on January 18, 2010, 04:04:15 PM
2 inches.
And the grill doesn't do anything for me. It's not bad, but it's not better looking than the normal grill. I don't know why either - that was my favorite grill style for the 2005 design.
An inch and a half is perfect. 2" is starting to be too low.
Quote from: hotrodalex on January 18, 2010, 04:04:15 PM
2 inches.
And the grill doesn't do anything for me. It's not bad, but it's not better looking than the normal grill. I don't know why either - that was my favorite grill style for the 2005 design.
I'm with ya. The grille worked better on the '05-'09 car. The Shelby GT and Shelby GT-H in particular looked pretty hot with it.
(http://pictures.topspeed.com/IMG/crop/200611/2007-shelby-gt-h-converti-3_460x0w.jpg)
Quote from: HEMI666 on January 18, 2010, 05:25:27 PM
I'm with ya. The grille worked better on the '05-'09 car. The Shelby GT and Shelby GT-H in particular looked pretty hot with it.
(http://pictures.topspeed.com/IMG/crop/200611/2007-shelby-gt-h-converti-3_460x0w.jpg)
:wub:
Official: Shelby GT350 revived with supercharged big block 5.0 V8
01/18/2010, 10:00 PM
BY ANDREW GANZ
Confirming Leftlane?s reports last week, Shelby American has brought back Carroll Shelby?s most historic race-ready car, the GT350, with a supercharged 5.0-liter big block V8 2011 Ford Mustang GT done in the spirit of the original 1965 GT350.
The 2011 Shelby GT350 starts life as a standard 2011 Ford Mustang GT, which is either shipped directly from the Flat Rock, Michigan, Mustang assembly plant or from a new Ford dealer. Shelby American then takes the ?secretary?s car,? as Shelby himself calls the Mustang GT, and adds a Ford Racing/Whipple supercharger, Borla center exit exhaust, Cragar 19-inch wheels and Baer brakes to create a roughly 500-horsepower reborn GT350. Unique GT350 valve covers set off the underhood appearance.
A six-speed manual is the only available transmission.
The custom body is swathed in white paint with Guardsman racing stripes ? like the original GT350 race cars ? and includes a unique bodykit designed by former Ford and Hot Wheels designer Larry Wood. The look is designed to blend styling cues of the past with the 2011 Mustang shape, and it includes a unique front fascia, tail light trim, front splitter, rear deck lid filler panel, rear fascia, functional rocker and hood scoops and GT350 badging.
?In 1964, Ford Motor Company asked Shelby American to turn their secretary?s car into a race winner to help them sell Mustangs,? said Carroll Shelby in a statement released to the media. ?Our Shelby GT350 ruled its class at the track and was feared by GM and Chrysler owners on the street. Enthusiasts have anticipated the GT350?s return since it went out of production in 1970. Now my band of hot rodders has created a car worthy of the name.?
The 2011 Shelby GT350 adds $33,995 to the price of a standard 2011 Ford Mustang GT.
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/hemi666/gt350-1.jpg)
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/hemi666/gt350-2.jpg)
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/hemi666/gt350-3.jpg)
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/hemi666/gt350-5.jpg)
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/hemi666/gt350-6.jpg)
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/hemi666/gt350-7.jpg)
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/hemi666/gt350-8.jpg)
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/hemi666/gt350-9.jpg)
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/hemi666/gt350-10.jpg)
I like some of it, but I also hate some of it. Most notable the rear end.
What does this mean for the future of the GT500?
Strange.
2011 Ford Mustang pricing leaks
01/18/2010, 5:29 PM
BY DREW JOHNSON
Ford has officially taken the wraps off its revised 2011 Mustang V6 and GT models, but has kept silent on the pricing front. However, thanks to a leaked document, we now have the low down on what the new Mustang models will cost when they roll into showrooms nationwide.
According to a document that surfaced on the enthusiast site The Mustang Source, the base model 2011 Mustang V6 coupe will arrive in Ford showrooms with a sticker price of $22,995, including an $850 destination charge. Although that?s $750 more than the outgoing model, the 2011 V6 model comes packing 95 more horsepower and an extra forward gear.
The Mustang V6 convertible matches the coupe?s $750 price bump, carrying an MSRP of $27,995. Adding the Premium package to either V6 model adds $3,700 to the bottom line.
The Mustang GT coupe will crack the $30,000 mark for the 2011 model year, carrying a suggested retail price of $30,495. Although that?s a rather significant $1,250 price increase over the 2010 Mustang GT coupe, it still undercuts the Chevrolet Camaro SS by $1,300.
For those wanting unlimited headroom and Ford?s new 5.0L V8, dealers will gladly exchange the 2011 Mustang GT convertible for $35,495. Ford?s premium package can also be had on either Mustang GT model, adding about $3,200 to the take home price.
Several other options will be available on the 2011 Ford Mustang models, including a $995 automatic transmission option and a $2,340 infotainment bundle with navigation.
Quote from: the Teuton on January 18, 2010, 08:44:09 PM
What does this mean for the future of the GT500?
The GT350 is produced by Shelby, not Ford. The GT500 is cheaper then this thing. I'm interested in seeing what the curb weight on the GT350 will be.
Quote from: HEMI666 on January 18, 2010, 08:44:02 PM
I like some of it, but I also hate some of it. Most notable the rear end.
The lower body kit looks cheap and tacked on.
I like it. With the new 5 Litre, it's an approriate time to bring back the GT350. Overall, the exterior is a tribute to the original but the GT350 was never really about style; it was what's under the hood as well as the other performance enhancements. Good Job.
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/hemi666/gt350-7.jpg)
edit: I think the profile is excellent.
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2010/01/04shelbygt3502011.jpg)
Quote from: Nethead on January 19, 2010, 08:25:02 AM
Submariner: You don't buy it for the lower body kit--you buy it for this:
http://www.autoblog.com/gallery/2011-shelby-gt350/#10
Any questions?
yeah, can I get it without the tacky gauge pack screwed into the A-pillar? Yeesh.
Quote from: R-inge on January 19, 2010, 10:23:54 AM
yeah, can I get it without the tacky gauge pack screwed into the A-pillar? Yeesh.
I would rather they were there then tacked on to the dash somewhere. The interior isn't the problem. It's the overdone exterior that I have a problem with.
35 grand for a Mustang GT convertible. Weren't these cars cheap at some point?
Quote from: Raza link=topic=20861.msg1246999#msg1246999 date=1263924760
35 grand for a Mustang GT convertible. Weren't these cars cheap at some point?
412 hp. 'Nuff said.
BTW, it's still cheaper then a Camaro SS...and it's a better car too.
I guess it's about time for GM to make the Z/28 now.
That body kit is just too much. Blech.
That PDF seems to be backign up what I've heard on other forums. It looks like the Track Pack is the standard suspension on the GT. Which now makes the 2011 Mustang GT (with standard Track Pack) cheaper then the 2010 Mustang GT Premium with Track Pack.
Quote from: HEMI666 on January 19, 2010, 11:03:33 AM
I would rather they were there then tacked on to the dash somewhere. The interior isn't the problem. It's the overdone exterior that I have a problem with.
I'd rather see some sort of integration with the IPC myself.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=20861.msg1246999#msg1246999 date=1263924760
35 grand for a Mustang GT convertible. Weren't these cars cheap at some point?
The price of these "cheap" American muscle cars is getting out of hand if you ask me.
This is the first Mustang I've ever liked. And that's really saying something. But I would
never pay that much for one.
Supercharged 5.0L big block? What?
Quote from: Onslaught on January 19, 2010, 01:36:31 PM
The price of these "cheap" American muscle cars is getting out of hand if you ask me.
This is the first Mustang I've ever liked. And that's really saying something. But I would
never pay that much for one.
Why not? Besides the Camaro, where else can you get 412 hp for that kind of money? Or anywhere near it for that matter? There are all these complaints about the Mustang and Camaro costing as much as they do, yet they still cost much less then anything else that offers that much style, power, and performance. According to the Lightning Lap times, the 2010 Mustang GT with 315 hp (never mind the 2011 with 412 hp) absolutely wipes the floor with cars such as the RX-8, Honda S2000, Challenger SRT-8, Audi S5, Lotus Elise SC, Mini Cooper JCW, Infiniti G37 Coupe, and 2008 WRX STi. Yet no one ever says they wouldn't spend $30K or more on one of those.
Quote from: 68_427 on January 19, 2010, 01:56:50 PM
Supercharged 5.0L big block? What?
I was waiting to see how long it took someone to catch that. I laughed when I read that the first time.
I don't care if it's Nascar related. (I'm a fan anyways) this thing is hot! (If it ends up looking like this)
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2010/01/2011mustanggtpacecarf83..jpg)
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2010/01/2011mustanggtpacecarr03..jpg)
Quote from: HEMI666 on January 19, 2010, 02:03:53 PM
Why not? Besides the Camaro, where else can you get 412 hp for that kind of money? Or anywhere near it for that matter? There are all these complaints about the Mustang and Camaro costing as much as they do, yet they still cost much less then anything else that offers that much style, power, and performance. According to the Lightning Lap times, the 2010 Mustang GT with 315 hp (never mind the 2011 with 412 hp) absolutely wipes the floor with cars such as the RX-8, Honda S2000, Challenger SRT-8, Audi S5, Lotus Elise SC, Mini Cooper JCW, Infiniti G37 Coupe, and 2008 WRX STi. Yet no one ever says they wouldn't spend $30K or more on one of those.
You took the words rite out of my mouth. :cheers:
Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on January 19, 2010, 03:02:00 PM
You took the words rite out of my mouth. :cheers:
I never thought I would ever be on the same side as a Camaro guy. :cheers:
Quote from: HEMI666 on January 19, 2010, 02:03:53 PM
Why not? Besides the Camaro, where else can you get 412 hp for that kind of money? Or anywhere near it for that matter? There are all these complaints about the Mustang and Camaro costing as much as they do, yet they still cost much less then anything else that offers that much style, power, and performance. According to the Lightning Lap times, the 2010 Mustang GT with 315 hp (never mind the 2011 with 412 hp) absolutely wipes the floor with cars such as the RX-8, Honda S2000, Challenger SRT-8, Audi S5, Lotus Elise SC, Mini Cooper JCW, Infiniti G37 Coupe, and 2008 WRX STi. Yet no one ever says they wouldn't spend $30K or more on one of those.
Why? Well, they aren't put together as well as some of the cars you listed. Sure they are WAY better than just a few years ago. But the interior is still nothing to get excited about and the materials are still a little domestic.
To me they have always been about having lots of power in a cheap package. Now they have lots more power with a little better overall build quality for much more money.
It could kick the shit out of the G37, but it's not even close to being put together as well.
Quote from: R-inge on January 19, 2010, 10:23:54 AM
yeah, can I get it without the tacky gauge pack screwed into the A-pillar? Yeesh.
Yeah, bad. :facepalm:
For the money, I'll take a Sexually Transmitted Infection, thanks.
Quote from: the Teuton on January 19, 2010, 04:20:07 PM
For the money, I'll take a Sexually Transmitted Infection, thanks.
Of course you would, because you're a lesbian. The very first Mustang you crossed paths with would walk all over your Subie and that guy paid less.
Quote from: the Teuton on January 19, 2010, 04:20:07 PM
For the money, I'll take a Sexually Transmitted Infection, thanks.
Not the current Mustang. It's way better than a STD.
Quote from: HEMI666 on January 19, 2010, 05:02:16 PM
The very first Mustang you crossed paths with would walk all over your Subie and that guy paid less.
What if it was a GT500 KR? ^_^
Quote from: Onslaught on January 19, 2010, 04:10:02 PM
Why? Well, they aren't put together as well as some of the cars you listed. Sure they are WAY better than just a few years ago. But the interior is still nothing to get excited about and the materials are still a little domestic.
To me they have always been about having lots of power in a cheap package. Now they have lots more power with a little better overall build quality for much more money.
It could kick the shit out of the G37, but it's not even close to being put together as well.
Put together as well? The Mustang is one of the most reliable vehicles on the market. I think it ranked top 3 last year. The materials might not be as nice as the Infiniti, but the Infiniti doesn't have 412 hp, the V8 rumble, the handling, and the badass mofo styling. I've debated getting a G35 Coupe, but I keep coming back to the Mustang no matter how inferior the dash plastic is.
I'm not a dash stroker, I'm a tire smoker.
:facepalm: That was lame.
Quote from: 68_427 on January 19, 2010, 05:03:46 PM
What if it was a GT500 KR? ^_^
Okay okay. The very first Mustang GT....happy now? :lol:
Quote from: Onslaught on January 19, 2010, 05:03:10 PM
Not the current Mustang. It's way better than a STD.
I hate to say it, but you might be right.
Quote from: HEMI666 on January 19, 2010, 05:06:13 PM
Put together as well? The Mustang is one of the most reliable vehicles on the market. I think it ranked top 3 last year. The materials might not be as nice as the Infiniti, but the Infiniti doesn't have 412 hp, the V8 rumble, the handling, and the badass mofo styling. I've debated getting a G35 Coupe, but I keep coming back to the Mustang no matter how inferior the dash plastic is.
I'm not a dash stroker, I'm a tire smoker.
:facepalm: That was lame.
I am a dash stroker to a point. I'm a fit and finish person too. Inside and out. I also know how ford puts their stuff together and I'm not their #1 fan on how they do some stuff. I'm not a hp person either so saying "412 hp" like it's a big deal to me isn't doing much.
All that said I actually do like the current Mustang. I'm just thinking that the price is getting a little too high.
I wouldn't put a Mustang in the top of that list in handling either. It's better than what most people give it credit for but it's not the best in that price range.
Quote from: Onslaught on January 19, 2010, 07:09:55 PM
I am a dash stroker to a point. I'm a fit and finish person too. Inside and out. I also know how ford puts their stuff together and I'm not their #1 fan on how they do some stuff. I'm not a hp person either so saying "412 hp" like it's a big deal to me isn't doing much.
All that said I actually do like the current Mustang. I'm just thinking that the price is getting a little too high.
I wouldn't put a Mustang in the top of that list in handling either. It's better than what most people give it credit for but it's not the best in that price range.
so if you don't care about hp and you think the price is getting too high, get the V6. Almost the same performance as the last V8 for a grand or two less than the 2005 Mustang GT cost
Quote from: HotRodPilot on January 19, 2010, 08:07:37 PM
so if you don't care about hp and you think the price is getting too high, get the V6. Almost the same performance as the last V8 for a grand or two less than the 2005 Mustang GT cost
I could never do that. If I was going to get a Mustang then it would have to be a V8. It's the whole point of the thing.
Quote from: Onslaught on January 19, 2010, 10:12:54 PM
I could never do that. If I was going to get a Mustang then it would have to be a V8. It's the whole point of the thing.
+1. Even in this day and age of 300 hp V6 pony cars, these cars will always be meant for a V8.
Quote from: Vinsanity on January 19, 2010, 10:18:05 PM
+1. Even in this day and age of 300 hp V6 pony cars, these cars will always be meant for a V8.
In my head I know they V6 ones are good cars now. But in my heart I could never own one. They don't look, sound or go as good.
If I pulled next to a V8 Mustang in my V6 one then I'd know my life was a little less than I wanted.
Not that I'm getting a Mustang.
Quote from: Onslaught on January 19, 2010, 10:12:54 PM
I could never do that. If I was going to get a Mustang then it would have to be a V8. It's the whole point of the thing.
So you wanted them to leave the old V8 in it then to keep costs down? You're not making any sense
Quote from: HotRodPilot on January 19, 2010, 10:28:58 PM
So you wanted them to leave the old V8 in it then to keep costs down? You're not making any sense
This Price is taken from other Mustang post so I assume it's correct.
2011 Mustang GT convertible (Premium) ? $38,695
No way in fucking hell I'd ever pay almost 40K for a Ford Mustang Convertible. It's not worth it.
Are there other 4 place convertibles you'd rather have for 38k?
Quote from: HotRodPilot on January 19, 2010, 11:04:15 PM
Are there other 4 place convertibles you'd rather have for 38k?
What's the going rate for a 9-3 Aero? There's also the 128i (base price ~$35k) and 135i ($40,350).
Quote from: the Teuton on January 19, 2010, 11:14:35 PM
What's the going rate for a 9-3 Aero? There's also the 128i (base price ~$35k) and 135i ($40,350).
And the Mustang wastes all three of them.
Quote from: HEMI666 on January 19, 2010, 11:37:57 PM
And the Mustang wastes all three of them.
I'm not so sure about the 135i. That car was underrated from the factory.
Quote from: the Teuton on January 19, 2010, 11:40:53 PM
I'm not so sure about the 135i. That car was underrated from the factory.
Waste is too strong of a word. Wait until spring when the 5.0L is in the Mustang though.
Lightning Lap TimesMustang GT (315 hp) 3:13.3
BMW 135i 3:13.7
Quote from: HEMI666 on January 19, 2010, 11:45:58 PM
Waste is too strong of a word. Wait until spring when the 5.0L is in the Mustang though.
Lightning Lap Times
Mustang GT (315 hp) 3:13.3
BMW 135i 3:13.7
Okay, it's a relative bargain. But it's still expensive.
I'll take the 135i for no reason other than this thread is lame.
I just don't really like the styling of this current Mustang much. I think I'd rather have an Evo.
Quote from: the Teuton on January 19, 2010, 05:08:29 PM
I hate to say it, but you might be right.
Current STI, much like the first WRX, was quickly overmatched. Needs some serious work IMO. I still like it anyway.
Turbo flat 6 maybe?
Quote from: R-inge on January 20, 2010, 07:28:38 AM
Current STI, much like the first WRX, was quickly overmatched. Needs some serious work IMO. I still like it anyway.
Turbo flat 6 maybe?
Moar b00st. 350 hp would solve all of that car's problems that the Spec. C suspension doesn't.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=20861.msg1247626#msg1247626 date=1263995132
I just don't really like the styling of this current Mustang much. I think I'd rather have an Evo.
You'll warm up to it the same way you did with the '05. In my opinion, Ford addressed every issue I had with the previous design. The only thing that I prefer on the old car is the rear bumper...but only other drivers will be looking at that, so who cares. :lol:
Quote from: the Teuton on January 20, 2010, 07:42:55 AM
Moar b00st. 350 hp would solve all of that car's problems that the Spec. C suspension doesn't.
Yep... HP ratings are really an asterisked term on a turbo performance car.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on January 20, 2010, 10:50:12 AM
Yep... HP ratings are really an asterisked term on a turbo performance car.
If that little engine spooled up like the BMW turbo engines, I don't think we'd be talking about it. Those things are monsters, and they pull like diesels.
No offense, but why do you keep posting so many fucking articles that quote the same damn price? We get it. We read it the first time.
Quote from: giant_mtb on January 20, 2010, 01:24:38 PM
No offense, but why do you keep posting so many fucking articles that quote the same damn price? We get it. We read it the first time.
No shit eh?
Ah, so you have a serious man-crush on Cougs and feel like he shares your obsession?
Quote from: Nethead on January 20, 2010, 01:39:00 PM
giant_mtb: Sure, you got it the first time. No one thinks you wouldn't. So have most others. But it hasn't sunk in on BlowCougs yet. Besides, it's not an additional posting--it's an edit to the existing posting. BlowCougs reads only every third word, and only comprehends a tenth or less of those. In fact, even after reading something three times he remains generally clueless. OTOH, some of it must be sinking in--he's been sorta absent from this thread since it was announced that the 2011 Mustang GT weighs in at 3603 lbs. The Nethead ain't saying this is clear-cut cause and effect, but... :lol: :lol: :lol:
Nethead: I'm pretty sure "BlowCougs" can read, otherwise he probably wouldn't exist on this forum. lulz.
K. Whatever pops a tent in your pants, man.
The more Cougs posts, the more I think he's a character rather then a real person.
Wow, creepy. Certain I've owned The Nethead 34 ways from Sunday on every single jihad he's ever undertaken, but it doesn't warrant such obsession.
Seriously, it's enough to make a guy think about leaving a forum.
Quote from: Nethead on January 20, 2010, 01:43:30 PM
Au contraire--it aggravates BlowCougs intensely. That's reason enough in my book :rockon:
The fact that you post things just for his edification makes me wonder if you should just send him PMs instead of flooding the forum with flame bait?
Quote from: GoCougs on January 20, 2010, 02:14:51 PM
Wow, creepy. Certain I've owned The Nethead 34 ways from Sunday on every single jihad he's ever undertaken, but it doesn't warrant such obsession.
Seriously, it's enough to make a guy think about leaving a forum.
Creepy indeed. I wonder if he also has Google's street view of your home in front of his desk, with hearts all around it?
Quote from: GoCougs on January 20, 2010, 02:14:51 PM
Wow, creepy. Certain I've owned The Nethead 34 ways from Sunday on every single jihad he's ever undertaken, but it doesn't warrant such obsession.
Seriously, it's enough to make a guy think about leaving a forum.
:rolleyes:
You take part in it as much as he does. You bait the fuck out of him. You do your best to bait me too, but I've stopped biting.
:popcorn:
Quote from: R-inge on January 20, 2010, 02:25:54 PM
Creepy indeed. I wonder if he also has Google's street view of your home in front of his desk, with hearts all around it?
I can see a jab here and there, but it's been going on for weeks and weeks. It's been some time since I've engaged him directly.
Quote from: HEMI666 on January 20, 2010, 02:42:55 PM
:rolleyes:
You take part in it as much as he does. You bait the fuck out of him. You do your best to bait me too, but I've stopped biting.
Nah, once it started to get weird I completely disengaged (which was some weeks ago). And you are responsible for you Mustang/Ford jihadism, not I.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 20, 2010, 04:38:23 PM
I can see a jab here and there, but it's been going on for weeks and weeks. It's been some time since I've engaged him directly.
Nah, once it started to get weird I completely disengaged (which was some weeks ago). And you are responsible for you Mustang/Ford jihadism, not I.
Dodging responsibility now? Always blame others. You start sounding like a liberal more and more Cougs.
Let's get back to the topic at hand.
(http://www.muscularmustangs.com/images7/2011_mustang_gt_engine.jpg)
Nice.
"POWERED BY FORD" on the valve covers is a nice touch. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
I'm in love with that intake manifold.
Stop posting the same posts in 85 different threads.
Quote from: 93JC on January 21, 2010, 10:21:40 AM
"POWERED BY FORD" on the valve covers is a nice touch. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
That's the first symptom of lupus.
Man cars have made progress. This motor is as advanced, efficient & cool as the S62 in the 2000-2003 M5, in a car half the price 10 years later. I'm no Rustaniac but I definitely tip my hat to Ford for this one.
Quote from: 93JC on January 21, 2010, 10:21:40 AM
"POWERED BY FORD" on the valve covers is a nice touch. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
It brings back a lot of memories :wub:.
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1231/948625278_8f43e7fb79.jpg)
Quote from: Raza on January 21, 2010, 11:01:21 AM
That's the first symptom of lupus.
It's never lupus.
:lol:
Quote from: Raza on January 21, 2010, 11:01:21 AM
That's the first symptom of lupus.
(http://blog.hawkhost.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/notlupus.png)
It's
never lupus.
Except that one time.
Quote from: 93JC on January 21, 2010, 10:21:40 AM
"POWERED BY FORD" on the valve covers is a nice touch. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
I agree. More, please.
If it's a Ford engine isn't it a given that it's "powered by Ford?"
Quote from: GoCougs on January 22, 2010, 08:04:58 AM
If it's a Ford engine isn't it a given that it's "powered by Ford?"
Because no company has ever outsourced an engine before.
Of all the nits to pick....
I get that it's a throwback to hyperbole advertising of the days of yore, but it's stupid, especially in a car easily pegged as a Ford (Mustang, F150, etc.).
SO WHY DUZ DODGE PUT "CUMMINS" ON THEIR DIESEL TRUCKS?! LULZ THEY'RE SUCH IDIOTS OMG LIKE WHO CARES, WE KNOW IT'S A DODGE CUMMINS WAIT WHAT?!
:rolleyes:
Who fuckin' cares, bro?
My claim is logically irrefutable.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 22, 2010, 08:04:58 AM
If it's a Ford engine isn't it a given that it's "powered by Ford?"
:rolleyes:
And you wonder why I accuse you of being a hater. It's these types of posts that are really making me think you're really just a teenager.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 22, 2010, 08:19:38 AM
I get that it's a throwback to hyperbole advertising of the days of yore, but it's stupid, especially in a car easily pegged as a Ford (Mustang, F150, etc.).
No, it's cool, and it'll be even cooler in the inevitable engine swaps. I'd LOVE to put a DOHC 5.0 in the Comet, but the costs will be prohibitive, I'm sure.
the Camaro has big Chevrolet banners on it's engine, like anyone wont' know who makes the Camaro... Same ridiculous argument. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Nethead on January 22, 2010, 08:01:46 AM
The MX5/Miata needs this engine/transmission. Or the supercharged version from the GT350 could work, too...
Omi, is this engine a definite for the Falcon, which supposedly loses its 5.4 this coming July?
Yes, definitely. Possibly as soon as April.
Quote from: giant_mtb on January 22, 2010, 08:35:56 AM
SO WHY DUZ DODGE PUT "CUMMINS" ON THEIR DIESEL TRUCKS?! LULZ THEY'RE SUCH IDIOTS OMG LIKE WHO CARES, WE KNOW IT'S A DODGE CUMMINS WAIT WHAT?!
:rolleyes:
Who fuckin' cares, bro?
I don't think Dodge designs the Cummins engine, Cummins Inc. designs the Cummins engine. Same as with Alison transmissions, the company that makes them is called Alison Transmission, both in Indiana.
The powered by ford only makes sense when it's not in a ford vehicle... like maybe a Shelby Cobra or something of the like. Just makes me think of the ricer stickers that put Powered By Honda in the window of the Civic...
Still a beautiful and well made engine.
Quote from: Sigma Projects on January 23, 2010, 04:08:10 AM
I don't think Dodge designs the Cummins engine, Cummins Inc. designs the Cummins engine. Same as with Alison transmissions, the company that makes them is called Alison Transmission, both in Indiana.
The powered by ford only makes sense when it's not in a ford vehicle... like maybe a Shelby Cobra or something of the like. Just makes me think of the ricer stickers that put Powered By Honda in the window of the Civic...
Still a beautiful and well made engine.
So the big "CHEVROLET" and bowtie on the valve covers of the LSX engines is ricer too? Personally I love it when the manufacturer makes cool looking valve covers.
The 2011 Mustang Order Guides have been released and they are making a 3.73 rear axle as an option on the GT. That's awesome. Up until now you had to get that gear set in the after market. There is also a Performance Brake Kit Package available that gives unique wheels and the GT500 braking system to the GT.
Quote from: HEMI666 on January 24, 2010, 12:20:12 AM
The 2011 Mustang Order Guides have been released and they are making a 3.73 rear axle as an option on the GT. That's awesome. Up until now you had to get that gear set in the after market. There is also a Performance Brake Kit Package available that gives unique wheels and the GT500 braking system to the GT.
How much will those options cost.
Quote from: HEMI666 on January 24, 2010, 12:20:12 AM
The 2011 Mustang Order Guides have been released and they are making a 3.73 rear axle as an option on the GT. That's awesome. Up until now you had to get that gear set in the after market.
3.73 gears are an option for the 2010 GT (~$500, includes dual piston brake calipers).
Quote from: MX793 on January 24, 2010, 04:43:40 PM
3.73 gears are an option for the 2010 GT (~$500, includes dual piston brake calipers).
Were they? Damn, I missed that somewhere. I thought it was 3.55s that were optional.
Quote from: HEMI666 on January 24, 2010, 06:30:59 PM
Were they? Damn, I missed that somewhere. I thought it was 3.55s that were optional.
3.55 was also optional on the manual equipped cars, IIRC.
Quote from: HEMI666 on January 23, 2010, 02:48:01 PM
So the big "CHEVROLET" and bowtie on the valve covers of the LSX engines is ricer too? Personally I love it when the manufacturer makes cool looking valve covers.
No I don't see normal branding as being ricer, just the over statement about things. Like if it says ford on the block I would assume it's "Powered by Ford" it's just very redundant in a ford vehicle.
Like the example some one showed with the old engine saying "Power by Ford" that was from a Sunbeam right? And seeing the Power by Ford on the valve covers in that engine makes sense as it's not in a Ford vehicle and Ford wants everyone to know it's their beast of an engine. And I too like it when manufacturers make nice valve covers/intake manifolds since most engines now just have plastic covers which kinda seem lame.
I mean wasn't the Power by Ford thing for race cars that you couldn't tell was a ford?
(http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2005/2005-Ford-GT-Engine-1024x768.jpg)
Is that thing gay? :devil:
of course not :lol:
In vehicle, it has valve covers with a certain three-word phrase on them. :devil:
If it's in a Ford then the "Valve covers" are lame.
(http://www.allfordmustangs.com/photopost/data/566/medium/Donated_FordGT.jpg)
:devil:
Ok, that's more of an exception to me since the car is suppose to be very nostalgic and probably like all ford race cars they had the Powered by Ford. But regular cars or Grand Tourers just seems redundant tacky.
Meh. You buy a box of popsicles by brand X. All 10 popsicles in that box have brand X's name on it.
Who cares?
I think it looks cool. I think it would look cool if it was "Powered By Chevrolet" in a Corvette too.
Having brand names on things don't bother me, it's if the Popsicle said "Made by Brand X" it's like really? But whatever everyone likes different things.
You'd all have loved the Chrysler by Chrysler, then.
Quote from: HEMI666 on January 24, 2010, 08:41:41 PM
I think it looks cool. I think it would look cool if it was "Powered By Chevrolet" in a Corvette too.
+1. Same goes for BMW M-Power, Hemi, Edelbrock and the like.
Quote from: Nethead on January 25, 2010, 07:37:41 AM
omicron: The nineteen-page article in 5.0 Mustang says neither the bore nor the stroke of the new 5.0L V8 are set up for bore or stroke increases--the bore spacing remains that of the 4.6L/5.4L/6.8L so that the engine could be built on the same tooling as the tooling for the current V8s (to save you money). The thinner cylinder liners (likely the performance liners developed for the current 'Cammer 5.0L V8 used in the Grand-Am series) of the new 5.0L already have a slightly larger bore than the bore of the 4.6L. The pistons have short skirts, which nevertheless get pretty close to the crankshaft counterweights as they reach the bottom of their strokes (to save you weight). Basically, the maximum reliable overboring and stroking is not likely to net you a detectable gain in power over the stock bore & stroke. As I have stated before, 5.0 liters will soon be big displacement in US-produced vehicles meant for non-commercial customers. If you need a lot more cubes, go with an aftermarket engine--such as the 818 CID versions of the Boss 429 of '69 & '70. Then you be big :ohyeah:
I think this engine would probably respond in a big way to the heads being Ported and Polished, wilder cams, a freer flowing intake and exhaust, and a dyno tune. The 3V 4.6L responded in a huge way to those mods. I have an issue of MM&FF where they dyno'd a stock 3V 4.6L at 262 RWHP, then swapped the heads for Stage 2 ported heads with Stage 1 camshafts and rolled it again at 331 RWHP. Then they swapped out the intake from the filter up to the flange on the manifold (manifold stayed stock) and loaded a tune (not dyno tuned) and spun the rollers to 352 RWHP. That's roughly 430 HP at the flywheel. Those mods cost $2000 for the heads, $950 for the camshafts, $800 for the intake, and $500 for the tune. So for roughly $4300 you get 430 HP in an '05-'10 Mustang GT. That's supercharged power for less dough.
Quote from: Sigma Projects on January 24, 2010, 08:03:58 PM
If it's in a Ford then the "Valve covers" are lame.
No, you're just being a bitch, trying to find something to complain about.
it's supposed to be nostalgic period, regardless of what it's in. Same with putting Chevrolet on the valve covers IN A CHEVY. Or big Honda letters on teh valve cover IN A HONDA. You already know the car youre looking at, right? It's all the same thing. Get the feck over it.
Jesus, on forums full of car enthusiasts, you would think that people would not LOOK for ways of being petty and crass about cars.
Quote from: ChrisV on January 25, 2010, 10:11:55 AM
No, you're just being a bitch, trying to find something to complain about.
it's supposed to be nostalgic period, regardless of what it's in. Same with putting Chevrolet on the valve covers IN A CHEVY. Or big Honda letters on teh valve cover IN A HONDA. You already know the car youre looking at, right? It's all the same thing. Get the feck over it.
Jesus, on forums full of car enthusiasts, you would think that people would not LOOK for ways of being petty and crass about cars.
Don't let it get to you. Some people will
find reasons not to like something to justify their dislike for it.
Quote from: HEMI666 on January 24, 2010, 08:41:41 PM
I think it looks cool. I think it would look cool if it was "Powered By Chevrolet" in a Corvette too.
Nah, that would be stupid too.
Employing nostalgic hyperbole advertising of trade name is cool; "Powered by BOSS/Hemi/Thunderchief/Fireball/Magnum whatever" would be fine.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 25, 2010, 10:49:32 AM
Nah, that would be stupid too.
Employing nostalgic hyperbole advertising of trade name is cool; "Powered by BOSS/Hemi/Thunderchief/Fireball/Magnum whatever" would be fine.
That would be cool too. Too bad your opinion doesn't matter though.
Quote from: Nethead on January 25, 2010, 01:46:13 PM
But this engine is so endowed with the tricks of the trade that boost and/or chemicals is about all that can be added to make a substantial difference here--the limits of natural-aspiration tech have been boinked quite well
Well see that's just not true. Porting and polishing, larger valvetrain, cams, intake, and tune are pretty standard stuff and I've been reading that some aftermarket tuners are already seeing big gains from the "tricks of the trade". This is a hell of an engine with shit loads of potential from everything I've been hearing.
Quote from: ChrisV on January 25, 2010, 10:11:55 AM
No, you're just being a bitch, trying to find something to complain about.
it's supposed to be nostalgic period, regardless of what it's in. Same with putting Chevrolet on the valve covers IN A CHEVY. Or big Honda letters on teh valve cover IN A HONDA. You already know the car youre looking at, right? It's all the same thing. Get the feck over it.
Jesus, on forums full of car enthusiasts, you would think that people would not LOOK for ways of being petty and crass about cars.
I guess you did not read my last post, I said "But whatever everyone likes different things". As in I'm not going to argue anymore. :rolleyes:
It isn't a used pacecar...
Quote from: 68_427 on January 28, 2010, 09:21:53 AM
It isn't a used pacecar...
It will be when Ron Pratte gets it.
Quote from: SVT666 on January 28, 2010, 09:24:06 AM
It will be when Ron Pratte gets it.
That's one car collection I'd love to see. He bought Shelby's "Supersnake" a couple of years ago for $5 million. As well, he seems to end up with most of the "charity" cars; such as the Daytona 500 pace car. Good guy. Has more money than God.
Quote from: Nethead on January 29, 2010, 11:17:13 AM
68_427: Correct as usual, '68! The Nethead here stands corrected! Pratte bought it before the race so it is actually a new pacecar! God I love those front brakes!
It will be a used one when he finally gets it.
Lol, I was just being a smart ass. They should let him pace the race, or at least pace it until the green flag drops.
The 5.0 makes the cover (along with the CTS-V Coupe) of the C&D March issue, but they don't get to drive the car. I thought we were gonna get some performance numbers! :rage:
Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on January 31, 2010, 11:10:00 AM
The 5.0 makes the cover (along with the CTS-V Coupe) of the C&D March issue, but they don't get to drive the car. I thought we were gonna get some performance numbers! :rage:
Another stupid auto rag giving us pics of a car that we can see on the intrawebs but nothing else.
YEP!
NOW, we're talking! This is the GT500 they should have given the world last year.
Unveiled: 2011 Ford Shelby GT500
02/08/2010, 2:27 PM
BY MARK KLEIS
Leftlane brought you some teaser info and a video showing off Ford?s latest SVT offering last week, and now we have the official details that make up this new muscle car. Like the previous Shelby GT500, this latest offering is a joint effort between Ford?s Special Vehicle Team (SVT) and Carroll Shelby.
The 2011 Mustang features all-new V6 and V8 engines for the volume offerings, and for the GT500 Ford is going to an all-aluminum version of the 5.4-liter supercharged V8 that was in the 2010 GT500. This new engine is good for a 102 pound weight decrease, as well as 10 horsepower bump over the outgoing model ? putting total output at 550 horsepower and 510 lb-ft. of torque.
?Cutting weight to improve performance is a tradition among hot rodders,? said Carroll Shelby in a statement released to the media. ?It might not be as sexy as adding more horsepower or bigger brakes, but shaving pounds off of a car is the single smartest move you can make.?
One piece of technology that helped to make this muscle car a little slimmer was the addition of a Plasma Transferred Wire Arc cylinder lining. This Ford-exclusive technology is being applied for the first time, and helps to reduce weight by 8.5 pounds while also reducing friction within the piston rings and cylinder bores by coating the inside of the cylinder bores with special nanoparticles. Ford also says that this new technology will provide for better durability and improved heat transfer.
Ford also points out that this new Shelby Mustang is uses an engine with roots in the now discontinued Ford GT supercar ? but with improved block structure through the use of a unique bulkhead chilled process and six-bolt billet main bearing caps. Ford says that the 2011 Shelby GT500 engine will exceed Ford GT performance due to its superior supercharger technology.
With increased power comes?increased fuel efficiency?
Bucking the trend of range-topping muscle cars receiving a gas guzzler?s tax, Ford says the 2011 Shelby GT500 will be the first modern Shelby without a gas guzzler tax, thanks to the EPA-projected 15 mpg city, and 23 mpg highway ratings. Ford?s engine changes also result in 80 percent torque being available between 1,750 and 6,250 rpm, along with a larger two-row intercooler that delivers 40 percent more cooling capacity.
Ford achieved the increase in fuel economy through a combination of weight savings from the use of an all-aluminum engine block, improved body and undercarriage aerodynamics and the addition of Electric Power Assisted Steering.
New performance features for 2011
Likely the most significant option change for the GT500 is the SVT Performance Package ? giving the GT500 a track-ready performance pack from the factory. This package includes specially developed Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperCar G: 2 tires, a higher rear axle ratio, stiffer springs, lighter wheels and cosmetic changes for both the coupe and convertible. Ford attributes a 3.0-second lap time savings over the 2010 coupe on the 2.3-mile test track.
Ford has also lowered the 2011 by 11 millimeters up front, and 8 millimeters out back for improved handling. SVT says it added slotted brake dust shields to help improve brake cooling and handling, as well as a new pedal box with is aimed at improving clutch and pedal efforts.
Refinement upgrades
Ford says that its 2011 Shelby GT500 will also enjoy a 20 percent decrease in road noise ? achieved through the use of strategically placed sound dampening materials. The end result? Ford says drivers and passengers will now enjoy more of the exhaust and engine noise, and less of the wind and road.
Ford also stiffened the chassis on the convertible by 12 percent over the outgoing model ? allowing for improved lateral stiffness. Ford achieved this improvement with added gussets to the V-brace, an increased secondary crossmember, a front Z-brace was added and A-pillar stiffening foam has been added as well.
?One of the biggest changes for this Shelby is that the convertible acts and feels like a coupe,? said Jamal Hameedi, SVT chief nameplate engineer. ?Before, they had a very different character, and the convertible is taking a big step in the sportiness and handling precision area, without degrading the ride.?
Ford also pointed out that it has changed the exhaust system for 2011 ? the new 2.75 inch exhaust helped contribute to the 10 hp increase and a more aggressive tone.
Odds, ends and additions
another fairly major change for the 2011 Shelby is the option for a glass roof coupe ? presumably the same unit available on the standard Mustang.
The Shelby GT500 now comes with standard HID headlamps, options MyKey technology, an intergrated spotter mirror and fold-down rear headrests for maximum rearward visibility.
Nice.
They brag about the motor being 100 lbs lighter, but what about the rest of the car? What's the total weight loss or gain? The new aluminum V6 in the base car is a fair bit lighter than the old, iron block Cologne, but the whole car ended up gaining about 50 lbs.
Quote from: MX793 on February 08, 2010, 04:39:17 PM
They brag about the motor being 100 lbs lighter, but what about the rest of the car? What's the total weight loss or gain? The new aluminum V6 in the base car is a fair bit lighter than the old, iron block Cologne, but the whole car ended up gaining about 50 lbs.
I understand the article as saying the entire car is 102 lbs lighter. Curb weight on the current car is 3924lbs, so that would make it 3822 lbs and 550 hp and new super sticky tires. I think this car will finally live up to it's potential.
A step in the right direction but its still a heavy pig. Thankfully most of the weight lose comes from were it will help most, the nose. The '11 V6 Stang is still the one I'm most interested in.
So a 120 lbs weight loss means the GT500 now weighs 3802 lbs. That's 1 lbs lighter then a Ferrari 612.
Quote from: SVT666 on February 09, 2010, 10:00:28 AM
So a 120 lbs weight loss means the GT500 now weighs 3802 lbs. That's 1 lbs lighter then a Ferrari 612.
Not the best benchmark. Ferraris are generally fat pigs these days.
Well, all these kinds of cars are these days, so it's nigh useless to complain.
Quote from: Nethead on February 15, 2010, 11:11:42 AM
Listen up!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oloDe93LRK0&feature=player_embedded
Some parts of the rev range sound like farts in a bath tub.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=20861.msg1270660#msg1270660 date=1266298479
Not the best benchmark. Ferraris are generally fat pigs these days.
Well, all these kinds of cars are these days, so it's nigh useless to complain.
The 458 weighs only 3000 lbs, but otherwise you're right. The next lightest is the California at 3600 lbs.
Quote from: Nethead on February 16, 2010, 09:46:47 AM
Raza: Hang in there, RazDude--the 2014 Mustang GT is expected to lose a further 300 lbs over the 2011 Mustang GT (3603 lbs), making it conceivable that the 2014 GT500 will lose a further 300 lbs, too.
To be fair, the 2014 Mustang GT will be smaller--more like the 1965 Mustang 2+2 in size but with a full fastback a la the Giugiaro Mustang concept of a coupla years ago.
Is it true that the 2020 Mustang GT will run on sunshine and lollipops?
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 16, 2010, 09:57:21 AM
Is it true that the 2020 Mustang GT will run on sunshine and lollipops?
Nope. Not true at all. Puppies and kittens. They're going for "badass" next time around.
Quote from: SVT666 on February 16, 2010, 10:27:57 AM
Nope. Not true at all. Puppies and kittens. They're going for "badass" next time around.
Ah, okay. Gotcha.
Quote from: Nethead on February 16, 2010, 09:46:47 AM
Raza: Hang in there, RazDude--the 2014 Mustang GT is expected to lose a further 300 lbs over the 2011 Mustang GT (3603 lbs), making it conceivable that the 2014 GT500 will lose a further 300 lbs, too.
To be fair, the 2014 Mustang GT will be smaller--more like the 1965 Mustang 2+2 in size but with a full fastback a la the Giugiaro Mustang concept of a coupla years ago.
Hopefully it'll look better by then!
Quote from: Nethead on February 16, 2010, 09:46:47 AM
Raza: Hang in there, RazDude--the 2014 Mustang GT is expected to lose a further 300 lbs over the 2011 Mustang GT (3603 lbs), making it conceivable that the 2014 GT500 will lose a further 300 lbs, too.
To be fair, the 2014 Mustang GT will be smaller--more like the 1965 Mustang 2+2 in size but with a full fastback a la the Giugiaro Mustang concept of a coupla years ago.
meh, i'm still waiting for the "oh the S95 wiil be a lightweight M3 fighter with IRS and SMG" rumours to come true
Ford Recalls 2010 Mustang For Being Too Cool
February 16, 2010 | Issue 46?07
DETROIT?-Ford officials issued a massive recall of the entire 2010 Mustang line Tuesday, apologizing for a quality-control oversight that led to the company manufacturing a badass muscle car that was way too awesome for the American public. "We deeply regret this lapse in judgment and accept full responsibility for the mistake," Ford CEO Alan R. Mulally said standing beside a gorgeous, cherry-red vehicle recalled for being "way too smoking." "After numerous road tests, we've found the car to be a mean, mean ride that Americans are simply not cool enough to handle, and it would be irresponsible of us to allow anyone to get behind the wheel of this killer car. It's truly frightening how sweet the Mustang is." According to Mulally, Ford has canceled production on the 2011 Mustang, and will instead release a line of fuel-efficient vehicles in an effort to appeal to boring old Americans.
Quote from: Nethead on February 22, 2010, 10:49:51 AM
Hot Rod Magazine's April, 2010 issue has an article entitled "Return of the 5.0L" on pages 76 thru 82 which has fewer specifics than the superb nineteen-paged article on this engine in the March, 2010 of 5.0 Mustang.
But there are some insights not found in the 5.0 Mustang article:
The engine weighs 430 pounds
The crankshaft-direct-drive oil pump delivers more output than a NASCAR dry-sump setup (one reason for the eight quart oil capacity)
The SAE has now certified the engine at 412 HP@6500 RPM (maintaining a volumetric efficiency of 100 percent at this RPM) and 390 lbs ft of torque@4250 RPM (maintaining a volumetric efficiency of 110 percent at this RPM), or 83.2 HP per liter.
Cubic Feet per Minute (CFM) through the heads can be calculated via the formula CFM = (Cubic Inch Displacement (CID) X RPM X Volumetric Efficiency (VE)) divided by 3456 (a constant). Calling 3456 "The Google Factor" is as good as anything, IMO :tounge:.
VE at 6500 RPM is 100 percent and at 4250 RPM it is 110 percent. CID is 302 (another constant for this engine in the equation). You do the math :heated:.
3456 is the conversion factor to get cubic feet from cubic inches (1728 cubic inches per cubic foot) multiplied by 2 to address the fact that a 4-stroke engine burns only half its displacement per rotation.
Wait just a second... 100%+ VE without a supercharger? I call shens. At least give us a non-fanboi source.
Quote from: Catman on February 22, 2010, 10:51:37 AM
Ford Recalls 2010 Mustang For Being Too Cool
February 16, 2010 | Issue 46?07
DETROIT?-Ford officials issued a massive recall of the entire 2010 Mustang line Tuesday, apologizing for a quality-control oversight that led to the company manufacturing a badass muscle car that was way too awesome for the American public. "We deeply regret this lapse in judgment and accept full responsibility for the mistake," Ford CEO Alan R. Mulally said standing beside a gorgeous, cherry-red vehicle recalled for being "way too smoking." "After numerous road tests, we've found the car to be a mean, mean ride that Americans are simply not cool enough to handle, and it would be irresponsible of us to allow anyone to get behind the wheel of this killer car. It's truly frightening how sweet the Mustang is." According to Mulally, Ford has canceled production on the 2011 Mustang, and will instead release a line of fuel-efficient vehicles in an effort to appeal to boring old Americans.
lol, that's pretty good.
Quote from: R-inge on February 22, 2010, 04:11:52 PM
Wait just a second... 100%+ VE without a supercharger? I call shens. At least give us a non-fanboi source.
Have you seen my phone? I need to call bullshit.
Hmm, a quick wiki indicates that it is indeed possible. I'd still like to see a source.
Quote from: R-inge on February 22, 2010, 04:11:52 PM
Wait just a second... 100%+ VE without a supercharger? I call shens. At least give us a non-fanboi source.
It's certainly possible with correct porting and intake runner length to exceed 100% VE at certain RPMs without forced induction. IIRC, there was some guy who managed 137% VE out of a naturally aspirated Honda Civic motor by way of fine tuning the porting.
either way, looking to see the new 302 in action, I think many fans have been waiting for the revival of the 5.0.
Quote from: MX793 on February 22, 2010, 04:21:32 PM
It's certainly possible with correct porting and intake runner length to exceed 100% VE at certain RPMs without forced induction. IIRC, there was some guy who managed 137% VE out of a naturally aspirated Honda Civic motor by way of fine tuning the porting.
Nice!
Quote from: Nethead on February 23, 2010, 08:16:06 AM
There's worthwhile power to be made with the variable-length intake runner manifolds, and Ford might include them on the next Bullitts, Mach 1s, or street Boss 302s--not my decision to make, unfortunately.
I remember when I saw them on even on older Maximas, love them.
Quote from: Sigma Projects on February 23, 2010, 07:33:55 PM
I remember when I saw them on even on older Maximas, love them.
Variable length intakes are still around. My car has a variable length intake, and it's not even a particularly high performance motor.
oh I know, it's just the VQ30 was my first experience with variable intake manifolds and thought it was a great idea.
Quote from: Nethead on February 24, 2010, 11:27:57 AM
More heady stuff:
For those who were challenged by the CFM computation, the heads are flowing 408 CFM at 4250 RPM, the RPM at which the max torque output of 390 lbs ft occurs. And they are flowing 568 CFM at 6500, the RPM at which the max horsepower of 412 HP occurs.
They say this is 4 percent better than the flow volumes of the Ford GT's engine,
but all those Ford GT 5.4L quadcammers were supercharged--and apparently somewhat underachieving since those with supercharger capacity savvy say the "ideal" supercharger for the Ford GT would be a supercharger with 25 percent more volume capacity than the capacities of the Eatons on the Ford GTs since those heads can swallow 25 percent more boosted air at any given pressure than the Eatons are capable of providing. Is this an apples-to-apples comparison since the Ford GT heads (and later, the GT500 heads) were designed for boost from the gitgo? :huh: But WTF--it'll likely resolve itself on the new GT350s which use a supercharged version of the Ti-VCT (some say "TiVCT") 5.0L V8. Whatever may be the case on those Ford GT Eatons, Ford likely didn't choke the new 5.0L since that 17-inches-long-runners-with-generous-plenum intake manifold on the new 5.0L is a whopping 10-liter affair :rockon: The new 5.0L's volumetric efficiency is over 100 percent from 3750 RPM to 6500 RPM, and that is effin' GOOD!
The Ford GT has been boosted to 800+ hp by several tuners and not one of them could find anything in the engine to replace with stronger parts. I remember reading an article about Heffner Performance who installed twin turbos on it. But before they did, they took the engine apart to installed stronger pistons, connecting rods, crank, etc, but ended up putting it all back together without changing a thing. They're running 800 hp.
:thumbsup:
christ.... who would have thunk they day would come when mustang loyalists would be bragging about V-Tak :facepalm:
...is this one of the warnings of a cougspacalypse?
Quote from: r0tor on March 11, 2010, 12:42:45 PM
christ.... who would have thunk they day would come when mustang loyalists would be bragging about V-Tak :facepalm:
...is this one of the warnings of a cougspacalypse?
Nah - the
real crow eating will come in 2013 when the next gen 'Stang debuts with IRS...
Quote from: r0tor on March 11, 2010, 12:42:45 PM
christ.... who would have thunk they day would come when mustang loyalists would be bragging about V-Tak :facepalm:
...is this one of the warnings of a cougspacalypse?
We've always been at war with Eastasia.
:clap:
Quote from: r0tor on March 11, 2010, 12:42:45 PM
christ.... who would have thunk they day would come when mustang loyalists would be bragging about V-Tak :facepalm:
...is this one of the warnings of a cougspacalypse?
i've always been one of the guys that would tell musclecar heads that VTEC was an important milestone in engine management, and that many of us old school hot rod engine builders woudl have loved to have had that tech back in teh day. it's like haivng a stock daily driver street cam for puttering around, and then swapping out that cam for a race version when you want to get on it, automatically, then swapping back to the stock cam when you want to go back to daily driving. It's the holy grail of cam compromise (i.e. removing that compromise).
Or, in your case, likie driving around smoothly on stock ports, then automatically opening up the ports to J ports when you want to make power, then closing them back up automatically when you want to putt around again.
It's about time that the V8 guys got not just that tech, but in a DOHC package that is also rather compact and light, unlike previous OHC V8s from everyone but Toyota.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 11, 2010, 03:08:20 PM
Nah - the real crow eating will come in 2013 when the next gen 'Stang debuts with IRS...
But
Cougs the Mustang doesn't
need IRS, they just, you know, want to keep improving the breed!
Can't wait for an IRS Mustang. Hell, the V6 will probably be a world class entry level GT. I really look forward to it.
OR...you can just get yourself a muscle car that already has IRS...
Quote from: Vinsanity on March 12, 2010, 05:19:37 PM
OR...you can just get yourself a muscle car that already has IRS...
Why would you do that when the Mustang already outhandles it with the log in the back?
For the 24th time I remind the audience that the Camaro SS out-handles/out-everything the Mustang GT w/out Track Pack.
Meaning, if/when the Camaro is available with an optional ride- and road noise-compromising suspension package analogous to the Mustang GT's Track Pack, said Camaro SS will also be the better handler.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 12, 2010, 07:03:58 PM
For the 24th time I remind the audience that the Camaro SS out-handles/out-everything the Mustang GT w/out Track Pack.
Meaning, if/when the Camaro is available with an optional ride- and road noise-compromising suspension package analogous to the Mustang GT's Track Pack, said Camaro SS will also be the better handler.
So? I just want to cruise around with my elbow out the window. I think the Mustang is better for this as well as other things. The Camaro is weird.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 12, 2010, 07:03:58 PM
For the 24th time I remind the audience that the Camaro SS out-handles/out-everything the Mustang GT w/out Track Pack.
Meaning, if/when the Camaro is available with an optional ride- and road noise-compromising suspension package analogous to the Mustang GT's Track Pack, said Camaro SS will also be the better handler.
You're comparing the Mustang with a Camaro that doesn't exist? Who's the apologist now?
Quote from: ChrisV on March 12, 2010, 08:07:44 AM
i've always been one of the guys that would tell musclecar heads that VTEC was an important milestone in engine management, and that many of us old school hot rod engine builders woudl have loved to have had that tech back in teh day. it's like haivng a stock daily driver street cam for puttering around, and then swapping out that cam for a race version when you want to get on it, automatically, then swapping back to the stock cam when you want to go back to daily driving. It's the holy grail of cam compromise (i.e. removing that compromise).
Or, in your case, likie driving around smoothly on stock ports, then automatically opening up the ports to J ports when you want to make power, then closing them back up automatically when you want to putt around again.
It's about time that the V8 guys got not just that tech, but in a DOHC package that is also rather compact and light, unlike previous OHC V8s from everyone but Toyota.
I think it would be great. It would open up a lot more possibilities as well. But like you said, most OHC engines aren't the trimmest package.
Quote from: hotrodalex on March 13, 2010, 10:37:08 PM
I think it would be great. It would open up a lot more possibilities as well. But like you said, most OHC engines aren't the trimmest package.
The 5.0 mustang is though at only 430 lbs.
Trim perhaps meaning overall size?
Well, the delivery is garanteed no later than 25 May, but I need it NLT May 4th, hopefully May 2nd. I've heard there's a delay at the plant and it seems kind of iffy. We'll see what happens....
:(
That sucks man. Ford was 10 days late with our car.
I'm confused by all this exciting talk about variable valve timing... clearly the Mustang has had V-Tec for at least 5 years now
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igPYdFM8Jjw
Yeah, as if Japanese didn't have variable valve timing in econo cars 20 years ago. May be new to the Mustang but it ain't nothing new to just about anyone else...
And does anyone know what MPG the 2011 Mustang GT will get? I haven't seen ANY articles posted to that effect? Anyone?
Quote from: GoCougs on March 16, 2010, 12:47:17 PM
Yeah, as if Japanese didn't have variable valve timing in econo cars 20 years ago. May be new to the Mustang but it ain't nothing new to just about anyone else...
And does anyone know what MPG the 2011 Mustang GT will get? I haven't seen ANY articles posted to that effect? Anyone?
Quote from: Nethead on March 16, 2010, 09:45:07 AM
From www.autoblog.com:
Ford Mustang GT rocks out with 412 horsepower, 26 mpg highway
by Drew Phillips (RSS feed) on Mar 16th 2010 at 6:43 AM
When it was first announced that the 5.0-liter engine was making a return to the 2011 Ford Mustang, none of us here at Autoblog were really that concerned with the fuel economy. We were all about the horsepower, and at 412 ponies underneath the hood, the 5.0 doesn't disappoint. Ford, however, was thinking about appearances and earth-hugging as well, and managed to make the 2011 Mustang even more efficient than the 2010 model despite all that extra extra power. According to the numbers released today, the new Mustang GT gets 17 miles-per-gallon city and 26 mpg highway with the six-speed manual and 18/25 mpg with the six-speed automatic.
These numbers are not only a huge improvement from the 2010 Mustang with the 4.6-liter V8 (15/23 mpg w/manual, 15/22 mpg w/automatic), but they also best the figures achieved by the Chevrolet Camaro SS - 16/24 mpg when equipped with a manual and 16/25 mpg with the automatic. As reported earlier, the 2011 Mustang V6 claims top honors against its Camaro counterpart as well with an impressive 19/31 mpg in six-speed automatic form.
So what accounts for the improved fuel economy despite the increase in displacement and horsepower? According to Ford, having an extra gear in the car's transmissions play a large role in addition to the Twin Independent Variable Camshaft Timing (Ti-VCT) that can quickly adjust the intake and exhaust valves...
Here's the press release:
2011 FORD MUSTANG GT LEADS CLASS WITH 26 MPG HIGHWAY, 412 HORSEPOWER
The New 2011 Mustang GT 5.0L
Click here to download related images.
* New 2011 Mustang GT vaults to the top of its class with final fuel economy certified by the EPA this week at 26 mpg highway and 17 mpg city
*The Mustang GT ? carrying a 412-horsepower 5.0-liter V-8 engine and six-speed manual transmission ? delivers incredible acceleration in addition to fuel economy, thanks in part to the flexibility of the six-speed manual transmission
*The entire Mustang lineup now achieves segment-leading fuel economy with the Mustang V-6 being the first car ever to deliver 305 hp and 31 mpg and the Mustang GT achieving best-in-class fuel economy of 26 mpg
DEARBORN, Mich., March 16, 2010 ? The 2011 Ford Mustang GT, powered by a new 412-hp 5.0-liter V-8 engine, adds yet another notch to its belt: an EPA rating of 26 mpg highway when equipped with the six-speed manual transmission, giving it the best fuel economy in its class.
"The 2011 Mustang continues to exceed expectations in every category, and these fuel economy numbers are another chapter in an incredible story," said Derrick Kuzak, Ford's group vice president, Global Product Development. "To offer this kind of horsepower and class-leading fuel economy in a comfortable, beautiful, tech-savvy and affordable package ? it's really unprecedented."
With the six-speed manual transmission, Mustang GT coupe is rated at 17 mpg city and
26 highway, while models with the available six-speed automatic achieve 18 mpg city and
25 highway.
The GT's best in class fuel numbers come on the heels of the Mustang V-6, which just last week cracked the record books as not only the most fuel-efficient Mustang ever, but also the first production car in history to produce 305 horsepower and 31 mpg highway.
Mustang GT is powered by an all-new 5.0-liter double-overhead-camshaft (DOHC) V-8 with a host of advanced features to deliver the combination of power and class-leading fuel economy.
Twin Independent Variable Camshaft Timing (Ti-VCT) adjusts the valvetrain in microseconds depending on driver inputs. A carefully tuned intake and exhaust system ensures free breathing at all engine speeds. And all-aluminum construction results in a lightweight yet durable powerplant.
A pair of new transmissions, both with six forward ratios, also play a large part in making the 2011 Mustang a breakthrough car. Regardless of whether drivers want to shift for themselves or let the car shift for them, they're treated to carefully chosen gear ratios to maximize fuel economy while still delivering high-horsepower performance
"Mustang powertrain development has reached a point where customers don't have to choose between fuel efficiency and performance," says Barb Samardzich, Ford vice president of Global Powertrain Engineering. "Thanks to technologies like Ti-VCT and our six-speed gearboxes, a Mustang driver has the best of both worlds."
Fuel economy improvements on all Mustang models
Mustang GT shares fuel economy accolades with the new 3.7-liter Mustang V-6 ? the first production car ever to offer both 300-plus horsepower and 31 mpg on the highway. Official 2011 EPA fuel economy ratings for the Mustang product line are:
Mustang V-6
*19 mpg city and 31 highway (automatic coupe)
*19 mpg city and 29 highway (manual coupe)
Mustang GT
*18 mpg city and 25 highway (automatic coupe)
*17 mpg city and 26 highway (manual coupe)
In addition to powertrain improvements, upgrades to Mustang's body and chassis design contribute to its 2011 performance. Examples include:
*New EPAS eliminates the drag of an engine-operated hydraulic power steering pump
*Combined with the new six-speed transmissions, standard 3.31 (manual) and 3.15 (automatic) rear axle ratios provide an ideal blend of relaxed cruising rpm and all-out acceleration
*Aerodynamic improvements include a new front fascia on the Mustang GT, tire spats on the rear wheels, modified underbody shields, a taller air dam and an added rear decklid seal
The 2011 Mustang is built at the AutoAlliance International Plant in Flat Rock, Mich., and goes on sale this spring.
Thanks, Raza. I was wondering when someone would post that. I'm surprised it hasn't been posted in like 9 different threads by now courtesy of one of our resident Mustang jihadists.
Quote from: Nethead on March 16, 2010, 01:52:27 PM
Do Camaros offer any form of variable valve timing on their overhead cam V8s--oh, wait...Doh! My bad!
IIRC the Corvette, which has been making 400hp for some time now, has the same EPA rating even without OHC, VVT, and DI.
(Ah yes, the circle goes round and round...)
Quote from: R-inge on March 16, 2010, 02:56:17 PM
IIRC the Corvette, which has been making 400hp for some time now, has the same EPA rating even without OHC, VVT, and DI.
(Ah yes, the circle goes round and round...)
But pushrods are dated technology!!! So VTECH wins!!!! OMFGBBQLOL
Quote from: NomisR on March 16, 2010, 03:04:12 PM
But pushrods are dated technology!!! So VTECH wins!!!! OMFGBBQLOL
Careful, Cougs will agree with you.
Quote from: R-inge on March 16, 2010, 02:56:17 PM
IIRC the Corvette, which has been making 400hp for some time now, has the same EPA rating even without OHC, VVT, and DI.
(Ah yes, the circle goes round and round...)
It's got a very slippery body and IIRC it's got a 0.50 6th gear. For the blunt nosed Mustang to achieve those numbers is pretty impressive. The Camaro can't do it.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 16, 2010, 02:11:59 PM
Thanks, Raza. I was wondering when someone would post that. I'm surprised it hasn't been posted in like 9 different threads by now courtesy of one of our resident Mustang jihadists.
It was posted in 473 different threads, including this one, before you made that post.
Quote from: ChrisV on March 12, 2010, 08:07:44 AM
i've always been one of the guys that would tell musclecar heads that VTEC was an important milestone in engine management, and that many of us old school hot rod engine builders woudl have loved to have had that tech back in teh day. it's like haivng a stock daily driver street cam for puttering around, and then swapping out that cam for a race version when you want to get on it, automatically, then swapping back to the stock cam when you want to go back to daily driving. It's the holy grail of cam compromise (i.e. removing that compromise).
Or, in your case, likie driving around smoothly on stock ports, then automatically opening up the ports to J ports when you want to make power, then closing them back up automatically when you want to putt around again.
It's about time that the V8 guys got not just that tech, but in a DOHC package that is also rather compact and light, unlike previous OHC V8s from everyone but Toyota.
VVT/L of course has its merits in a retail vehicle where that last little measure of economy, NVH and where extreme performance is required, but for a guy modifying 15 year old Camaro or a guy dropping an engine into a Shoe Box, the modern DOHC VVT/L engine is a size and cost detriment as long as pooprod motors are available.
A stock crate LS2 motor or Hemi 5.7L is a 425-450 hp (gross) engine out of the box; in days of old you needed a big block with big everything (compression, cam, carb, etc.) and had to suffer relatively poor economy/reliability/drivability as a result. Even a stock old-school iron block 350 or 360, with a decent power package from Edelbrock, will net a person a drivable, reliable 350-400 hp for about half the cost of a crate LS2 or Hemi.
(Good gods, did I just defend pooprod motors??? Not really, this defense
only applies to hot rodders - guys looking to modify existing cars, or place engines into custom cars.)
"Pooprods" done right are great motors. The Hemi and LSX engines are great examples of "pooprods" done right. They're also the last ones you can get in new cars, but they're competitive in every way with their OHC counterparts.
Quote from: SVT666 on March 16, 2010, 03:18:36 PM
It's got a very slippery body and IIRC it's got a 0.50 6th gear. For the blunt nosed Mustang to achieve those numbers is pretty impressive. The Camaro can't do it.
Very true. I just like giving Nethead a hard time. :devil:
Quote from: SVT666 on March 16, 2010, 03:50:33 PM
"Pooprods" done right are great motors. The Hemi and LSX engines are great examples of "pooprods" done right. They're also the last ones you can get in new cars, but they're competitive in every way with their OHC counterparts.
And OHC motors, like Ford's utterly terrible 4.6/5.4L Modular, can be done horribly wrong. The existence of such a terrible (OHC) engine have led many to falsely believe that pooprod motors can run with OHC motors. But both done correctly, the OHC motor walks on a pooprod motor, and why there are no more pooprod I4 and V6 engines.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 17, 2010, 07:16:53 AM
And OHC motors, like Ford's utterly terrible 4.6/5.4L Modular, can be done horribly wrong. The existence of such a terrible (OHC) engine have led many to falsely believe that pooprod motors can run with OHC motors. But both done correctly, the OHC motor walks on a pooprod motor, and why there are no more pooprod I4 and V6 engines.
The LSX and Hemi engines are as competitive in every regard as their OHC counterparts. Even in the NVH category. Ford's 4.6L and 5.4L engines weren't terrible engines. They were very competitive when they first came out. Ford just let them sit with no development at all for nearly 20 years. That was the problem.
Quote from: SVT666 on March 17, 2010, 02:11:16 PM
The LSX and Hemi engines are as competitive in every regard as their OHC counterparts. Even in the NVH category. Ford's 4.6L and 5.4L engines weren't terrible engines. They were very competitive when they first came out. Ford just let them sit with no development at all for nearly 20 years. That was the problem.
The modular is a very stout engine used in basic and very outlandish applications. Other than the millions used in Ford cars and trucks, modified versions, such as the that in the Koenigsegg CCR, powered it to the title of World's Fastest Production Car a few years back. As well, it is the basis for the current Koenigsegg designed engine in the CCX. It's been on Wards 10 best list a few times in different iterations and is the basis for the new 5.0.
Quote from: FoMoJo on March 17, 2010, 05:26:47 PM
The modular is a very stout engine used in basic and very outlandish applications. Other than the millions used in Ford cars and trucks, modified versions, such as the that in the Koenigsegg CCR, powered it to the title of World's Fastest Production Car a few years back. As well, it is the basis for the current Koenigsegg designed engine in the CCX. It's been on Wards 10 best list a few times in different iterations and is the basis for the new 5.0.
Thank you. You said it much better then I.
I wonder what the top speed on that thing is.
Quote from: FoMoJo on March 17, 2010, 05:26:47 PM
The modular is a very stout engine used in basic and very outlandish applications. Other than the millions used in Ford cars and trucks, modified versions, such as the that in the Koenigsegg CCR, powered it to the title of World's Fastest Production Car a few years back. As well, it is the basis for the current Koenigsegg designed engine in the CCX. It's been on Wards 10 best list a few times in different iterations and is the basis for the new 5.0.
:rage: :rage: Mustang Jihadist! Ford apologist! :rage: :rage:
Quote from: Cobra93 on March 18, 2010, 10:58:55 AM
:rage: :rage: Mustang Jihadist! Ford apologist! :rage: :rage:
:lol: :lol: :lol:
And the 331/354/392 Hemi was one heckuva stout motor, also used in many production cars and untold outlandish applications. And curiously, in top tune made more power than any production N/A Modular. The last date of production of the Chrysler FirePower V8 was 51 years ago, and Chevy's 50 year-old throwback has been eating modular lunch since the mid '90s, but I digress...
(I think you guys get the point.)
Quote from: GoCougs on March 19, 2010, 11:26:32 AM
And the 331/354/392 Hemi was one heckuva stout motor, also used in many production cars and untold outlandish applications. And curiously, in top tune made more power than any production N/A Modular.
Of course you know they are not based on todays power rating system so they are not even close to the 412 in the 2011 mustang or any number of aussie 5.4s.
The last date of production of the Chrysler FirePower V8 was 51 years ago, and Chevy's 50 year-old throwback has been eating modular lunch since the mid '90s, but I digress...
The LS motors have been eating everyone's lunch with the possible exception of mercedes v8s, not surprisingly they are also rather large in displacment.
(I think you guys get the point.)
Quote from: GoCougs on March 19, 2010, 11:26:32 AM
And the 331/354/392 Hemi was one heckuva stout motor, also used in many production cars and untold outlandish applications. And curiously, in top tune made more power than any production N/A Modular. The last date of production of the Chrysler FirePower V8 was 51 years ago, and Chevy's 50 year-old throwback has been eating modular lunch since the mid '90s, but I digress...
(I think you guys get the point.)
50 years ago they weren't using SAE net power ratings, so any factory tune horsepower ratings are null and void when compared directly to SAE net power ratings on the ModV8.
Hemi 392 C.I high compression Ford 281 C.I. low compression
Aw hell... what's a hundred or so cubic inches and a couple points compression ratio between friends? :huh:
Couldn't possibly make a difference, could it?
Quote from: Cobra93 on March 19, 2010, 11:44:49 AM
Hemi 392 C.I high compression Ford 281 C.I. low compression
Aw hell... what's a hundred or so cubic inches and a couple points compression ratio between friends? :huh:
Couldn't possibly make a difference, could it?
The top dog of the 392 only had a 10:1 compression ratio, which a lot of "regular" engines have these days. The 4.6 in the 2010 Mustang is 9.8, so it's not far off the old "high compression" performance motors. But more importantly 345 GROSS horsepower is nowhere near as potent as 315 NET horsepower. Rated in SAE net, a 392 hi-compression would probably only be making 260-ish hp.
Quote from: MX793 on March 19, 2010, 11:54:42 AM
The top dog of the 392 only had a 10:1 compression ratio, which a lot of "regular" engines have these days. The 4.6 in the 2010 Mustang is 9.8, so it's not far off the old "high compression" performance motors. But more importantly 345 GROSS horsepower is nowhere near as potent as 315 NET horsepower. Rated in SAE net, a 392 hi-compression would probably only be making 260-ish hp.
I was mainly pointing out how ridiculous the comparison is. My 300C makes 45 HP more than my Mustang GT. It's also 70 cubic inches larger. This may not be in some people's engineering background, but displacement HAS been known to affect output. ;)
Quote from: MX793 on March 19, 2010, 11:40:24 AM
50 years ago they weren't using SAE net power ratings, so any factory tune horsepower ratings are null and void when compared directly to SAE net power ratings on the ModV8.
Yes, I realize that - the 354 and 392 Hemis were available up to 375 hp in their highest states of tune. SAE net this would be about 320 - 325 hp. Of note first generation Hemi engines were not hi-po stuff of muscle car days, these were mostly power plants for led sleds - Imperials, New Yorkers, etc.
The overarching non-ridiculous point is that the Ford Modular has been a proverbial boat anchor for the last decade owing to Ford's atrocious power train development efforts (or lack thereof).
Quote from: GoCougs on March 19, 2010, 11:26:32 AM
And the 331/354/392 Hemi was one heckuva stout motor, also used in many production cars and untold outlandish applications. And curiously, in top tune made more power than any production N/A Modular. The last date of production of the Chrysler FirePower V8 was 51 years ago, and Chevy's 50 year-old throwback has been eating modular lunch since the mid '90s, but I digress...
(I think you guys get the point.)
Aaaaaaah nope. I missed it.
Quote from: Nethead on March 17, 2010, 07:06:53 AM
Wrong. Only if the 'shrodders are bigger. At the same compression ratio and displacement, 'shrodders aren't a match for 'cammers and haven't been for a long time. N
but, in terms of size and packaging, you can get more displacement and more base power/torque from a pushrod engine due to that larger displacement. And pushrod motors have had the ability to rev as high as similarly (and a bit smaller) OHC engines for many years now. It's just that most don't choose to do it because frankly, they don't need to due to being limited in displacement in the same physical package size.
There are always tradeoffs, but both can get the job done. People REALLY need to get over needing to measure their dicks by how some valves are actuated in a 100+ year old air pump.
Quote from: R-inge on March 15, 2010, 03:37:29 PM
Trim perhaps meaning overall size?
Correct.
Quote from: ChrisV on March 21, 2010, 02:04:47 PM
but, in terms of size and packaging, you can get more displacement and more base power/torque from a pushrod engine due to that larger displacement. And pushrod motors have had the ability to rev as high as similarly (and a bit smaller) OHC engines for many years now. It's just that most don't choose to do it because frankly, they don't need to due to being limited in displacement in the same physical package size.
There are always tradeoffs, but both can get the job done. People REALLY need to get over needing to measure their dicks by how some valves are actuated in a 100+ year old air pump.
I want to built a high-revving 302 sometime. Maybe I'll put it in a Datsun 510 or something.
Quote from: ChrisV on March 21, 2010, 02:04:47 PM
but, in terms of size and packaging, you can get more displacement and more base power/torque from a pushrod engine due to that larger displacement. And pushrod motors have had the ability to rev as high as similarly (and a bit smaller) OHC engines for many years now. It's just that most don't choose to do it because frankly, they don't need to due to being limited in displacement in the same physical package size.
There are always tradeoffs, but both can get the job done. People REALLY need to get over needing to measure their dicks by how some valves are actuated in a 100+ year old air pump.
The operative parameter however is not displacement, rpm, valves or any of that. It is simply how much air can be moved.
(Hint, there's a reason why no one but GM and Chysler build pooprod motors, and why they build fewer and fewer pooprod motors every year.)
Quote from: GoCougs on March 21, 2010, 03:30:44 PM
The operative parameter however is not displacement, rpm, valves or any of that. It is simply how much air can be moved.
...and how much it costs to design/manufacture an engine that moves that air.
Quote from: 3.0L V6 on March 21, 2010, 03:43:06 PM
...and how much it costs to design/manufacture an engine that moves that air.
...actually, it's what market forces dictate to be the optimum cost/performance ratio; the market has shown it will gladly pay a bit more for far better technologies; carb. vs. fuel injection, drum vs. disc brakes, solid axle vs. independent suspension, , et al.
That the world's automakers either never went pooprod, transitioned completely out of pooprod, or that the only two of the world's automakers that do make pooprod jettisoned all their pooprods save for a lone example engine each, easily answers that question I think.
But in this modern age of manufacturing I think you'll find the additional cost of superior technologies to be small if not actually cheaper in some cases. Betcha a DOHC motor is no more expensive to produce than a pooprod motor.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 21, 2010, 04:05:12 PM
Betcha a DOHC motor is no more expensive to produce than a pooprod motor.
I'll take that bet. For starters, the block and everything associated with it, probably costs close to the same, so I'll give you that. But you have 4 times the camshafts, double the valves, and a far more complex head to C'n'C. I will go so far as to say that I guarantee a DOHC motor costs more to produce.
You don't know shit Cougs.
Quote from: Nethead on March 22, 2010, 07:53:09 AM
SVT666: HemiDude, it's all relative. If all of your factories are set up to produce modern V8 engines, it will cost a helluva heap to build a pushrod V8. Conversely, if all of your factories are only set up to produce pushrod V8s, it will cost a helluva heap to build a modern V8.
Toolin' up to build engines you don't already build is always major bucks, no matter what kind of engine you intend to build. That's why Ford execs insisted that the new DOHC TiVCT 5.0L V8 use the bore spacing of the current modular V8s--a "simple" modification to change nothing other than just the distances between the centers of the cylinders means massive money is necessary to modify the casting and machining hardware that produces engine blocks and cylinder heads. What if you also had to pay for the machinery to produce single-cam OHV pushrod valve train blocks and heads--vastly more costly than just a bore spacing change?
Naturally, paying for the machinery to produce single- or double- OHC valve train blocks and heads costs shitloads, too--no doubt the major reason GM is covertly feeling out Honda for providing replacements for all the LS series of engines during the twenty-teens.
I guarantee that is costs Ford more to build the 5.0L V8 that goes in the Mustang then it does GM to build the LS3 engines that go in the Camaro and Vette.
Quote from: SVT666 on March 21, 2010, 08:18:04 PM
I'll take that bet. For starters, the block and everything associated with it, probably costs close to the same, so I'll give you that. But you have 4 times the camshafts, double the valves, and a far more complex head to C'n'C. I will go so far as to say that I guarantee a DOHC motor costs more to produce.
You don't know shit Cougs.
As is common with those unfamiliar of engineering, manufacturing, automation, and/or factory/industrial environments, the layman looks only at the amount of material of a manufactured assembly, naive as to what is usually the larger cost component of a complex assembly such as an engine: labor.
The one major labor detriment of the pooprod is that there is less opportunity to employ the Holy Grail of cost-efficient modern manufacturing: parallel processing of sub assemblies. The pooprod valve train can only be partially assembled before the heads must be installed on the block; after the heads must go on the block, the pushrods and rockers are installed, the valve lash adjusted, and then the valve covers (usually with ignition coils) are installed. With a DOHC engine, this is all done as a sub assembly.
If there is cost difference of pooprod vs. DOHC engine, it is measured in scores if not a couple of hundred dollars; meaning on a $20k - $35k vehicle, it is virtually irrelevant. C'mon, this we all know. Duh. The only two automakers that make 'em only make one each having jettisoned all their other pooprods. Plus, though the comparisons are fleeting, we all know in the scant few examples available one does not save money buying a pooprod-powered vehicle vs. its DOHC counterpart.
I have to agree with cougs... mass produced engines (OHC or OHV) cost most manufacturers so little that any difference in price between the two comes down to only a coupel hundred bucks. There is a lot of upfront cost for engineering, for molds, for tooling, for assembly line equipment, for training - and then after that they pop out the engines for peanuts.
Now something like a Ferrari engine is a compeltely different animal as the cast the block themselves and actually CNC every damn piece of the engine from billet stocks.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 22, 2010, 09:19:39 AM
As is common with those unfamiliar of engineering, manufacturing, automation, and/or factory/industrial environments, the layman looks only at the amount of material of a manufactured assembly, naive as to what is usually the larger cost component of a complex assembly such as an engine: labor.
The one major labor detriment of the pooprod is that there is less opportunity to employ the Holy Grail of cost-efficient modern manufacturing: parallel processing of sub assemblies. The pooprod valve train can only be partially assembled before the heads must be installed on the block; after the heads must go on the block, the pushrods and rockers are installed, the valve lash adjusted, and then the valve covers (usually with ignition coils) are installed. With a DOHC engine, this is all done as a sub assembly.
If there is cost difference of pooprod vs. DOHC engine, it is measured in scores if not a couple of hundred dollars; meaning on a $20k - $35k vehicle, it is virtually irrelevant. C'mon, this we all know. Duh. The only two automakers that make 'em only make one each having jettisoned all their other pooprods. Plus, though the comparisons are fleeting, we all know in the scant few examples available one does not save money buying a pooprod-powered vehicle vs. its DOHC counterpart.
It's more labour intensive to put a DOHC head together then a pushrod head. It's also got 4 times the material for the cams and 4 times the C'n'C time. The heads are also more complex for the CNC machine. You've also got 4 times the number of valves valve springs to install and manufacture.
BTW, anyone who thinks the pushrod motors aren't competitive in power delivery, fuel economy, NVH, etc. has never driven one.
CNC?
Quote from: r0tor on March 22, 2010, 09:53:15 AM
I have to agree with cougs... mass produced engines (OHC or OHV) cost most manufacturers so little that any difference in price between the two comes down to only a coupel hundred bucks. There is a lot of upfront cost for engineering, for molds, for tooling, for assembly line equipment, for training - and then after that they pop out the engines for peanuts.
When the engine only costs roughly $4000 to build, a few hundred bucks is a big deal. Let's pick a number out of thin air, say....$250. Let's say it costs a difference of $250 to build a DOHC engine as opposed to an equivalent pushrod engine. That's 7%, which in the automotive manufacturing world is a big number. Especially when manufacturers will do whatever they can to save one screw from a door panel because it saves them $0.02 per door. Four doors times 2 pennies is 8 cents. 8 cents times 250,000 cars is $20,000.
Take the F-150 and the Silverado for example. Let's say they each sell 750,000 copies and let's say the cost difference in the motors is $100. That's $7.5 Million difference in cost.
Quote from: SVT666 on March 22, 2010, 09:55:39 AM
It's more labour intensive to put a DOHC head together then a pushrod head. It's also got 4 times the material for the cams and 4 times the C'n'C time. The heads are also more complex for the CNC machine. You've also got 4 times the number of valves valve springs to install and manufacture.
DHOC engine heads are assembled in subassemblies rather then in the block like OHV so they take less time overall on the production line.
Have you ever seen how fast a cam manufacturer can spit out a cam these days? The cams are casted and then just have touch-up work done on a lathe. Keep in mind the cams themselves on a OHC engine have less manchining involved as its not a single cam trying to operate all the 8 intake and 8 exhaust valves. Pushrods are just as expensive as valve springs.
Any increase costs can be more then made up for in the marketing department.
Quote from: r0tor on March 22, 2010, 10:47:04 AM
DHOC engine heads are assembled in subassemblies rather then in the block like OHV so they take less time overall on the production line.
Which still takes labour.
QuoteHave you ever seen how fast a cam manufacturer can spit out a cam these days? The cams are casted and then just have touch-up work done on a lathe. Keep in mind the cams themselves on a OHC engine have less manchining involved as its not a single cam trying to operate all the 8 intake and 8 exhaust valves. Pushrods are just as expensive as valve springs.
True. But you forget that there's 4 cams versus 1, and there is also 32 valves versus 16. Putting a camshaft and pushrods in a block takes virtually no time at all. Subassembly or not, putting DOHC heads together isn't something you can do in a matter of a couple minutes.
QuoteAny increase costs can be more then made up for in the marketing department.
I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing Cougs' claim that a DOHC engine costs no more to produce then a pushrod. Even if the difference is as little as $200, that is big money in an industry that does everything it can to use one less screw in a door assembly.
This one's really pretty simple guys, and SVT666 is correct.
No, SVT666 is wrong on most all levels.
First, typically there are only 2 times the valves (not 4 times as he asserted) and depending on the engine, 2 or 4 times the number of cams (which have fewer lobes). Further, as we know pooprod engines will have the pooprod, and larger/beefier valves, lifters, springs retainers, etc.
Second, "putting a camshaft and pushrods in a block takes virtually no time at all" is ignorant and typical of a statement of someone who has never done it. Most notably, this all has to be done on the complete engine assembly (i.e., heads already bolted onto the block). ALL of this for a DOHC engine can be done as a sub assembly.
Third, the continued assertion that the amount of "stuff" defines the cost of the assembly is simply incorrect. TIME is the biggest component here, and the pooprod engine has less opportunity for sub assembling = more labor costs.
Fourth, there is indeed typically more machining on a DOHC head but automated machine work is mega cheap. Also do not forget that pooprod machining isn't trivial as the valve train elements are larger and beefier and more involved (16 lobe cam).
If the average DOHC cost more DUH automakers wouldn't have gone that direction, including GM and Dodge who have jettisoned all pooprods save for one engine each. There is no argument here other than to provide a continued platform for people to troll upon.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 22, 2010, 12:52:24 PM
No, SVT666 is wrong on most all levels.
Wrong, but you are.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 22, 2010, 12:52:24 PM
First, typically there are only 2 times the valves (not 4 times as he asserted) and depending on the engine, 2 or 4 times the number of cams (which have fewer lobes). Further, as we know pooprod engines will have the pooprod, and larger/beefier valves, lifters, springs retainers, etc.
Having been in the engine building business for 30 years, I can tell you you that the valvetrain component cost for an OHV engine is FAR less than for a DOHC one, regardless of the size/beefiness of the components, and pushrods are literally a dime a dozen.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 22, 2010, 12:52:24 PM
Second, "putting a camshaft and pushrods in a block takes virtually no time at all" is ignorant and typical of a statement of someone who has never done it.
Most notably, this all has to be done on the complete engine assembly (i.e., heads already bolted onto the block). ALL of this for a DOHC engine can be done as a sub assembly.
I've done it hundreds of times and it takes virtually no time. Besides, you seem to believe that assembling a complete DOHC head doesn't take any time.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 22, 2010, 12:52:24 PM
Third, the continued assertion that the amount of "stuff" defines the cost of the assembly is simply incorrect.
Wrong again. Price out all that stuff and get back to me.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 22, 2010, 12:52:24 PMTIME is the biggest component here, and the pooprod engine has less opportunity for sub assembling = more labor costs.
I've covered that. It doesn't matter if it's done in subassemblies or not. They still require TIME to assemble.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 22, 2010, 12:52:24 PM
Fourth, there is indeed typically more machining on a DOHC head but automated machine work is mega cheap. Also do not forget that pooprod machining isn't trivial as the valve train elements are larger and beefier and more involved (16 lobe cam).
If the average DOHC cost more DUH automakers wouldn't have gone that direction, including GM and Dodge who have jettisoned all pooprods save for one engine each. There is no argument here other than to provide a continued platform for people to troll upon.
If you really don't understand why manufacturers are going to smaller displacement, more efficient engines, I don't know what to tell you.
:huh:
Quote from: Cobra93 on March 22, 2010, 01:38:09 PM
Price out all that stuff and get back to me.
consumer prices do not equal OEM prices by any stretch of the imagination.
If Ford used 750,000 identical cams, they will absolutely get them much much cheaper then if GM is only ording 20,000 cams, who gets them much much much cheaper then if you order some out of Jegs catalogue
Quote from: GoCougs on March 22, 2010, 12:52:24 PM
No, SVT666 is wrong on most all levels.
First, typically there are only 2 times the valves (not 4 times as he asserted) and depending on the engine, 2 or 4 times the number of cams (which have fewer lobes). Further, as we know pooprod engines will have the pooprod, and larger/beefier valves, lifters, springs retainers, etc.
Yeah the "4 times the valves" was typo that I corrected in a following post.
QuoteIf the average DOHC cost more DUH automakers wouldn't have gone that direction, including GM and Dodge who have jettisoned all pooprods save for one engine each. There is no argument here other than to provide a continued platform for people to troll upon.
Cobra pulled your arguments apart in his post so I won't bother except for this one.
In I4 and V6 engines, the OHC configuration makes for smoother running engines, but in V8 trim, the pushrods are very smooth and NVH isn't a problem.
Quote from: r0tor on March 22, 2010, 01:47:08 PM
consumer prices do not equal OEM prices by any stretch of the imagination.
If Ford used 750,000 identical cams, they will absolutely get them much much cheaper then if GM is only ording 20,000 cams
If Ford is building 750,000 engines, they will be getting 750,000 of one grind and 750,000 of another grind (SOHC exhaust/intake). GM will be ordering 750,000 of one grind and that's it. Ford won't be getting 1.5 Million cams for the same price as the 750,000 GM ordered. Cost per unit might be less, but it certainly won't be a 2 for 1 deal.
Let me summarize: yes, there is less stuff (material, components) in a pooprod engine but there is also less opportunity to economize on labor, and yes, labor costs more than stuff.
The experience of building an engine by hand one at a time is not related in any way to the supply chain process of assembling 50,000, 100,000 or 400,000 engines a year.
"Small displacement" is not a factor as engines have not increased in displacement much at all in 30+ years; in many cases they've gotten bigger as evidenced by the average V6 displacing 3.5L.
In short, r0tor and I are correct (and why almost no one makes pooprods and GM and Dodge jettisoned all pooprods save for one engine each.
EDIT: that was too snobby ;)
Quote from: r0tor on March 22, 2010, 01:47:08 PM
consumer prices do not equal OEM prices by any stretch of the imagination.
If Ford used 750,000 identical cams, they will absolutely get them much much cheaper then if GM is only ording 20,000 cams, who gets them much much much cheaper then if you order some out of Jegs catalogue
:orly: You mean I can't buy cams as cheap as Ford? This should be obvious, but comparing consumer prices can still yield a fairly accurate representation of comparing OEM costs. SVT666 covered the other obvious one. All cams aren't the same grind.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 22, 2010, 01:58:23 PM
Let me summarize: yes, there is less stuff (material, components) in a pooprod engine but there is also less opportunity to economize on labor, and yes, labor costs more than stuff.
The experience of building an engine by hand one at a time is not related in any way to the supply chain process of assembling 50,000, 100,000 or 400,000 engines a year.
"Small displacement" is not a factor as engines have not increased in displacement much at all in 30+ years; in many cases they've gotten bigger as evidenced by the average V6 displacing 3.5L.
In short, r0tor and I are correct (and coincidentally, are engineers who work in factories and automation, but my snobby self digresses), and why almost no one makes pooprods and GM and Dodge jettisoned all pooprods save for one engine each.
Then you should know how much of the engine assembly is automated. Yet another reason why it's far cheaper to build an OHV engine
Quote from: Raza on March 22, 2010, 09:57:25 AM
CNC?
Computer Numerical Control.
Basically, a lathe/saw/drill/tool that you put data into and it creates the part automatically.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNPojGFg9-8
:ohyeah:
Quote from: GoCougs on March 22, 2010, 01:58:23 PM
Let me summarize: yes, there is less stuff (material, components) in a pooprod engine but there is also less opportunity to economize on labor, and yes, labor costs more than stuff.
The experience of building an engine by hand one at a time is not related in any way to the supply chain process of assembling 50,000, 100,000 or 400,000 engines a year.
"Small displacement" is not a factor as engines have not increased in displacement much at all in 30+ years; in many cases they've gotten bigger as evidenced by the average V6 displacing 3.5L.
In short, r0tor and I are correct (and why almost no one makes pooprods and GM and Dodge jettisoned all pooprods save for one engine each.
EDIT: that was too snobby ;)
You're an engineer...you also have the attitude of an engineer. You have a God-like view of yourself, which is the stereotypical engineer. The man you're arguing with (Cobra93) actually does this for a fucking living you idiot. He's int he engine business. Fuck, sometimes you can be so goddamn stubborn that you make yourself look really really stupid. Another trait of an engineer.
Quote from: giant_mtb on March 22, 2010, 02:26:07 PM
Computer Numerical Control.
Basically, a lathe/saw/drill/tool that you put data into and it creates the part automatically.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNPojGFg9-8
:ohyeah:
Oh, okay. I think I did something similar in shop (much simpler, obviously).
Quote from: Cobra93 on March 22, 2010, 02:03:30 PM
Then you should know how much of the engine assembly is automated. Yet another reason why it's far cheaper to build an OHV engine
Yes, it's very automated, but the level of automation doesn't necessarily change based upon the style of engine. Let's look at it this way; how has it that a Malibu today with DOHC V6 and 6sp AT is no more expensive than its pushrod V6/4sp AT counterpart of 10 years ago?
Because these more advanced technologies can be tailored for modern manufacturing methods and technologies. Let's look at the extreme example of electronics. Transistor style electronics have vastly more parts and infinitely more complexity than their vacuum tube counterparts of 40 or 50 years ago. Not only is your average radio or TV an infinitely better product it is far less expensive.
So what gives? How can a printed circuit board be less expensive to manufacture than vacuum tubes? One significant reason is sub assemblies. Each individual chip, transistor, capacitor, resister, et al., can be manufactured as a sub assembly in extreme numbers. If the average TV or PC couldn't be sub assembly'd they'd literally cost millions of dollars.
Quote from: SVT666 on March 22, 2010, 02:33:44 PM
You're an engineer...you also have the attitude of an engineer. You have a God-like view of yourself, which is the stereotypical engineer. The man you're arguing with (Cobra93) actually does this for a fucking living you idiot. He's int he engine business. Fuck, sometimes you can be so goddamn stubborn that you make yourself look really really stupid. Another trait of an engineer.
I can't help it that I do this stuff every day for a living, and have been doing so in various capacities for 15 years.
Cobra93 certainly has knowledge but as I understand his business is relatively small; meaning, no robots, no massive supply chain, no shifts, etc.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 22, 2010, 02:58:53 PM
Yes, it's very automated, but the level of automation doesn't necessarily change based upon the style of engine. Let's look at it this way; how has it that a Malibu today with DOHC V6 and 6sp AT is no more expensive than its pushrod V6/4sp AT counterpart of 10 years ago?
Because these more advanced technologies can be tailored for modern manufacturing methods and technologies. Let's look at the extreme example of electronics. Transistor style electronics have vastly more parts and infinitely more complexity than their vacuum tube counterparts of 40 or 50 years ago. Not only is your average radio or TV an infinitely better product it is far less expensive.
So what gives? How can a printed circuit board be less expensive to manufacture than vacuum tubes? One significant reason is sub assemblies. Each individual chip, transistor, capacitor, resister, et al., can be manufactured as a sub assembly in extreme numbers. If the average TV or PC couldn't be sub assembly'd they'd literally cost millions of dollars.
Given your context of comparing modern manufacturing processes to those from the pushrod engine era, I'd agree that a current design DOHC engine isn't much more labor intensive than it's OHV counterpart. Were both designs to be produced by modern manufacturing processes, the OHV would be less labor intensive. Also, keep in mind that the two remaining pushrod V8's both use non adjustable rockers, so forget about adding in time for lash adjustment.
:popcorn:
InsideLine dynoed the 5.0:
http://blogs.insideline.com/straightline/2010/03/inside-line-dyno-tests-the-2011-ford-mustang-gt-50.html
At the wheels it's making 395hp@6600rpm, with 350lbp-ft@4150-5500rpm.
I'm flummoxed. This is much more impressive than I was expecting. I looked around and found 2 results for a new Camaro SS, one with 365hp, the other with 385hp. Given that I have to say, Wow!
When is the 5.0 for sale?
Quote from: mojammer on March 24, 2010, 10:14:34 PM
InsideLine dynoed the 5.0:
http://blogs.insideline.com/straightline/2010/03/inside-line-dyno-tests-the-2011-ford-mustang-gt-50.html
At the wheels it's making 395hp@6600rpm, with 350lbp-ft@4150-5500rpm.
I'm flummoxed. This is much more impressive than I was expecting. I looked around and found 2 results for a new Camaro SS, one with 365hp, the other with 385hp. Given that I have to say, Wow!
395 hp at the wheels puts it at approx. 480 hp at the crank assuming an 18% drivetrain loss. Somehow, I have a hard time believing that.
EDIT: They claim there's only an 11% drivetrain loss in the Mustang, which I also find hard to believe. But based on that it's still at 445 hp.
EDIT 2: I see they're using a Dynojet. That could explain the high numbers. The Mustang aftermarket shop I used in Calgary always told me to use a Dynojet for bragging rights and a Mustang Dyno for accuracy. They said they've seen some big discrepencies between the two dynos.
At 412bhp, that's a 4.1% drivetrain loss....assuming a conservative 12%, crank output is 442...
I can't wait to see this thing in convertible form.
Uh, who are going to trust for engine hp rating; the $100B company that is Ford or the gossip mag outfit worth maybe $5MM?
Never trust a chassis dyno for absolute hp figures for anything better than about 5% accuracy (and that's best case).
The new Mustang GT is not making 395 rwhp. Figure in the 330-340 rwhp range.
This car will likely wipe the floor with the new Camaro in a straight line, as it's 300 lbs. lighter and could be pumping out a hell of a lot of horsepower. Let's see how it does in the real world.
Quote from: the Teuton on March 25, 2010, 09:55:09 AM
This car will likely wipe the floor with the new Camaro in a straight line, as it's 300 lbs. lighter and could be pumping out a hell of a lot of horsepower. Let's see how it does in the real world.
"Likely" I think is a bit of an overstatement IMO for at least two reasons:
First, inter-Ford politics - Ford has the GT500 that can barely outrun the Camaro SS. Will Ford
let a $30k GT version run as quick or quicker than the $48k version?
Second, it's more than weight; the 3,900 lb 540 hp GT500 can barely outrun the Camaro SS because of traction/wheel hop issues. Will these problems go away for a 3,500 lb 412 hp GT?
Perhaps Ford will fix the chassis/suspension/traction issues in both the 2011 GT500 and GT, ratcheting both cars up the quickness scale yet maintaining an acceptable margin for the GT500, but I have my doubts simply owing to the inherent flaws and limitations of a live rear axle.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 25, 2010, 10:06:35 AM
"Likely" I think is a bit of an overstatement IMO for at least two reasons:
First, inter-Ford politics - Ford has the GT500 that can barely outrun the Camaro SS. Will Ford let a $30k GT version run as quick or quicker than the $48k version?
Second, it's more than weight; the 3,900 lb 540 hp GT500 can barely outrun the Camaro SS because of traction/wheel hop issues. Will these problems go away for a 3,500 lb 412 hp GT?
Perhaps Ford will fix the chassis/suspension/traction issues in both the 2011 GT500 and GT, ratcheting both cars up the quickness scale yet maintaining an acceptable margin for the GT500, but I have my doubts simply owing to the inherent flaws and limitations of a live rear axle.
Wheel hop?
Wheel hop?That tells me you haven't seen a GT500 at the dragstrip.
Quote from: FoMoJo on March 25, 2010, 10:52:07 AM
Wheel hop? Wheel hop?
That tells me you haven't seen a GT500 at the dragstrip.
LOLzers - check :50+ in GT500 wheel hop (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA34vVAUhG8). It's been a known (or so I thought) problem with the car, or at least the first generation.
And just for good measure here's a GT500 getting walked by a stock Camaro SS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LJrxyy3ROk) (albeit it's the 500 hp '07 GT500).
As long as Ford sticks with a rear live axle the Mustang will always need more hp/lb than the Camaro to run even or better.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 25, 2010, 11:38:54 AM
LOLzers - check :50+ in GT500 wheel hop (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA34vVAUhG8). It's been a known (or so I thought) problem with the car, or at least the first generation.
And just for good measure here's a GT500 getting walked by a stock Camaro SS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LJrxyy3ROk) (albeit it's the 500 hp '07 GT500).
You should probably read the description of the video:
race 1: shelby 2008, JLT INTAKE/SCT TUNER/PULLEY PACKAGE jba long headers ,jba hi flow cats , ford racing catback VS
camaro 2010 Supercharged, Auto trans, Torque Converter , Nitto NT555R drag radials , full exhaust system no cats, Camshaft , MagnaCharger
Quote from: Cobra93 on March 25, 2010, 11:42:16 AM
You should probably read the description of the video:
race 1: shelby 2008, JLT INTAKE/SCT TUNER/PULLEY PACKAGE jba long headers ,jba hi flow cats , ford racing catback VS camaro 2010 Supercharged, Auto trans, Torque Converter , Nitto NT555R drag radials , full exhaust system no cats, Camshaft , MagnaCharger
Whoa - that's a big "Oops." The Camaro still won however.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 25, 2010, 11:44:16 AM
Whoa - that's a big "Oops." The Camaro still won however.
Yes it did. And they were both modified. But as you have already pointed out, stock for stock, the GT500 is faster. Not enough for the price difference IMO...
Quote from: Cobra93 on March 25, 2010, 11:48:30 AM
Yes it did. And they were both modified. But as you have already pointed out, stock for stock, the GT500 is faster. Not enough for the price difference IMO...
I know, I shoulda put a smile on that one...
LOL at Cougs.
Cougs and Nethead are getting more retarded by the day.
In all seriousness, if the Mustang GT is quicker than the Camaro SS, and then by extension as quick or quicker than the GT500, what then?
If the Camaro SS's superior performance and sales turned Mustangists' world on its ear, what the heck will such an Ford internal/incestuous conundrum do?
Quote from: GoCougs on March 25, 2010, 01:30:04 PM
In all seriousness, if the Mustang GT is quicker than the Camaro SS, and then by extension as quick or quicker than the GT500, what then?
No. The GT500 now weighs 120 lbs less then the last version and has an additional 10 hp. If anything the GT500 will finally live up to it's hype.
MY PENIS IS BIGGER THAN YOUR PENIS.
^ That's what you guys sound like.
Quote from: giant_mtb on March 25, 2010, 02:02:58 PM
MY PENIS IS BIGGER THAN YOUR PENIS.
^ That's what you guys sound like.
:hesaid:
I
Quote from: giant_mtb on March 25, 2010, 02:02:58 PM
MY PENIS IS BIGGER THAN YOUR PENIS.
^ That's what you guys sound like.
I think it's more about muzzle velocity. :pee:
Quote from: giant_mtb on March 25, 2010, 02:02:58 PM
MY PENIS IS BIGGER THAN YOUR PENIS.
^ That's what you guys sound like.
I rented a penis last week that was bigger than any of these guys'.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on March 25, 2010, 03:44:18 PM
I rented a penis last week that was bigger than any of these guys'.
Indeed.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on March 25, 2010, 03:44:18 PM
I rented a penis last week that was bigger than any of these guys'.
Hope that doesn't get taken out of context. :confused:
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on March 25, 2010, 03:44:18 PM
I rented a penis last week that was bigger than any of these guys'.
:lol:
Reno has real "dude ranches" I'm sure...
I predict that this will be the 5.0's performance:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/09q4/2010_roush_ford_mustang_427r-specialty_file
It's quicker than the 4.6 GT, but slower than the GT500. About as quick as the Camaro SS.
Quote from: mojammer on March 26, 2010, 01:11:53 AM
I predict that this will be the 5.0's performance:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/09q4/2010_roush_ford_mustang_427r-specialty_file
It's quicker than the 4.6 GT, but slower than the GT500. About as quick as the Camaro SS.
Tuner/modified cars rarely if ever make good use of extra power (highlighting the difference between design and engineering).
That said, and given the GT500's performance, I agree the new GT 5.0 acceleration will be about that of the Camaro SS.
Quote from: mojammer on March 26, 2010, 01:11:53 AM
I predict that this will be the 5.0's performance:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/09q4/2010_roush_ford_mustang_427r-specialty_file
It's quicker than the 4.6 GT, but slower than the GT500. About as quick as the Camaro SS.
It could be, but the Roush weighs 100 lbs more then the GT and only has the 5 speed. There's too many unknowns right now. When you get into the mid-4s it takes a lot to increase a little. It's going to be close to this car, but I still think it will be faster then what you see there. The 2011 GT has 100 more horsepower then the 2010 GT and only 23 extra pounds. I think it will be closer to 4.5 or 4.6 seconds to 60 mph. But we're going to have to wait and see until next month when the reviews start coming out.
I am tired of hearing the "fuel efficient engines". It should be "fuel efficient powertrains". Gearing and drivetrain loss play a big part in fuel efficiency.
Quote from: Nethead on March 26, 2010, 09:13:13 AM
Raza: Convertibilia: Roadtests (and videos?) are coming this week-end, and this blog from www.mustangblog.com says the convertibles will be there, too:
2011 Ford Mustang GT Photo Tease
By Matt Rigney March 26th, 2010
http://www.mustangblog.com/blog/1043751_2011-ford-mustang-gt-photo-tease
Hopefully by now most of you know the 2011 Mustang will be coming very soon with two new fuel efficient engines for the V-6 and GT models. For the 2011 Mustang GT an all-new all aluminum 5.0-liter V-8 with 412 horsepower and 390 pound feet or torque will deliver class leading 26 mpg highway fuel economy. For the less powerful 2011 Mustang V-6 it will offer a new 3.7-liter 305 horsepower engine delivering a 19 mpg city and 31 mpg highway fuel economy which is a first for any vehicle on the planet. To get an up close personal assessment of both vehicles our own automotive aficionado Marty Padgett had the pleasure of driving both 2011 Mustang GT and V-6 models in coupe and convertible forms. We will see complete reviews of the first drive on all 2011 Mustang models Sunday night at 12:01 a.m. over at TheCarConnection.com. For now Mr. Padgett has given us some photos to post of the 2011 Mustang GT drop top to wet our appetites for the buffet that awaits us Sunday night. Check out all the 2011 Mustang teaser photos below in the gallery.
(http://images.thecarconnection.com/med/ford_100309037_m.jpg)
(http://images.thecarconnection.com/med/ford_100309030_m.jpg)
Looks pretty good!
I love the red leather :wub:
I met a guy on the plane 2 weeks ago who lives in Seattle. He's a got a 2005 GT in black with red leather and only 20,000 miles. He's looking to sell it to buy a new 2011 5.0L. I want his car in a bad bad way.
Looks clean. Not sure why Ford can't spec nice looking wheels though. These are not terrible but there's many wheels out there that complement the Mustang much better IMO.
Quote from: Catman on March 26, 2010, 10:53:18 AM
Looks clean. Not sure why Ford can't spec nice looking wheels though. These are not terrible but there's many wheels out there that complement the Mustang much better IMO.
I know. The only wheels on the Stang that I really like are the Track Pack and Bullitt wheels.
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/03/2010mustanggtabg_06_opt.jpg)
(http://www.autospies.com/images/users/bustamove/ford_mustang_bullitt_95.jpg)
Quote from: Catman on March 26, 2010, 10:53:18 AM
Looks clean. Not sure why Ford can't spec nice looking wheels though. These are not terrible but there's many wheels out there that complement the Mustang much better IMO.
Yeah, the wheels are kind of lame. Maybe it's the silver paint on the car though; silver doesn't work on this car.
Quote from: SVT666 on March 26, 2010, 11:01:07 AM
I know. The only wheels on the Stang that I really like are the Track Pack and Bullitt wheels.
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/03/2010mustanggtabg_06_opt.jpg)
(http://www.autospies.com/images/users/bustamove/ford_mustang_bullitt_95.jpg)
I like those fine. The top is pretty nice but a little more tire might be better.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 26, 2010, 09:23:48 AM
Tuner/modified cars rarely if ever make good use of extra power (highlighting the difference between design and engineering).
That said, and given the GT500's performance, I agree the new GT 5.0 acceleration will be about that of the Camaro SS.
The previous GT500 versions have never lived up to their hp for the simple fact that they have horrible weight distributiuon. With 800 lbs of engine/blower over the front wheels there is no weight over the rear wheels and traction has always been horrendous.
The 5.0 GT will not suffer from this problem, much like the current GT, I will not be surprised to see it putting down better times than a 2010 GT500 at least to 60.
Quote from: SVT666 on March 22, 2010, 09:55:39 AM
BTW, anyone who thinks the pushrod motors aren't competitive in power delivery, fuel economy, NVH, etc. has never driven one.
I currently have both a hemi in the jeep and obviously a DOHC 4.6. NVH still goes to the 4.6, the hemi is fine until pushing near redline and then it gets thrashy.
Further the 5.7 fuel economy comes from the DOD, when lugging around on 4 cylinders the hemi can be coarse and doesn't sound all that nice.
That said I like them both and they are different and each has thier strengths and weaknesses. Both fit their application well.
Quote from: Raza on March 26, 2010, 10:12:23 AM
(http://images.thecarconnection.com/med/ford_100309037_m.jpg)
(http://images.thecarconnection.com/med/ford_100309030_m.jpg)
Looks pretty good!
For some reason the side and hood lines look a little frumpy on that car. Maybe the convertible top + silver paint are the culprits?
I like the folding rear headrest.
Quote from: hotrodalex on March 27, 2010, 10:05:19 AM
For some reason the side and hood lines look a little frumpy on that car. Maybe the convertible top + silver paint are the culprits?
Silver paint and bad wheels make any car look less than special.
Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on March 27, 2010, 11:57:11 AM
I like the folding rear headrest.
Didn't even notice that. :rockon:
Nethead continues to post asinine press releases!
Posted March 28 2010 11:00 PM by the Teuton
Filed under: Please, please stop -- for the love of god
Nethead believes no one out there knows how to use the internet, so he posts press releases for everyone.
CarSPIN is blessed to have some of the internet's foremost Mustang trolls. But move aside Hemi, SVT, or whatver the fuck your name is anymore because Nethead is coming to town to repost Autoblog, Jalopnik, and wired Ford press releases on the 'Spin for you! Hailing from Bumfuckville, Pa. right to the north of the Teuton, Nethead claims that he is spreading the word of the lord, Henry Ford, to enlighten the masses to the benefits of solid rear axles at a time when even trucks are starting to get independent rear suspensions and coil springs.
Praying to his modular V8's gnarly growl, the Nethead does not believe in the first person -- that is, because the Mustang is the only thing that comes first in his heart. His living room furniture is comprised of old boxes that held Motorcraft car supplies some years ago. And back when his first word spoken after 'Fox' was apparently 'Mustang,' followed by 'Falcon,' 'Cleveland,' and 'Lido.' The Nethead married the first girl he met at a Ford swap meet, and he once attempted to burn down Yenko Chevrolet which sits just a short trip from his hometown.
You see, Nethead will continue to post these shitty press releases, ignoring that people understand what a mouse does, and ignoring the fact that we all probably have read the same press releases well before he ever posts them here. But they make him feel good, and he believes he's actually pissing off Cougs and any other Camaro troll, so we'll continue to let him do it. But, honestly, it's getting tired as hell, and he probably should stop.
Stay tuned!
Interesting news.
Quote from: the Teuton on March 28, 2010, 08:58:25 PM
Nethead continues to post asinine press releases!
Posted March 28 2010 11:00 PM by the Teuton
Filed under: Please, please stop -- for the love of god
Nethead believes no one out there knows how to use the internet, so he posts press releases for everyone.
CarSPIN is blessed to have some of the internet's foremost Mustang trolls. But move aside Hemi, SVT, or whatver the fuck your name is anymore because Nethead is coming to town to repost Autoblog, Jalopnik, and wired Ford press releases on the 'Spin for you! Hailing from Bumfuckville, Pa. right to the north of the Teuton, Nethead claims that he is spreading the word of the lord, Henry Ford, to enlighten the masses to the benefits of solid rear axles at a time when even trucks are starting to get independent rear suspensions and coil springs.
Praying to his modular V8's gnarly growl, the Nethead does not believe in the first person -- that is, because the Mustang is the only thing that comes first in his heart. His living room furniture is comprised of old boxes that held Motorcraft car supplies some years ago. And back when his first word spoken after 'Fox' was apparently 'Mustang,' followed by 'Falcon,' 'Cleveland,' and 'Lido.' The Nethead married the first girl he met at a Ford swap meet, and he once attempted to burn down Yenko Chevrolet which sits just a short trip from his hometown.
You see, Nethead will continue to post these shitty press releases, ignoring that people understand what a mouse does, and ignoring the fact that we all probably have read the same press releases well before he ever posts them here. But they make him feel good, and he believes he's actually pissing off Cougs and any other Camaro troll, so we'll continue to let him do it. But, honestly, it's getting tired as hell, and he probably should stop.
Stay tuned!
:lol: Brilliant!
That's so mean. Seriously, The NetHead's world got turned on its ear with the sales and performance success of the Camaro; he needs this elixir, this punching bag, this pressure-relief valve. It's ugly, but it's necessary.
SVT666 implicitly benefits too, but his recent efforts at trying to separate himself from Uber Mega Mustang Jihadist Status have had a modicum of success lately (albeit coming off a bit forced) ultimately staving the necessity of it.
Seems like Mustang sales are on the rise.
Quote from: the Teuton on March 28, 2010, 08:58:25 PM
Nethead continues to post asinine press releases!
Posted March 28 2010 11:00 PM by the Teuton
Filed under: Please, please stop -- for the love of god
Nethead believes no one out there knows how to use the internet, so he posts press releases for everyone.
CarSPIN is blessed to have some of the internet's foremost Mustang trolls. But move aside Hemi, SVT, or whatver the fuck your name is anymore because Nethead is coming to town to repost Autoblog, Jalopnik, and wired Ford press releases on the 'Spin for you! Hailing from Bumfuckville, Pa. right to the north of the Teuton, Nethead claims that he is spreading the word of the lord, Henry Ford, to enlighten the masses to the benefits of solid rear axles at a time when even trucks are starting to get independent rear suspensions and coil springs.
Praying to his modular V8's gnarly growl, the Nethead does not believe in the first person -- that is, because the Mustang is the only thing that comes first in his heart. His living room furniture is comprised of old boxes that held Motorcraft car supplies some years ago. And back when his first word spoken after 'Fox' was apparently 'Mustang,' followed by 'Falcon,' 'Cleveland,' and 'Lido.' The Nethead married the first girl he met at a Ford swap meet, and he once attempted to burn down Yenko Chevrolet which sits just a short trip from his hometown.
You see, Nethead will continue to post these shitty press releases, ignoring that people understand what a mouse does, and ignoring the fact that we all probably have read the same press releases well before he ever posts them here. But they make him feel good, and he believes he's actually pissing off Cougs and any other Camaro troll, so we'll continue to let him do it. But, honestly, it's getting tired as hell, and he probably should stop.
Stay tuned!
:clap: :cheers:
Quote from: GoCougs on March 28, 2010, 10:09:03 PM
SVT666 implicitly benefits too, but his recent efforts at trying to separate himself from Uber Mega Mustang Jihadist Status have had a modicum of success lately (albeit coming off a bit forced) ultimately staving the necessity of it.
I'm putting some distance between he and I because he's extreme. I'm far more balanced then either of you...as evidenced by my review of the Camaro. You are almost as much of a "Camaro jihadist" as he is with the Mustang. Coincidentally, neither of you have driven either car.
Quote from: SVT666 on March 28, 2010, 10:28:16 PM
I'm putting some distance between he and I because he's extreme. I'm far more balanced then either of you...as evidenced by my review of the Camaro. You are almost as much of a "Camaro jihadist" as he is with the Mustang. Coincidentally, neither of you have driven either car.
Straw Man Cometh (again).
Just read the 2011 V6 mustang will be the second Ford to get Ford's new 6 speed DSG tranny.... bravo! :clap:
Despite Nethead's nauseating trolling, I find myself falling for the new 'Stang. And I'm a lifelong Chevy and Mopar guy.
Quote from: r0tor on March 29, 2010, 05:48:17 AM
Just read the 2011 V6 mustang will be the second Ford to get Ford's new 6 speed DSG tranny.... bravo! :clap:
Is that Ford's first attempt at a DSG?
Quote from: Schadenfreude on March 29, 2010, 09:35:45 AM
Is that Ford's first attempt at a DSG?
They are using a system they developed with Getrag.... which means its probably the same as the BMW and Ferrari versions (I believe Borg Werner still does the VW version)
395 whp? Ford really brought their game this time around
Motor Trend first test:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_1003_2011_ford_mustang_gt_premium_test/acceleration_performance.html (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_1003_2011_ford_mustang_gt_premium_test/acceleration_performance.html)
"Equipped with the available 3.73 rear axle ($395), our 5.0 needed just 4.3 seconds to hit 60 and only 12.8 at 110.8 mph to knockout the quarter mile. To answer the million-dollar question: Yes, it's quicker than both the 426-horsepower Chevy Camaro SS (4.5, 12.9 at 110.7) and the 425-horse Dodge Challenger SRT-8 (4.6, 13.1 at 108.4). It's also not that far behind the 540-horse supercharged 2010 Shelby GT500, which requires 4.1 and 12.4 at 116.0. In the league of naturally aspirated muscle cars, the new Mustang GT is in a league of its own.'
Holy shit! Take that Chevy! Ford needs a heavy revamping of the GT500 now. The price difference is wholly unjustifiable.
It's official. I'll wait for a used 2011 for my next Mustang.
Quote from: SVT666 on March 29, 2010, 12:41:44 PM
It's official. I'll wait for a used 2011 for my next Mustang.
You sure you wouldn't like a slightly used 2005? :lol:
Quote from: Cobra93 on March 29, 2010, 12:43:11 PM
You sure you wouldn't like a slightly used 2005? :lol:
Yours? Yes I would. Blow By Racing makes awesome Stage 2 heads and cams for it that when coupled with a tune and a WMS Velocity Intake boost horsepower to well over 400 hp.
Quote from: Cobra93 on March 29, 2010, 12:36:15 PM
Motor Trend first test:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_1003_2011_ford_mustang_gt_premium_test/acceleration_performance.html (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_1003_2011_ford_mustang_gt_premium_test/acceleration_performance.html)
Nice. Still wouldn't touch it with a 10 ft. pole, But NICE!
the 5.0 Mustang is really looking to be the bee's knees. too bad it doesn't look as cool as the Camaro.
oh, well...I won't complain about it being the only choice for a 400+ hp convertible priced below the Corvette
Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on March 29, 2010, 07:46:14 PM
Nice. Still wouldn't touch it with a 10 ft. pole, But NICE!
If you were in a Camaro SS, it would be too far ahead for you to touch it with a 10 foot pole. :lol:
Okay. that's enough Netheadism. :mask:
Ever since this road test was posted, this thread has been suspiciously devoid of Cougs.
this is what sold me: http://www.autoblog.com/2010/03/29/2011-ford-mustang-gt-first-drive/ (http://www.autoblog.com/2010/03/29/2011-ford-mustang-gt-first-drive/)
QuoteAs far as the never ending live rear end vs. independent suspension argument goes, we're saying the following: The 2011 Ford Mustang GT sports the very best solid rear axle in the world. We'd rather have the best solid axle than a mediocre multi-point rear. Hint, hint, Chevy. 'Nuff said.
QuoteSpeed, handling, soundtrack, brakes, interior (the GT is actually creeping into Audi levels of interior sophistication ? look at those seats!), fit and finish ? you name it, the Mustang's the superior sports car.
Speaking of Audi, the 5.0 makes the 354-hp S5 look like an overpriced slowpoke. We've driven both cars in anger and the 2011 Mustang GT is not only faster, but is actually rear-wheel drive, not a FWD platform fitted with Quattro all-wheel drive. Want us to go even further? We'd prefer the Mustang GT to a BMW 650i. Sure, the BMW has dash leather and... iDrive. But (again), the GT makes more power (the 650i manages 360 hp), handles better and is quieter unless you're really belting the throttle. Also, Sync's a whole lot better than iDrive, even the much improved new iDrive. Not only that, but the GT's new 5.0-liter V8 engine is in another league than (previous) competitors like the Nissan 370Z and Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8. Getting the point? In 2011, the Mustang GT is the car to beat. Welcome back, 5.0.
Quote from: Raza on March 26, 2010, 10:12:23 AM
(http://images.thecarconnection.com/med/ford_100309037_m.jpg)
(http://images.thecarconnection.com/med/ford_100309030_m.jpg)
Looks pretty good!
It does indeed.
Quote from: SVT666 on March 26, 2010, 11:01:07 AM
I know. The only wheels on the Stang that I really like are the Track Pack and Bullitt wheels.
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/03/2010mustanggtabg_06_opt.jpg)
(http://www.autospies.com/images/users/bustamove/ford_mustang_bullitt_95.jpg)
And goodness me - the old rear end looks so much nicer than the new one! Still, I wouldn't really see that from the driver's seat.
I can't wait to see this engine go into the Falcon.
I think Autoblog was gushing a bit much, but I acknowledge their general point.
DO WANT!
A4...or Mustang...
:cry:
Quote from: the Teuton on March 29, 2010, 10:38:28 PM
Neither. E46 M3.
I'm sure it's a great car, but given the opportunity to get a brand new vehicle...I'm gonna take a brand new vehicle.
Looks like HotRodPilot has got himself one helluva car. Am jealous. :rockon:
Quote from: Cobra93 on March 29, 2010, 08:13:24 PM
If you were in a Camaro SS, it would be too far ahead for you to touch it with a 10 foot pole. :lol:
Okay. that's enough Netheadism. :mask:
:pee: Cobra93
:lol: Good one!
Quote from: SVT666 on March 29, 2010, 09:26:56 PM
Speaking of Audi, the 5.0 makes the 354-hp S5 look like an overpriced slowpoke. We've driven both cars in anger and the 2011 Mustang GT is not only faster, but is actually rear-wheel drive, not a FWD platform fitted with Quattro all-wheel drive. Want us to go even further? We'd prefer the Mustang GT to a BMW 650i. Sure, the BMW has dash leather and... iDrive. But (again), the GT makes more power (the 650i manages 360 hp), handles better and is quieter unless you're really belting the throttle. Also, Sync's a whole lot better than iDrive, even the much improved new iDrive. Not only that, but the GT's new 5.0-liter V8 engine is in another league than (previous) competitors like the Nissan 370Z and Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8. Getting the point? In 2011, the Mustang GT is the car to beat. Welcome back, 5.0.
I'd rather have an S5... they are smoking crack
QuoteFord?s non-Federal-bailed-out gunsights
LOL.
Man this car is awesome, I want one with aftermarket wheels/tires.
Quote from: the Teuton on March 29, 2010, 10:38:28 PM
Neither. E46 M3.
Honestly.... I don't know.....
Hey guys.... doesn't this Rustang have a better power to weight ratio than the current M3? Can you imagine getting walked in your 70K M3 by a 30K Mustang??? This thing is like this year's "GT-R", but WAY more exciting :popcorn:
This is one of those cars that you keep in your garage forever and take it out on weekends. :rockon:
Fuck that Catman. You drive it every day.
Quote from: SVT666 on March 30, 2010, 12:01:23 AM
Looks like HotRodPilot has got himself one helluva car. Am jealous. :rockon:
Pretty good deal too. 4k off MSRP.
I brought in the 35K quote to a Ford dealer in Boise to let them see if they could match it. They just scratched their heads :lol:
Looks like the steering has been lightened up at low speeds... I liked how heavy the 2010 was on the test drive. Lots of other improvements will offset this though...
Quote from: SVT666 on March 30, 2010, 07:31:32 AM
Fuck that Catman. You drive it every day.
I wouldn't do that if I had it as a third car. Keep it nice and new!
Quote from: SVT666 on March 30, 2010, 07:31:32 AM
Fuck that Catman. You drive it every day.
+1.
besides, I'd opt for something more collectible (less common) if I wanted a garage queen
Think I read 60-0 in 105 ft? That's excellent.
Quote from: SVT666 on March 29, 2010, 09:26:56 PM
Speaking of Audi, the 5.0 makes the 354-hp S5 look like an overpriced slowpoke. We've driven both cars in anger and the 2011 Mustang GT is not only faster, but is actually rear-wheel drive, not a FWD platform fitted with Quattro all-wheel drive. Want us to go even further? We'd prefer the Mustang GT to a BMW 650i. Sure, the BMW has dash leather and... iDrive. But (again), the GT makes more power (the 650i manages 360 hp), handles better and is quieter unless you're really belting the throttle. Also, Sync's a whole lot better than iDrive, even the much improved new iDrive. Not only that, but the GT's new 5.0-liter V8 engine is in another league than (previous) competitors like the Nissan 370Z and Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8. Getting the point? In 2011, the Mustang GT is the car to beat. Welcome back, 5.0.
Uh, the S5 isn't a FWD platform fitted with AWD though. That would be the A3 and TT.
The Sync system is pretty cool though for sure.
Quote from: R-inge on March 30, 2010, 09:13:03 AM
Uh, the S5 isn't a FWD platform fitted with AWD though. That would be the A3 and TT.
The Sync system is pretty cool though for sure.
The B platform is too. FWD just isn't as common on it. They still do sell a FWD B8 A4.
The audi B platform is designed to be AWD from the start or else you could never get a driveshaft and mount axels and a differential in the rear of the car. In addition, nobody engineers a FWD platform for a longitudinally mounted engine.
FWD is mearly a lowcost option that can be derrived from it just like an subaru can be easily converted to FWD.
Quote from: R-inge on March 30, 2010, 09:13:03 AM
Uh, the S5 isn't a FWD platform fitted with AWD though. That would be the A3 and TT.
The S5 is based on FWD architecture, which is why the engine is fully ahead of the front wheels, giving absolutely crap weight balance (even though the V8 is actually relatively light for a DOHC V8)
(http://image.motortrend.com/f/2009_audi_s5/2308661827929029006+ppromo_mt_large/engine.jpg)
(http://www.automotiveaddicts.com/images/sept09/2009AudiS5CoupeEngine01small-585.jpg)
(http://www.autoguide.com/gallery/gallery.php/d/127664-4/2011-mustang-5_0-1261721525+copy.jpg)
Who cares about Audi, this thing hits 60 in 4.3 seconds.
This far exceeds any expectations I ever had for it.
If I spent 50 large on a GT500 last year I would be super pissed.
Quote from: ChrisV on March 30, 2010, 09:33:00 AM
The S5 is based on FWD architecture, which is why the engine is fully ahead of the front wheels, giving absolutely crap weight balance (even though the V8 is actually relatively light for a DOHC V8)
If it was FWD architecture, the engine would be sideways...
Quote from: r0tor on March 30, 2010, 10:52:49 AM
If it was FWD architecture, the engine would be sideways...
:orly:
Quote from: ChrisV on March 30, 2010, 09:33:00 AM
The S5 is based on FWD architecture, which is why the engine is fully ahead of the front wheels, giving absolutely crap weight balance (even though the V8 is actually relatively light for a DOHC V8)
(http://image.motortrend.com/f/2009_audi_s5/2308661827929029006+ppromo_mt_large/engine.jpg)
(http://www.automotiveaddicts.com/images/sept09/2009AudiS5CoupeEngine01small-585.jpg)
(http://www.autoguide.com/gallery/gallery.php/d/127664-4/2011-mustang-5_0-1261721525+copy.jpg)
See r0tor's posts...
Release the Kraken!
You haven't seen a FWD car with a longitudinal mounted engine? (Intrepid, 300M, Concord)
Sorry for picking that nit, didn't think it would be such a big deal.
Ok then... I guess Subaru builds FWD platowrms too since few people want to admit something could be built as an AWD platform
(http://tinypic.com/k1v0x0.jpg)
Quote from: Cobra93 on March 30, 2010, 10:59:43 AM
You haven't seen a FWD car with a longitudinal mounted engine? (Intrepid, 300M, Concord)
Have I seen one worth a damn... no
Quote from: r0tor on March 30, 2010, 11:17:12 AM
Have I seen one worth a damn... no
It's okay to admit you were wrong. ;)
Quote from: Cobra93 on March 30, 2010, 10:59:43 AM
You haven't seen a FWD car with a longitudinal mounted engine? (Intrepid, 300M, Concord)
And the Passat....but that was a B platform car.
Quote from: Cobra93 on March 30, 2010, 12:22:08 PM
It's okay to admit you were wrong. ;)
No chrysler was wrong about it.... hence it will be dead soon
Where is Cougs? I guess he's a little shy these days.
Quote from: r0tor on March 30, 2010, 12:49:20 PM
No chrysler was wrong about it.... hence it will be dead soon
So were Acura, Audi, Cadillac, Citroen, Saab, Subaru and VW. Some of them seem to be doing alright. :ohyeah:
But I understand. I, too, hate admitting when I'm wrong. ;)
Quote from: r0tor on March 30, 2010, 11:13:53 AM
Ok then... I guess Subaru builds FWD platowrms too since few people want to admit something could be built as an AWD platform
(http://tinypic.com/k1v0x0.jpg)
Prior to Subie converting the whole line to AWD only in the 90s, they made both FWD and AWD versions of some of their models. Both had longitudinal mounted engines, as they do now. They then simply dropped the FWD option and only produced AWD.
Excluding the Golf-based cars, Audis are FWD based AWD cars with longitudinally mounted engines.
Quote from: r0tor on March 30, 2010, 10:52:49 AM
If it was FWD architecture, the engine would be sideways...
Um, no. There have been a lot of FWD only cars over the decades that have had longitudinal engines. Audi before and after quattro, Renault, the Acura Vigor, Cords, Citroens, the Toronado/Eldorado, I can go on.
Ok great, I see the error in my ways. Audi builds a FWD platform that the A4, A5, A6, A8, Q5, and Bentley all use, 3/4 of which are not FWD.
Of course they make something designed for FWD and not AWD. What the hell am I thinking. Nobody in the world would be stupid enough to design a platform for AWD since you can only engineer a platform for FWD or RWD. :rolleyes:
You know, the FT-86 Toyobaru will be built on the same basic platform as the Impreza. It will be RWD. Subaru has never made a RWD car from the factory, but they have made plenty of FWD cars. Think about it.
Quote from: the Teuton on March 30, 2010, 04:31:00 PM
You know, the FT-86 Toyobaru will be built on the same basic platform as the Impreza. It will be RWD. Subaru has never made a RWD car from the factory, but they have made plenty of FWD cars. Think about it.
oh great, the dumbasses are building a FWD based RWD car
Quote from: r0tor on March 30, 2010, 04:32:01 PM
oh great, the dumbasses are building a FWD based RWD car
better than a RWD based on a FWD?
(http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x75/djautoimports/0404_01zFord_FocusPassenger_Side_Fr.jpg)
wait..
Quote
Chassis changes
The switch from hydraulic steering assist to an electromechanical setup also improves fuel economy. Ford uses five different steering calibrations for the Mustang, depending on whether the car is a coupe or convertible, V-6 or V-8, or if it's a GT with the Brembo brake package. We weren't able to sample all five flavors, but we did detect a noticeable difference between a Brembo-equipped GT and the V-6 coupe. In our GT, the steering was so good - so even, precise, and communicative - that it drummed up thoughts of BMWs. The Brembo-package calibration isn't as heavy as the Bavarians would require, but it's just as consistent. The V-6 coupe's steering is also quite good, but it feels marginally overboosted and just slightly vague off center around 30 mph.
Glad I got the Brembo package. When I read that they were going to have a few different steering programs, I figured they'd do this. I was thinking about not getting the option because I lose out on getting a spare tire. Screw the spare, I want this steering!
Quote from: HotRodPilot on March 30, 2010, 05:25:26 PM
Glad I got the Brembo package. When I read that they were going to have a few different steering programs, I figured they'd do this. I was thinking about not getting the option because I lose out on getting a spare tire. Screw the spare, I want this steering!
...without having to read back through a bunch of pages, exactly what did you get?
2011 Ford Mustang
GT Premium 2dr Coupe (5.0L 8cyl 6M)
What Others
Are Paying
MSRP Invoice
MSRP Invoice My Price
$32,845 $30,265 $32,050 + $250 Handling Charge
59G Glass Roof $1,995 $1,736 $1,838
55D Brembo Brake Package $1,695 $1,475 $1,562
53B Comfort Group $595 $518 $548.50
51H HID Headlamps $525 $457 $483.50
457 3.73 Ratio Limited Slip $395 $344 $364
43S Security Package $395 $344 $364
401A Rapid Spec 401A $395 $344 $364
13D GT Spoiler Delete $0 $0 $0
Color Adjustment - - $0
Kona Blue Metallic
Destination Charge $850 $850 $850
Rebate -$2,300
Total with Options $39,690 $36,333 $36,374
Getting invoice is always nice. That said... wow, cars are getting expensive.
Quote from: r0tor on March 30, 2010, 04:27:52 PM
Ok great, I see the error in my ways. Audi builds a FWD platform that the A4, A5, A6, A8, Q5, and Bentley all use, 3/4 of which are not FWD.
Of course they make something designed for FWD and not AWD. What the hell am I thinking. Nobody in the world would be stupid enough to design a platform for AWD since you can only engineer a platform for FWD or RWD. :rolleyes:
Did you not get the point of the V8 engine sitting out ahead of the front axle, being the bit that makes it not as good? And that the pictures were comparing? You know, the reason idiots said my V8 RX7 wouldn't handle because they thought the engine would be way up over the front axle making it nose heavy, when it actually had 90% of the engine entirely behind the front axle centerline?
The fundamental chassis difference between a car like the Mustang, a dedicated rear driver and a car like the S5, an AWD car based on a FWD layout, is staring you right in the face in those pics. An AWD car based on a RWD layout will not have that disadvantage. See the Skyline, or a BMW with Xdrive, etc. And of course, let's not forget the mid engine AWD cars...
but you just want to argue.
Quote from: HotRodPilot on March 30, 2010, 05:55:45 PM
2011 Ford Mustang
GT Premium 2dr Coupe (5.0L 8cyl 6M)
What Others
Are Paying
MSRP Invoice
MSRP Invoice My Price
$32,845 $30,265 $32,050 + $250 Handling Charge
59G Glass Roof $1,995 $1,736 $1,838
55D Brembo Brake Package $1,695 $1,475 $1,562
53B Comfort Group $595 $518 $548.50
51H HID Headlamps $525 $457 $483.50
457 3.73 Ratio Limited Slip $395 $344 $364
43S Security Package $395 $344 $364
401A Rapid Spec 401A $395 $344 $364
13D GT Spoiler Delete $0 $0 $0
Color Adjustment - - $0
Kona Blue Metallic
Destination Charge $850 $850 $850
Rebate -$2,300
Total with Options $39,690 $36,333 $36,374
Congratulations. :thumbsup: I am green with envy.
When do you pick it up?
Hopefully May 2nd, in time for my road trip. If not, then I'll pick it up when I get back to Idaho mid June
Quote from: r0tor on March 30, 2010, 04:27:52 PM
Ok great, I see the error in my ways. Audi builds a FWD platform that the A4, A5, A6, A8, Q5, and Bentley all use, 3/4 of which are not FWD.
Of course they make something designed for FWD and not AWD. What the hell am I thinking. Nobody in the world would be stupid enough to design a platform for AWD since you can only engineer a platform for FWD or RWD. :rolleyes:
Point is, when an Audi isn't AWD, it's FWD. The A4 has a longitudinal mounted engine. It comes as either FWD or AWD, but not RWD. Early 90s Imprezas were sold as either FWD or AWD, but not RWD (again with a longitudinally mounted engine). Going back to Subies of the 80s when they had a 4WD system that you had to engage manually like on a pickup truck, they were again FWD until you shifted into 4WD (with a longitudinally mounted boxer engine under hood). This is in contrast to a car like the Infiniti G or Lexus IS, which is either AWD or RWD.
Oh geez, Car and Driver tested one:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/10q1/2011_ford_mustang_gt_5.0-short_take_road_test
That quarter mile time and trap speed suggest about 380-400hp. What gives?
Quote from: ChrisV on March 30, 2010, 06:03:10 PM
Did you not get the point of the V8 engine sitting out ahead of the front axle, being the bit that makes it not as good? And that the pictures were comparing? You know, the reason idiots said my V8 RX7 wouldn't handle because they thought the engine would be way up over the front axle making it nose heavy, when it actually had 90% of the engine entirely behind the front axle centerline?
The fundamental chassis difference between a car like the Mustang, a dedicated rear driver and a car like the S5, an AWD car based on a FWD layout, is staring you right in the face in those pics. An AWD car based on a RWD layout will not have that disadvantage. See the Skyline, or a BMW with Xdrive, etc. And of course, let's not forget the mid engine AWD cars...
but you just want to argue.
:orly:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2784/4107000521_2d98767535.jpg)
Why am i missing your point?
No worries, I'm very much still here.
The Mustang GT 5.0 acceleration performance is about what I would have expected; the average of the tests is putting it at about Camaro SS performance; ranging from 12.8-13.2 sec @ 108 1/4 mile times (Camaro SS average is 12.9-13.0 sec @ 108).
The Autoblog write-up was almost comical. Yes, most everyone knows/agrees the S197 is a good car at a phenomenal price but better than the S5? Please. Went way overboard there. The C&D write-up posted by mojammer is far more realistic.
As to the 395 rwhp number posted by a few sources? BS. SAE water brake/eddy current engine dyno tests run by engineers is how it should be done for absolute numbers. A tuner shop inertial chassis dyno tests run by mechanics is really only suited for approximate numbers and/or relative measurements (as in, to gauge effectiveness of upgrades/tuning). The chances Ford gave mags a ringer with 50+ additional hp is highly unlikely and the notion that u-joints eat up 4-5% is ridiculous. No, the car is putting down ~350 rwhp and acceleration numbers support that. Edmunds should know all this.
I think you're right, GoCougs. I got a little too excited by the 395rwhp claims. It seems that 350 is what we got.
Dynojets are notorious for readin g gig numbers. That's why tuners use them. They can RAF as much as 10-12 % higher then a Mustang Dyno.
Fuck I hate using the mobile site.
I also forget to mention that though GT 5.0 numbers are in line with what I was expecting, I was a bit taken back by the V6. That is running with or better than some serious 6 cyl company - G37, 370Z, 335i, A5, IS350, TL, etc.
Though through what I've seen (i.e., the myriad claims of 395 rwhp), we need the hysteria to die down and wait for realistic tests before the true numbers are known IMO.
Soooo, you ain't got $30,495 in change under the sofa cushions to fork over for a 2011 Mustang GT with the delicious quadcam TiVCT 5.0L under the hood. Like, who does--other than Jay Leno, of course?
But you do have a Nash Metropolitan up on blocks roosting chickens out front. And a Ford 9" in that second hand forklift in the shed out back. Plus, you got a set of 11" wide USAC open-wheel roadracing gumballs under the single-wide from some previous renter who split for the coast back in '96.
Project car or what! With the aforementioned necessities already sittin' there stirring your creative juices, what you really, really need at this point is an inspirational focus point. You considered a Chrysler Hemi, but the real ones are too big/too heavy and the current one doesn't even have real hemispherical combustion chambers--no way, Jose. Then, you considered an LS, but their basic design even pre-dates the design of your Nash Metropolitan...
Don't you wish there was a lightweight, modern, powerful V8 in a crate that's just at the start of its performance development?
Your wish has been granted :thumbsup::
New 5.0-liter & 5.4-liter V-8 Crate Motors Coming Soon from Ford Racing
Matt Rigney, June 16th, 2010
The return of the iconic 5.0-liter V-8 engine for the 2011 Mustang GT has a lot of enthusiasts excited about the future of the Ford Mustang and the possibilities it brings. A good amount of those Mustang enthusiasts will pony up the money to purchase a new 2011 Mustang GT with the 5.0 already under the hood but for those who just want the motor Ford Racing will soon make available the 412 horsepower 5.0-liter V-8 as a crate motor. The new 5.0-liter crate motor will be available to order late Summer from the Ford Racing catalog. The 5.0-liter V-8 4-valve crate motor has a part number of M-6007-M5L and it will come ready to go minus the A/C and power steering. There is no doubt the new 5.0-liter crate motor will be making its way into many late model Mustangs and restomods very soon. One such project already underway is Stangnet's Project 'Built to Cruise' where they are stuffing the new 5.0-liter motor into a late model fox-body coupe.
We have also learned Ford Racing will make available the 2011 Shelby GT500's supercharged 5.4-liter V-8 4-valve engine as a crate motor minus the A/C and power steering. The 5.4-liter V-8 crate motor will have the aluminum block and be rated at 550 horsepower with 510 pound-feet of torque. The 5.4-liter V-8 crate motor has a part number of M-6007-A54SC.
No word on pricing for the new Ford Racing crate motors but expect both to command a premium (Wha'? You mean they ain't free?).
Source: [fordracingparts.com] 4573
There might be a Mustang GT in the family soon. Automatic, unfortunately. :(
Quote from: Raza link=topic=20861.msg1342998#msg1342998 date=1276778828
There might be a Mustang GT in the family soon. Automatic, unfortunately. :(
Raza: How so?
Quote from: Nethead on June 17, 2010, 07:16:38 AM
Raza: How so?
My brother is considering it, but he refuses to learn stick. He's also looking at a used CLS550, S4, S5, and other things. But I came home from work one day and he had the BYO up on the Ford website.
Raza: Great luck for you, then, RazDude! He gets the auto, and you get the 6-speed manual! If you need parts, there's a parts car right out there in your brother's driveway (unless you need clutch/transmission parts, of course). You switch out your broken part for his good one, and then you send his gf out in his car to get some booze.
She comes back and sez to your brother "Your car is making this funny noise and drives erratically".
He sez "It wasn't making funny noises or driving erratically when I last drove it last night!"
You sez "Babe, was it making those noises before you were popping wheelies in the liquor store parking lot a few minutes ago?"
She sez "Uh, no, but I wasn't..."
He sez "What th' Hell?"
You sez "Well, was it driving erratically when you were up on two wheels through the redlights on Main Street?"
She sez "What?? I never..."
He sez "Jesusssssssss, bitch!"
You sez "Babe, you gotta treat performance cars with more respect--you're lucky you weren't killed!"
She sez nothing, because she's speechless.
He sez "I'm glad, because I want the pleasure of killing her myself!"
You sez "I gotta split and blowdry the cat. Oh, I noticed the Glock in the bottom drawer of the chest by the master bedroom windows. See ya..."
She sez "Gulp..."
He sez "Where's that magazine of nylon-jacketed ammo?"
Yada yada yada... :popcorn:
Lucky day for you! For the Babe, not so much...
Quote from: Nethead on June 17, 2010, 09:32:54 AM
Raza: Great luck for you, then, RazDude! He gets the auto, and you get the 6-speed manual! If you need parts, there's a parts car right out there in your brother's driveway (unless you need clutch/transmission parts, of course). You switch out your broken part for his good one, and then you send his gf out in his car to get some booze.
She comes back and sez to your brother "Your car is making this funny noise and drives erratically".
He sez "It wasn't making funny noises or driving erratically when I last drove it last night!"
You sez "Babe, was it making those noises before you were popping wheelies in the liquor store parking lot a few minutes ago?"
She sez "Uh, no, but I wasn't..."
He sez "What th' Hell?"
You sez "Well, was it driving erratically when you were up on two wheels through the redlights on Main Street?"
She sez "What?? I never..."
He sez "Jesusssssssss, bitch!"
You sez "Babe, you gotta treat performance cars with more respect--you're lucky you weren't killed!"
She sez nothing, because she's speechless.
He sez "I'm glad, because I want the pleasure of killing her myself!"
You sez "I gotta split and blowdry the cat. Oh, I noticed the Glock in the bottom drawer of the chest by the master bedroom windows. See ya..."
She sez "Gulp..."
He sez "Where's that magazine of nylon-jacketed ammo?"
Yada yada yada...
Lucky day for you! For the Babe, not so much...
:lol:
Quote from: thewizard16 on June 17, 2010, 10:31:35 AM
:lol:
thewizard16: Why, thank you, WizDude! A good time was had by all, except for the Babe perhaps...
2011 Steeda Sport Edition Ford Mustang Debuts
By Matt Rigney
Steeda Autosports is never one to rush to market with anything and that has been evident over the past couple decades as they have produced countless rock solid suspension and performance parts along with many top quality aftermarket Mustang variations. Their limited edition Mustangs are heralded as some of the best in the business and for good reason as they spend the time perfecting the right mix of parts for each and every model. The time has now come for them to introduce their latest aftermarket Mustang, the 2011 Steeda Sport Edition Ford Mustang.
The Sport Edition Mustang will be Steeda's entry level model and basis for all models to come. Starting with a 2011 Ford Mustang GT powered by the 5.0-liter V-8 Steeda upgrades the suspension and performance with a few subtle additions. Those additions include Steeda Sport Springs, Aerodynamic hood, rear aerodynamic wing, Sidewinder graphics, 20-inch Steeda Spyder wheels with Nitto performance tires and a Steeda cold air intake along with a performance tune. The air intake and tune push the 5.0-liter V-8 to 450 horsepower giving the 2011 Steeda Sport Edition an edge over the stock Ford Mustang GT.
The 2011 Steeda Sport Edition is priced under $40,000 in the range of fully loaded Mustang GT's.
I hope someone comes out with a diaper eliminator one of these days. (The diaper is the black plastic "diffuser") I'd be all over that
Quote from: HotRodPilot on June 17, 2010, 11:28:15 AM
I hope someone comes out with a diaper eliminator one of these days. (The diaper is the black plastic "diffuser") I'd be all over that
The diffuser looks good. The standard rear bumper plastic looks like ass :huh:
The diffuser though is only available on the GT500 and on aftermarket cars like the Steeda.
Quote from: HotRodPilot on June 17, 2010, 11:28:15 AM
I hope someone comes out with a diaper eliminator one of these days. (The diaper is the black plastic "diffuser") I'd be all over that
HotRodPilot: All that shit's gotta git. On every car on the planet. The sooner the better!
'Doesn't surprise me. Does this surprise anyone here?
From www.autoblog.com:
Take rate on Brembo package for 2011 Ford Mustang higher than expected
by Drew Phillips (RSS feed) on Jul 22nd, 2010 at 9:27 AM
As a general rule, the things that us car journalists typically enjoy ? things like manual transmissions, no-frills interiors and wagon variants ? don't necessarily sell well. The same can be said for expensive non-powertrain performance options, which is why we were surprised to learn that the Brembo brake package for the 2011 Ford Mustang has been selling quite well.
According to Automobile Magazine, Ford says that the take rate for the option has "exceeded our expectations" and sales are "running substantially above last year's Track Pack." Perhaps we should give Mustang buyers, ostensibly only interested with drag racing, more credit than we initially thought.
Priced at $1,695, the Brembo brake package includes a set of 14-inch front discs with four-piston calipers, rear 11.8-inch discs with four-piston calipers, special 19-inch wheels, summer performance tires, and unique tuning for the suspension, stability control and steering.
Part of the reason for the high take rate might be that choosing the option is actually much cheaper than buying the same parts in the aftermarket. The 14-inch brake kit in the Ford Racing parts catalog will run you $1,489, which doesn't include the rear brake upgrade, and you still have to buy new wheels and tires. For aftermarket-obsessed Mustang owners, checking the option box to get it straight from the factory just makes more sense.
The Brembo package should've been standard on the car.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=20861.msg1342998#msg1342998 date=1276778828
There might be a Mustang GT in the family soon. Automatic, unfortunately. :(
I know what you can say to your brother, "man up Sally and learn to drive a stick."
Quote from: Mustangfan2003 on July 22, 2010, 08:59:51 AM
I know what you can say to your brother, "man up Sally and learn to drive a stick."
I think he's moving away from the idea though. He's thinking more CTS-V or S4.
While he's a pretty good driver, he's not the most attentive and not the smoothest either; his inputs can lack precision. I'd be a little worried about him in a car as powerful as the Mustang or CTS-V. I think the S4 works well, because while it's powerful, it's also luxurious and has AWD, which will help him from getting himself into trouble.
One problem with the CTS-V though, it only comes in a manual.
Quote from: Mustangfan2003 on July 22, 2010, 09:19:51 AM
One problem with the CTS-V though, it only comes in a manual.
the old one, yes. the new one is available with an auto, FWIW.
I like having the good brakes, but I'm not a fan of having tires that last for 8-10,000 miles.
I'd like to find a replacement tire with a summer tread pattern, but a hard compound. Like a rubber compound used on all seasons, that would last a while
I'm only going to use it in summer, so I don't need or want an all season tread pattern, but would like to have a harder compound that lasts.
Quote from: Mustangfan2003 on July 22, 2010, 09:19:51 AM
One problem with the CTS-V though, it only comes in a manual.
As our good friend Vin/Andre said, the new one comes in automatic form as well.
My concern is a big, powerful, rear driver on summer tires in the hands of someone who spun my old E320 on I95.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=20861.msg1365594#msg1365594 date=1279817832
As our good friend Vin/Andre said, the new one comes in automatic form as well.
My concern is a big, powerful, rear driver on summer tires in the hands of someone who spun my old E320 on I95.
WTF was he doing?
It would take me to let off the gas and maybe use soime brake and swerve left and right a couple of times to even get the tail to come out. And then, I'd have to be trying pretty damn hard with some pretty huge steering inputs
Lucky for me I can run Summer tires pretty much all year round but this amount of snow was tricky in some places
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y200/mustangfan2003/004-3.jpg)
I had never seen so much in my life.
Quote from: HotRodPilot on July 22, 2010, 10:59:15 AM
WTF was he doing?
It would take me to let off the gas and maybe use soime brake and swerve left and right a couple of times to even get the tail to come out. And then, I'd have to be trying pretty damn hard with some pretty huge steering inputs
The tires were pretty worn and there was snow and slush, but it appears to me that he didn't modify his driving style to the weather conditions. I've driven in very dangerous conditions, and even with ESP off, the only time I lost it was when I really overcooked it going into tight, slick corner.
Like I said, he's not very calculated with his inputs. In snow and ice, sharp inputs get you much different results than metered ones.
Quote from: Mustangfan2003 on July 22, 2010, 11:06:18 AM
Lucky for me I can run Summer tires pretty much all year round but this amount of snow was tricky in some places
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y200/mustangfan2003/004-3.jpg)
I had never seen so much in my life.
That picture looks like April in State College, PA.
Some guy got stuck in front of my house in a Mustang like that. He had BFGoodrich GForce KDW's (or something similar) on the back and couldn't get any traction at all. He was probably there for 2 hours with a bunch of people helping before my neighbor's wife finally came home in their Avalanche and was able to tow him out of the neighborhood.
I test drove a 2011 GT/CS yesterday. It was pretty impressive. I was a little surprised when it barked the tires on the 3-4 shift. :rockon:
Quote from: Raza link=topic=20861.msg1365608#msg1365608 date=1279818740
That picture looks like April in State College, PA.
That's Mississippi in January. That amount of snow as more than I would ever want.
Quote from: Mustangfan2003 on July 22, 2010, 12:01:03 PM
That's Mississippi in January. That amount of snow as more than I would ever want.
What part of Mississippi?
near Fulton.
Quote from: Cobra93 on July 22, 2010, 11:55:00 AM
I test drove a 2011 GT/CS yesterday. It was pretty impressive. I was a little surprised when it barked the tires on the 3-4 shift. :rockon:
Nice. Are you getting one?
Quote from: SVT666 on July 22, 2010, 12:22:59 PM
Nice. Are you getting one?
It's on my list. I just e-mailed a configuration to the dealer for a quote.
Quote from: Cobra93 on July 22, 2010, 12:27:30 PM
It's on my list. I just e-mailed a configuration to the dealer for a quote.
What's on your list?
Quote from: SVT666 on July 22, 2010, 12:35:38 PM
What's on your list?
New:
Mustang GT
Corvette Grand Sport
Challenger SRT8 ( :wub: the looks)
Used:
Z06
Viper
M/B CLS AMG
M/B SL AMG
Well, that's about the most awesome list of contenders I've ever seen posted on here.
C5 or C6 Vette?
Quote from: Cobra93 on July 22, 2010, 12:55:03 PM
New:
Mustang GT
Corvette Grand Sport
Challenger SRT8 ( :wub: the looks)
Used:
Z06
Viper
M/B CLS AMG
M/B SL AMG
Mustang GT: Most awesome Mustang ever made.
Corvette Grand Sport: The perfect Vette. I wouldn't get Z06 or ZR1 over this car.
Challenger SRT-8: Hot! Hot! Hot! Great drive too from what I understand.
Z06: Cool, but I think I would rather have the Grand Sport.
Viper: The one car that I wet my pants thinking about owning some day.
CLS AMG: Sexiest sedan ever built...and it just happens to have 507 hp. Damn I want one.
SL AMG: Sexy little car and it has 518 hp. Who could argue?
For me personally, this is the order I would rank them for myself:
1. CLS AMG
2. Mustang GT
3. Challenger SRT-8
4. Corvette Grand Sport
5. SL AMG
6. Corvette Z06
7. Viper
The Viper is the one that I want the most, but it's not a car I could drive every day...and I would need to.
Throwing practicality out the window, my list would be this:
1. Viper or Corvette Grand Sport
2. Either of the Mercedes
3. Z06
4. Mustang GT
5. Challenger SRT-8
Quote from: hotrodalex on July 22, 2010, 02:52:58 PM
Throwing practicality out the window, my list would be this:
1. Viper or Corvette Grand Sport
2. Either of the Mercedes
3. Z06
4. Mustang GT
5. Challenger SRT-8
:hesaid:
If you're looking at automatics, I'd choose the SL. Class and speed....lovely!
Quote from: SVT666 on July 22, 2010, 02:49:48 PM
Mustang GT: Most awesome Mustang ever made.
Corvette Grand Sport: The perfect Vette. I wouldn't get Z06 or ZR1 over this car.
Challenger SRT-8: Hot! Hot! Hot! Great drive too from what I understand.
Z06: Cool, but I think I would rather have the Grand Sport.
Viper: The one car that I wet my pants thinking about owning some day.
CLS AMG: Sexiest sedan ever built...and it just happens to have 507 hp. Damn I want one.
SL AMG: Sexy little car and it has 518 hp. Who could argue?
For me personally, this is the order I would rank them for myself:
1. CLS AMG
2. Mustang GT
3. Challenger SRT-8
4. Corvette Grand Sport
5. SL AMG
6. Corvette Z06
7. Viper
The Viper is the one that I want the most, but it's not a car I could drive every day...and I would need to.
Swap #3 and #6 and that's about what I've been thinking
Quote from: Raza on July 22, 2010, 02:59:19 PM
If you're looking at automatics, I'd choose the SL. Class and speed....lovely!
My main justification for considering the CLS is that I would sell the 300C. With any of the others. I'd keep it.
Quote from: Cobra93 on July 22, 2010, 03:04:16 PM
Swap #3 and #6 and that's about what I've been thinking
The CLS is just so damn sexy...especially in black. I've actually been thinking about that car a lot lately and it's making me think twice about a Mustang for my next car. My next car is basically down to the CLS AMG, 2011 Mustang GT, and Challenger SRT-8. I'm finding the CLS AMG is going for the same price as the CLS 500 on the used market.
Quote from: SVT666 on July 22, 2010, 03:09:08 PM
The CLS is just so damn sexy...especially in black. I've actually been thinking about that car a lot lately and it's making me think twice about a Mustang for my next car. My next car is basically down to the CLS AMG, 2011 Mustang GT, and Challenger SRT-8. I'm finding the CLS AMG is going for the same price as the CLS 500 on the used market.
AMGs tend to depreciate faster.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=20861.msg1365772#msg1365772 date=1279833820
AMGs tend to depreciate faster.
Why?
Quote from: SVT666 on July 22, 2010, 03:40:14 PM
Why?
I suspect for the same reason that cars like the 7-series and A8 depreciate like a falling rock.
Quote from: MX793 on July 22, 2010, 04:00:16 PM
I suspect for the same reason that cars like the 7-series and A8 depreciate like a falling rock.
Tell me about it.
Quote from: SVT666 on July 22, 2010, 03:40:14 PM
Why?
Good question, but my local M/B dealer confirms it. Probably because it was significantly higher to begin with.
Yeah, but it's the same price as the CLS500 despite being a vastly superior version of the car and vastly more expensive when new.
Yeah, can't use anecdote of dealer and/or add pricing to establish market value. All else equal the AMG version of the CLS will cost a fair mount more new or used and the depreciation curves will be pretty much the same.
The only way to research it is with KBB or NADA which takes (lots) of actual sales price data combined with other statistical and research factors. But by all means, if one can get a CLS63 at the book price of a CLS550, but it's highly unlikely.
For my zip code, KBB shows an '07 CLS550 at $44k and an '07 CLS63 at $58k. Using 2010 MSRP pricing the CLS550 is $75k and the CLS63 is $101k, resulting in 41% depreciation for the CLS550 and 43% for the CLS63.
Quote from: SVT666 on July 22, 2010, 03:09:08 PM
The CLS is just so damn sexy...especially in black. I've actually been thinking about that car a lot lately and it's making me think twice about a Mustang for my next car. My next car is basically down to the CLS AMG, 2011 Mustang GT, and Challenger SRT-8. I'm finding the CLS AMG is going for the same price as the CLS 500 on the used market.
I'm not much of a Challenger fan anymore. Sometimes I'll see one drive by and my jaw drops at how awesome it looks, but other times I just feel indifferent about it.
They might as well offer awd on the Challenger since it's already as heavy as a truck.
Quote from: Cobra93 on July 22, 2010, 11:55:00 AM
I test drove a 2011 GT/CS yesterday. It was pretty impressive. I was a little surprised when it barked the tires on the 3-4 shift. :rockon:
Cobra93: Good Deal! Please post your planned options. As a guy who had a primo '05, you know what works well for you--plus there's some great factory stuff for oh-eleven that wasn't offered in oh-five. :popcorn:
Quote from: SVT666 on July 22, 2010, 04:53:08 PM
Yeah, but it's the same price as the CLS500 despite being a vastly superior version of the car and vastly more expensive when new.
Higher price means higher depreciation. Luxury buyers tend to gravitate towards newer models, so the used market is generally softer at the higher end. Also, AMGs are more expensive to run, sportier, and appeal to a narrower customer base, so they depreciate faster.
I van get a 2007 CLS AMG for less than a 2007 GT500.
You van?
LOL - van marque worship make something it's not?
KBB on an '07 GT500 is $39k or almost $20k shy of a '07 CLS63...
Quote from: GoCougs on July 23, 2010, 09:38:31 AM
LOL - van marque worship make something it's not?
KBB on an '07 GT500 is $39k or almost $20k shy of a '07 CLS63...
Different markets, too, don't forget that.
Quote from: SVT666 on July 23, 2010, 09:24:02 AM
I van get a 2007 CLS AMG for less than a 2007 GT500.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 23, 2010, 09:38:31 AM
LOL - van marque worship make something it's not?
KBB on an '07 GT500 is $39k or almost $20k shy of a '07 CLS63...
Did they invent a new word without telling me again?!
:lol:
Stupid blackberry. Anyway Cougs, I don't care what KBB says, because the prices I have found on Craigslist differ quite drastically from KBB.
Quote from: SVT666 on July 23, 2010, 10:15:50 AM
Stupid blackberry. Anyway Cougs, I don't care what KBB says, because the prices I have found on Craigslist differ quite drastically from KBB.
I know perfectly well that you don't care - you made a Mustangism-induced BS claim and will defend it to the point of tear-inducing irrationality.
Here's a hint on where you went wrong - where do lenders look for how much a car is worth before they lend on it, and where do insurers look for how much a car is worth before they will pay a total loss claim? (A: it ain't CL.)
Like I said, I van get a CLS AMG for less then a GT500 of the same year. Granted it is pretty close, but it's still less.
Quote from: SVT666 on July 23, 2010, 01:11:16 PM
Like I said, I van get a CLS AMG for less then a GT500 of the same year. Granted it is pretty close, but it's still less.
Does said GT500 come with rainbows and unicorns, or is that extra?
There is a 2006 Mercedes-Benz CLS AMG right in your own backyard in Kirkland for $31,995 with only 39,000 miles on the clock. The majority of them are priced at $38-39,000 with one priced at $48,000. The cheapest 2007 Shelby GT500 that I can find in Seattle is $35,500 with the majority in the $38-39,000 range with one priced at $43,000. I actually couldn't find a 2007 CLS AMG in Seattle on Craigslist so maybe a same year car is a little more expensive then a GT500, but it's not by much. Your Ford hateism is showing through Cougs.
Quote from: SVT666 on July 23, 2010, 03:36:16 PM
There is a 2006 Mercedes-Benz CLS AMG right in your own backyard in Kirkland for $31,995 with only 39,000 miles on the clock. The majority of them are priced at $38-39,000 with one priced at $48,000. The cheapest 2007 Shelby GT500 that I can find in Seattle is $35,500 with the majority in the $38-39,000 range with one priced at $43,000. I actually couldn't find a 2007 CLS AMG in Seattle on Craigslist so maybe a same year car is a little more expensive then a GT500, but it's not by much. Your Ford hateism is showing through Cougs.
:facepalm:
NADA and KBB are statistical, objective data mining and collection resources that are so solid they are used by lenders and insurance companies as noted.
All else being equal a same year CLS63 will be WAY more expensive. If you disagree with that statement you are wrong.
Jeez, that didn't last 8 hours. TTFN.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 23, 2010, 04:49:17 PM
:facepalm:
NADA and KBB are statistical, objective data mining and collection resources that are so solid they are used by lenders and insurance companies as noted.
All else being equal a same year CLS63 will be WAY more expensive. If you disagree with that statement you are wrong.
Jeez, that didn't last 8 hours. TTFN.
Okay Fuckface...What don't you understand about what I said? YOu are quoting "average" transactions. I'm saying I can find a CLS AMG priced at or below a Shelby GT500. I'm right and facepalming me won't make me wrong. Just accept defeat and fuck off.
Y'all need to stop taunting me in this way. The cheapest CLS55 I can find in the country is $90k; hell, the cheapest CLS is a $65k 350.
Quote from: SVT666 on July 23, 2010, 05:07:48 PM
Okay Fuckface...What don't you understand about what I said? YOu are quoting "average" transactions. I'm saying I can find a CLS AMG priced at or below a Shelby GT500. I'm right and facepalming me won't make me wrong. Just accept defeat and fuck off.
I think I should stay out of this thread......
Don't worry about it Golden, its between Cougs and I and he's the only one I have any kind of animosity towards.
First, Shelby offers a supercharged 5.0L GT350, and now a single-turbo kit for the 5.0L comes to market:
Let the Turbocharging Begin, First 2011 5.0 equipped cranks out over 530 Horsepower
Matt Rigney July 25th, 2010
In its present form the 2011 Mustang GT 5.0 cranks out 412 horsepower which is more than sufficient horsepower for daily driving and trips to the drag strip but people always want more. Enter Fastlane, a company who can transform your stock vehicle from plain old boring to wild and crazy with the addition of one of their custom turbo systems. And this is exactly what they have done to a 2011 5.0 adding an extra 120 horsepower to an already potent engine. The system uses a Borg Warner 72mm S400 Turbo developed by Fastlane with a conservative power estimate in the 5.0 of over 530 horsepower and 500 foot-pounds of torque using the six-speed manual. This is all accomplished with only six to seven pounds of boost. ?Fastlane was founded on modifying Mustangs,? says Nick Field, Co-Owner of Fastlane. ?We?ve gone back to our roots with this turbo package and have made the new Mustang GT even more significant.?
Check below for the complete rundown on Fastlane's Turbo system for the new 5.0 Mustang:
* Low boost ? 6-7psi
* At least 120 additional RWHP
* Designed for stock engines
* Quiet, reliable operation with big block power
* 72mm Borg Warner extended tip turbo, front mount air to air bar and plate style intercooler
* 304 stainless steel tubing, which is mandrel bent for great flow (This kit boasts direct bolt-on with no cutting or modifications needed).
* On a conservative streetable tune of 6-7 psi, this kit produces at least 530 RWHP and 500 RWTQ
Beyond the remarkable turbo system, Fastlane?s R&D department has developed additional go-fast performance items for un-boosted 5.0L Mustangs, raising the 360 hp AT THE WHEELS to the following:
* Long Tube Headers: 390 hp
* Add 3? Exhaust: 401 hp
* Add Cold Air Intake: 412 hp
Source: Stangnet
Quote from: SVT666 on July 23, 2010, 05:07:48 PM
Okay Fuckface...What don't you understand about what I said? YOu are quoting "average" transactions. I'm saying I can find a CLS AMG priced at or below a Shelby GT500. I'm right and facepalming me won't make me wrong. Just accept defeat and fuck off.
Sure - a four year old model with 60,000 miles on the clock.
Around here, AMG CLS's still sell for a lot, even when it's the pre-facelift supercharged V8 model.
From www.detnews.com:
Last Updated: July 31. 2010 1:00AM.
Why a $30,500 Ford Mustang beats $150,000 European sports cars
Jason H. Harper / Bloomberg News
I have a $150,000 sports car in my parking garage, a handcrafted machine produced overseas in limited numbers. Next to it, I have a U.S.-made Ford Mustang GT, armadas of which will be sold for as little as $30,500.
I tested both the day before, so which to take out today just for the thrill?
"The 'Stang, please," I tell Paul and Hector, my trusty garage guys.
Paul raises his eyebrow. Seriously?
Times have changed. Changed in a whopping, Big Bang kind of way. Once hopeless and bumbling, Ford Motor Co. is now really cranking out the good stuff. And its new Mustang is about as good as it gets.
I'm reminded why as I aim the sparkling blue hood (the deep, lustrous paint is called "Kona Blue Metallic") on my way out of town.
Normally I nurse high-dollar rides over the canyon-sized cracks and craters in New York's West Side Highway as if guiding a colicky baby in a carriage. With the Mustang's high clearance and sturdy shocks, I bound over the choppy asphalt. Bulletproof.
On today's just-for-fun itinerary: I'm prowling for open, winding lanes where the V-8 can have its torque-mad way with the world. Under full throttle, the brand-new 5.0-liter motor sounds like Zeus hurling thunderbolts, channeling 412 horsepower and 390 pound-feet of torque.
Years ago it was inconceivable to have so much power at such a bargain price. This base coupe has more kick than the original V-10-powered Dodge Viper or a Ferrari 360 Modena.
And boy does it pull. At a stop light it yanks you, inexorably, toward the next traffic stop like a leashed bull mastiff, a kind of torque overload that's nearly impossible not to childishly indulge in over and over again.
The sound is bright, raw, delicious.
As for gas mileage, the V-8 manages 17 city and 26 highway and can be run on regular gasoline rather than premium with a slight reduction in power.
As driven, my test car was $42,305. It included most of the convenience and sport options, including navigation, improved Brembo brakes, 19-inch wheels and an electronic stability control meant for spirited driving.
So equipped, the GT was as much or more fun than any European or Japanese car at that same price.
Hard to believe that the Mustang is having its salad days all over again. Its 50th anniversary will be the pony car's next milestone, and the last few generations have shown every long year. Liver spots have included a cranky chassis, worn-out engine and middling electronics.
It got a major refresh last year, which helped considerably, but the V-8 still produced a miserly 315 horses.
The 2011 model, also available with a V-6, is minty fresh. Nicer to look at, better to listen to and easier to live with. Most surprising, it handles competently on swoopy roads.
You see, there have always been those muscle-car motor-heads who soup up American steel just to drag race. It passes for a good time in certain towns -- I should know, I grew up in one.
What those guys would never do is take a Mustang against a European sports car on a windy road. Partly because dudes who listened to Motley Crue and Judas Priest didn't associate with those who dug Depeche Mode and the Smiths -- but also because they'd get their butts kicked.
This Mustang is different. It still has an old-school live rear axle, which is cheap to produce but brutish. Yet engineers have tuned it to the point of elegance. Steady at speed and yet nimble in turns, the Mustang shows a lot of poise even on switchback roads.
I easily sustain a super sprint up and down careening hills, the sound of the 5.0-liters blowing up around me. Even the Fourth of July wasn't so cacophonous and lively.
While available as a six-speed automatic, let me say this: If you don't know how to drive a stick but are thinking of buying the new Mustang, learn. The six-speed, cue-ball-tipped stick is wondrous.
Finally, the interior. Somebody has figured out that the Mustang is more than the sum of its engine and exterior. The seats are comfortable; the two rear seats are somewhat accommodating, and though the interior is mostly plastic, it looks good.
And when I get lost on my wanders, I quickly punch up my location on the optional touch-screen navigation system.
For a thriftier gas and budget point, there's the brand-new 3.7-liter V-6, which gets up to 31 mpg highway with an auto transmission. For a base of $23,000, you still manage a prodigious 305 horses and 280 pound-feet of torque.
I've still got several hours before I need to be home. I don't really have to keep driving -- I've gotten the point -- but, well, seeing as I'm already out here.
That European machine in the garage can wait.
From The Detroit News: http://www.detnews.com/article/20100731/AUTO03/7310316/1148/AUTO01/Why-a-$30-500-Ford-Mustang-beats-$150-000-European-sports-cars#ixzz0vSQXaVKk
Quote from: Submariner on July 29, 2010, 10:03:44 AM
Sure - a four year old model with 60,000 miles on the clock.
Around here, AMG CLS's still sell for a lot, even when it's the pre-facelift supercharged V8 model.
Um, he was comparing prices of 3-4 year old versions of BOTH, and the AMG had 30-some-odd thousand miles on it, not nearly 70. Sorry, but Hemi's right on this one.
Quote from: omicron on July 25, 2010, 03:34:39 AM
Y'all need to stop taunting me in this way. The cheapest CLS55 I can find in the country is $90k; hell, the cheapest CLS is a $65k 350.
Lucker :cry:
HOT DAMN!!!! That's a good deal.
FORD 5.0 V8 CRATE ENGINE ON SALE FOR $6,999
By Andrew Ganz
If you?re feeling a little blue because you bought a 2010 Mustang with the now-dropped 4.6-liter V8, you?re in luck. The 5.0-liter ?Coyote? V8 that recently debuted in the 2011 Ford Mustang GT will go on sale later this month as a crate motor.
For $6,999, Ford Racing will be happy to sell a crate 5.0 as part number M-6007-M50. Rated at the same 412 ponies and 390 lb-ft. of torque as the 5.0 in the 2011 Mustang GT, the V8 weighs a reasonable 444 lbs.
Interested buyers can place an order at any Ford dealership in the U.S. for deliveries beginning August 15.
My cousin is working on a 68 Mustang and this would be the perfect motor for it.
It's a pretty good price, especially for a manufacture, but there are similar if not better deals.
Now THIS is a good deal:
http://www.jegs.com/p/Blueprint-Engines/Blueprint-Engines-SB-Chevy-Budget-Stomper-w-Aluminum-Heads-383ci-420HP-450TQ/1197263/10002/-1
Quote from: hotrodalex on August 05, 2010, 01:07:03 PM
It's a pretty good price, especially for a manufacture, but there are similar if not better deals.
Now THIS is a good deal:
http://www.jegs.com/p/Blueprint-Engines/Blueprint-Engines-SB-Chevy-Budget-Stomper-w-Aluminum-Heads-383ci-420HP-450TQ/1197263/10002/-1
I would rather not have to fuck around with a carburator. I agree, that's a hell of a deal, but it doesn't have all the tech that's in the Ford 5.0L. When you consider all the tech involved and the 412 hp starting point, you can't argue with the economics of this engine.
Quote from: hotrodalex on August 05, 2010, 01:07:03 PM
It's a pretty good price, especially for a manufacture, but there are similar if not better deals.
Now THIS is a good deal:
http://www.jegs.com/p/Blueprint-Engines/Blueprint-Engines-SB-Chevy-Budget-Stomper-w-Aluminum-Heads-383ci-420HP-450TQ/1197263/10002/-1
Wow, that's cheap :confused:
Quote from: SVT666 on August 05, 2010, 01:30:59 PM
I would rather not have to fuck around with a carburator. I agree, that's a hell of a deal, but it doesn't have all the tech that's in the Ford 5.0L. When you consider all the tech involved and the 412 hp starting point, you can't argue with the economics of this engine.
I've never had much of a problem with a carburetor. Then again, seems like Edelbrock carbs don't have many of the issues associated with others.
Quote from: mzziaz on August 05, 2010, 03:08:01 PM
Wow, that's cheap :confused:
Put it in the Ranchero and get rid of its boat anchor! :ohyeah:
Quote from: hotrodalex on August 05, 2010, 03:18:47 PM
Put it in the Ranchero and get rid of its boat anchor! :ohyeah:
Chevy crap will never come near that engine bay, a 5.0 crate, otoh......... :evildude:
Quote from: mzziaz on August 05, 2010, 03:22:12 PM
Chevy crap will never come near that engine bay, a 5.0 crate, otoh......... :evildude:
You can get some monster pushrod motors from Ford for cheap too, but my head is spinning with possibilities for this new 5.0L.
Quote from: hotrodalex on August 05, 2010, 01:07:03 PM
It's a pretty good price, especially for a manufacture, but there are similar if not better deals.
Now THIS is a good deal:
http://www.jegs.com/p/Blueprint-Engines/Blueprint-Engines-SB-Chevy-Budget-Stomper-w-Aluminum-Heads-383ci-420HP-450TQ/1197263/10002/-1
Meh, a quick bit of Googling shows that the 430 hp LS3 can be had for about the same cost.
Ford's 5.0's 412 hp is SAE net which is about 475-500 hp at the crank, so it's notably more powerful than that 383 SBC. It will also have a far broader power band, be more durable/longer lived, and be all around much more livable.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 05, 2010, 05:52:35 PM
Meh, a quick bit of Googling shows that the 430 hp LS3 can be had for about the same cost.
Ford's 5.0's 412 hp is SAE net which is about 475-500 hp at the crank, so it's notably more powerful than that 383 SBC. It will also have a far broader power band, be more durable/longer lived, and be all around much more livable.
The 412 SAE net is rated at the crank already, not the transmission output or the wheels. "SAE net" simply means that the motor is dynoed with all engine accessories (alternator, AC compressor, power steering pump...) and emissions equipment in place.
Quote from: MX793 on August 05, 2010, 06:17:33 PM
The 412 SAE net is rated at the crank already, not the transmission output or the wheels. "SAE net" simply means that the motor is dynoed with all engine accessories (alternator, AC compressor, power steering pump...) and emissions equipment in place.
Uh, huh - and all those goodies cost 15 - 20% at the crank.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 05, 2010, 05:52:35 PM
Meh, a quick bit of Googling shows that the 430 hp LS3 can be had for about the same cost.
Ford's 5.0's 412 hp is SAE net which is about 475-500 hp at the crank, so it's notably more powerful than that 383 SBC. It will also have a far broader power band, be more durable/longer lived, and be all around much more livable.
You'll just argue anything won't you? I just posted a quick link that I found.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 05, 2010, 09:16:38 PM
Uh, huh - and all those goodies cost 15 - 20% at the crank.
Point is, both SAE net and SAE gross are measured at the crank. Had you said "sans accessories", it would have made much more sense. Saying "at the crank" for your estimated number implies than the SAE net figure was not measured at the crank.
Besides that, who's going to drop that motor in a street car and not keep the power steering and emissions stuff (the latter required in many places)?
Quote from: MX793 on August 06, 2010, 04:18:59 AM
Point is, both SAE net and SAE gross are measured at the crank. Had you said "sans accessories", it would have made much more sense. Saying "at the crank" for your estimated number implies than the SAE net figure was not measured at the crank.
Yeah, but I think the point came across eventually.
Quote
Besides that, who's going to drop that motor in a street car and not keep the power steering and emissions stuff (the latter required in many places)?
Plenty of resto/street rods don't have power accessories owing to the fact they are generally far lighter than a ~3,600 lb Mustang GT. But the point being a certain someone was implicitly equating net and gross @ the crank.
I dropped by the local Ford dealer to see if I could score a test drive in a 2011 5.0L, but all they had was a 5.0L Vert with an Auto. So I passed. I told the salesman I would wait until they got one with a stick and he went checked the order book and then came back and told me the next one will arrive in October and there's already a deposit on it. They had 7 GT 5.0L Manuals come in and 5 sold in the first two days and the other two sold before the week was out. Looks like I'll have to wait a while. I also tried to get some seat time in a Challenger, but the Dodge dealer can't keep them on the lot either. Every time I drive by the lot there are new Challengers there and they are gone the next time I drive by. The only one on the lot right now is an SRT-8 in Plum Crazy and it's already sold and it got there two days ago.
You can't find Challengers? Interesting. Either a lot of them are sitting on lots in some other region or they just don't produce as many considering they only sell ~3,000 a month compared to ~8,000 for Camaros and Mustangs.
I'm thinking they don't produce many because every couple weeks the 2 or 3 Challengers they have on their lot are different.
There's a ton of Challengers at the dealerships around here. The nearest to me has 5 in stock and the second nearest has 11. Surprisingly decent mix of engine and transmission options too. Both dealers have R/Ts and SRTs with manual gearboxes in stock.
Yeah, there are plenty and plenty of Challengers and Mustangs on dealer lots - those cars are selling WAY below production capacity.
From www.autoblog.com comes this conjecture, which follows upon some telling leaks (and hints) that came out last month:
Ford unveiling Boss Mustang on August 13th?
by Sam Abuelsamid (RSS feed) on Aug 7th 2010 at 11:07 AM
With all-new powertrains debuting in the 2011 Ford Mustang, you knew it was just a matter of time before a new limited-edition model was introduced. Well, it looks like that time may be next week. As you all know very well by now, the 2011 Mustang GT has the new Ford 5.0 V8 underhood. Since the new race version (above) wears the Boss 302R moniker, a new street-going Boss 302 seems like a no-brainer.
During a recent Grand-Am race, the announcers let slip that the consumer-spec Boss 302 would debut in mid-August at Laguna Seca as part of Pebble Beach week. (The exact date spinning around the rumormill is August 13.) The Boss reportedly delivers about 430 horsepower with a price in the low $30,000 range :wub:. Ford's motorsports partner, Multimatic, is apparently building some special parts for the Boss 302, but we'll have to wait until next week to find out those specifics if indeed this rumor is true.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Nethead here is a wee bit more skeptical--an unveiling of a Boss 302 concept may occur this week at Laguna Seca but hardware in the showrooms will not occur until SVT has shipped all 5500 2011 GT500s and all 500 2011 GT350s that are to be built--and I dunno when that will be. Anyone know the production rate on those two?
The Boss 302 will be much quicker to build since it is not supercharged (the track version of the GT350 isn't supercharged either, but that is likely to be only a small percentage of the 500 GT350s to be sold as 2011 models).
It will be interesting to see what parts will be sourced from Multimatic of Canada! Adjustable shocks are a good bet ($$$$$$$$$$$$$$$) :cheers:
I can't wait to see it. I'm hoping it will come with a different rear bumper so I can buy one for the rustang someday
Quote from: HotRodPilot on August 11, 2010, 11:17:26 AM
I can't wait to see it. I'm hoping it will come with a different rear bumper so I can buy one for the rustang someday
Yeah, when I get a 2011 Mustang GT, the rear bumper will get replaced with a GT500 unit. The front bumper will be ditched for the Roush unit. That's a smart looking front bumper.
I can't wait to see what this Boss will look like. I'm guessing it will have 450 hp and an even more aggressive suspension setup. I sure hope it looks the part.
Motor Trend magazine's BMW M3 V8-vs-Mustang GT Premium V8 article is fabulous! :rockon: Cobra93 has posted the link in "The Official Mustang Thread", and it is also posted below so you don't hafta skip to there to get it.
CAUTION: BlowCougs, you really don't want to go near that article. If you do, please do so only in the presence of certified professional Suicide Hotline counselors--Hmmmmm--forget I said that!!! Click on the link at the bottom of this posting immediately!!!!
For the intelligent forum participants, this was a Competition & Sport Package BMW M3 matched up with a similarly-equipped Mustang GT Premium--only the MT editors had to pack the Mustang with luxury fluff (and the requisite tonnage such baggage carries with it) to make this the most apples-to-apples comparo that they could. And they still had enough money left over to buy a second Mustang :thumbsup: Nice!
Don't get carried away and forget that a lighter, much less expensive Mustang GT Premium with just the performance options coulda been used in this comparo, but that would be stacking the deck against the high-end M3 and you'll read, see, and hear in this comparo that the new Mustang GT doesn't need any favors to go mano a mano with the Competition & Sport Package M3 Bimmer :ohyeah:
Here's a telling quote from the article:
"... To keep things fair, we spec a brand-new 2011 M3 Coupe with only 1300 miles on the clock. It comes with all the extra goodies that make the M3 a world-class tourer, but the option that most interests us is the new Competition Package. This $2500 kit provides a slightly wider track via higher offset 19-inch wheels and improved grip by way of stickier tires and suspension lowered 0.4 inch. Combined with revisions to the M3's electronic damping control (EDC) and dynamic stability control (DSC) systems, BMW claims the Competition Package-equipped M3 is "the best-handling production M vehicle ever built." Hmmm, hope they mean on a racetrack...
To meet this challenge, we ask Ford to send us a 2011 Mustang GT Premium with optional 3.73 gears ($395) and Brembo brake package ($1695). We also request nearly all the luxury options available (except the glass roof, for weight reasons) to make it a comparable GT. This explains the fancy stripes on the leather seats, HID headlamps, and Sync-based infotainment system.
Despite all the box checking, the only thing we can't equalize is the price. In fact, the chasm between the $67,025 M3 and $40,275 Mustang GT can easily be filled with, well, another Mustang..."
At the risk of being boastful (Who, me????) of how you-'n'-me's affordable performance car fared against one of the ten greatest vehicles of all time, I will defer to the MT editors and race ace Randy Pobst for the commentary, both written and verbal. The videos and lap chart diagram speak for themselves.
Be aware that the Mustang's V8 had almost a full liter of displacement over the BMW's V8--which unsurprisingly gave the Mustang a 95 lbs-ft torque advantage--but the M3 had a 12:1 compression ratio advantage over the Mustang's 11:1 compression ratio, so that diminishes the advantage of that additional liter by a whole lot. OTOH, the Mustang GT can run on Unleaded Regular...Startlingly (to the Nethead here, anyway), the Mustang gets much better mileage and emits significantly less carbon dioxide per mile. Hell, I emit more carbon dioxide per mile than does the Mustang GT! The specification page offers fascinating speculation material :popcorn:, but the end result comes out the same: There is no question that both of these terrific vehicles have earned their deserving inclusion among the Ten Greatest Vehicles of All Time, and it's now only necessary to determine exactly where they stand with respect to the other eight.
My question is: Who just got bumped off the list of the Ten Greatest Vehicles of All Time, because a new one just claimed its rightful place? :praise:
Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1010_2011_2011_ford_mustang_gt_vs_2011_bmw_m3_comparison/packages_and_pricing.html#ixzz0xXUFrvg1
NADAguides.com Lists the Vehicles With the Best Cost of Ownership
-Reminding consumers there is more to a car purchase than just the MSRP; BUT how much more? -
COSTA MESA, Calif., Aug. 26 /PRNewswire/ -- Most consumers begin the car shopping process by setting a monthly or overall budget. However, the overall or monthly budget for a new car purchase isn't the only cost that should be considered when researching cars. Too often there are vital costs that are overlooked and should be considered when determining a budget. Fees and taxes can be a surprise during a vehicle purchase and depending on the state can typically include sales tax, documentation fees and registration; these can add up quickly. In addition, insurance costs, fuel, maintenance and typical repairs should also be included in the overall cost of the vehicle.
To assist consumers with this process, the analysts at NADAguides have used its Cost of Ownership tool to present the top vehicles with the best cost of ownership. The cost of ownership value takes into account depreciation, fees and taxes, financing, insurance, fuel, maintenance and repairs over a five-year period.
"Far too many consumers get into a vehicle that is beyond their means. Not because they are unable to afford the monthly payments, but because they are unable to financially keep up with the ongoing costs associated with a vehicle - insurance, repairs, oil changes, etc.," says Don Christy, Jr., president of NADAguides. "Our team at NADAguides specifically developed the Cost of Ownership tool to help consumers determine what they can really afford."
The NADAguides top picks by body style with the best cost of ownership in relationship to their MSRP are:
Coupes
2011 Ford Mustang 2 Door GT Premium: MSRP of $32,845 with a total cost of ownership of $54,281 over a 5-year period, averaging $10,856.20 per year. This is the exact model that Motor Trend just compared to the BMW M3--Kick ass, save money :thumbsup:
2011 BMW 1 Series 2 Door Convertible 128i SULEV: MSRP of $34,200 with a total cost of ownership of $58,385 over a 5-year period, averaging $11,677.00 per year.
Crossovers
2010 Honda CR-V 4WD 5 Door EX-L w/ Navigation: MSRP of $29,745 with a total cost of ownership of $46,166 over a 5-year period, averaging $9,233.20 per year.
2011 Ford Edge 4 Door Limited: MSRP of $34,220 with a total cost of ownership of $54,048 over a 5-year period, averaging $10,809.60 per year.
Luxury Vehicles
Yada yada yada...
.
.
.
Note: Actual cost of ownership values are based upon average miles driven per year, years of driving experience and ZIP code including the costs of depreciation, fees and taxes, financing, insurance, fuel, maintenance and repairs over a five-year period. For this comparison, metrics were based off of a driver with more than 6 years experience that drives an average of 15,000 miles/year in the ZIP of 92626
Do you have a link to that article so we can see the other classes?
Thanks.
Quote from: MrH on August 30, 2010, 09:25:22 AM
Do you have a link to that article so we can see the other classes?
Thanks.
Just go look in "The Official Mustang Thread", "Tuner Mustangs", "Roadracing Mustangs", "Mustangs Rule Thread", "Nothing is better than a Mustang Thread", and last but not least "Ford is the King of the Universe Thread".
MrH: www.NADAguides.com.
just read a C/D short-take review on the Mustang 5.0 convertible. Disappointing amount of chassis flex just like every Mustang convertible that preceded it. Damn. :frown:
It would be pointless to wait for a Camaro convertible, because by the time that comes out, I'd have saved up enough money for a Bimmer.
Quote from: Vinsanity on August 30, 2010, 12:25:07 PM
It would be pointless to wait for a Camaro convertible, because by the time that comes out, I'd have saved up enough money for a Bimmer.
Tell me about it!
Quote from: Vinsanity on August 30, 2010, 12:25:07 PM
just read a C/D short-take review on the Mustang 5.0 convertible. Disappointing amount of chassis flex just like every Mustang convertible that preceded it. Damn. :frown:
That's the problem with 90% of the convertibles out there.
Quote from: SVT666 on August 30, 2010, 01:35:44 PM
That's the problem with 90% of the convertibles out there.
It's a bigger problem with 4-seaters than 2-seaters. The s2k was pretty damn stiff for an open-top car, but the only 4-seater droptop I found acceptable are the BMW's.
For C/D's as-tested price on their Stang, I'd almost go straight for the G37C if it didn't have the same problem.
Quote from: SVT666 on August 30, 2010, 01:35:44 PM
That's the problem with 90% of the convertibles out there.
And yet, I'd put up with it, since nothing rivals the convertible driving experience (to me, anyway).
Thankfully, I can still enjoy a mellifluous V8 with the roof down on a sturdy vehicle for under $40k:
(http://images.autotrader.com/scaler/565/421/images/2010/8/19/282/277/17100491520.282277366.IM1.MAIN.565x421_A.562x421.jpg)
http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?ct=c&car_id=282277366 (http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?ct=c&car_id=282277366)
IIRC, CLK's have a little more quiver than a 3-series or SL, but nothing unacceptable for its price.
The S2000 was purpose built as a vert, so that's not a good example.
Quote from: Raza on August 30, 2010, 01:43:46 PM
And yet, I'd put up with it, since nothing rivals the convertible driving experience (to me, anyway).
+1. Top-down driving is, by far, the best way to do it. I can't wait for the day I buy one.
Aren't the 2005+ Mustangs supposed to have really stiff chassis?Interesting that the convertibles don't carry that over.
Quote from: hotrodalex on August 30, 2010, 08:19:24 PM
Aren't the 2005+ Mustangs supposed to have really stiff chassis?Interesting that the convertibles don't carry that over.
You lose a lot of structural integrity when you cut the roof off a car that wasn't designed as a convertible.
Quote from: SVT666 on August 30, 2010, 10:02:07 PM
You lose a lot of structural integrity when you cut the roof off a car that wasn't designed as a convertible.
Seems like it would carry over a little, at least compared to other convertibles. But apparently not.
Quote from: hotrodalex on September 02, 2010, 01:13:20 PM
Seems like it would carry over a little, at least compared to other convertibles. But apparently not.
The roof is a huge source of stiffness. Lambo has to add loads of extra structure to the Gallardo when they chop the top off, and it still isn't nearly as stiff as the coupe.
Quote from: MX793 on September 02, 2010, 02:30:22 PM
The roof is a huge source of stiffness. Lambo has to add loads of extra structure to the Gallardo when they chop the top off, and it still isn't nearly as stiff as the coupe.
I know. :huh: I'm saying common sense would say stiff coupe =
comparatively stiff convertible. As in, compared to other convertibles.
Quote from: MX793 on September 02, 2010, 02:30:22 PM
The roof is a huge source of stiffness. Lambo has to add loads of extra structure to the Gallardo when they chop the top off, and it still isn't nearly as stiff as the coupe.
And I doubt any owners care. I know I wouldn't. Hearing the sound that car makes.... I would buy one if the chassis was made of pudding.
This mustang convert isn't that bad. Try one from the 80's or early 90's. If it was on a hill you couldn't open the doors. I'm not kidding either.
And they must have needed to add weight to the front for some reason. I had just started doing bodywork at the time and took the front
fenders off one and the factory had but big, heavy ass metal bars on the aprons. The only thing they could have been was to even something
out.
Man, Ford sucked back then.
Quote from: Onslaught on September 02, 2010, 06:58:42 PM
This mustang convert isn't that bad. Try one from the 80's or early 90's. If it was on a hill you couldn't open the doors. I'm not kidding either.
And they must have needed to add weight to the front for some reason. I had just started doing bodywork at the time and took the front
fenders off one and the factory had but big, heavy ass metal bars on the aprons. The only thing they could have been was to even something
out.
Man, Ford sucked back then.
The coupes aren't much better from back then. You can see drag racing videos on YouTube where Fox body Stangs are twisting quite dramatically on launch. The chassis upgrades for the Fox body Stangs is quite extensive too. You could easily add 200 lbs in subframe connectors and shit.
The Fox bodies are bad?
I kind of want a '79 302 :(
Quote from: mzziaz on September 05, 2010, 09:41:11 AM
The Fox bodies are bad?
I kind of want a '79 302 :(
They were OK in their day, but that's not saying much.
Let the waiting begin...I ordered mine today. :cheers:
Quote from: Cobra93 on September 10, 2010, 03:41:04 PM
Let the waiting begin...I ordered mine today. :cheers:
Fuck Yeah!!!! StangSPIN here we come.
How did you order it? What options? Colour? Etc?
Quote from: SVT666 on September 10, 2010, 04:01:15 PM
How did you order it? What options? Colour? Etc?
(http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h308/Standman38637/2011GT.jpg)
Nice. I priced one out on the US Ford site yesterday and it came $34,900 +/-. I'm so fucking jealous right now. ARGH!
NICE!
I just priced out a Mustang GT exactly as I would want it from the factory if I were ordering it today:
2011 Mustang GT
400A Package
6 spd Manual
Kona Blue Exterior
Saddle Leather Interior
Brembo Brake Package $1,695
3.73 Rearend $395
Security Package $395
HID Headlights $525
Comfort Package $595
Accessories
Decklid Trim Panel $225
GT500 Rear Fascia Diffuser $150
GT Front Lower Fascia $250
$37,925
Same car on the Canadian Ford website is $43,099.
www.autoweek.com pulls no punches in its latest roadtests of a 2011 Mustang GT convertible, and also compares it to a 2011 Mustang GT coupe--although the article splits about 80/20 convertible over coupe. They let the automatic transmissioned convertible have it! :evildude: The most enjoyable part of this article is John Neff's "Second Opinion" at the bottom of the article. :rockon:
Review: 2011 Ford Mustang GT Coupe and Convertible
by Dan Roth (RSS feed) on Sep 21st 2010 at 11:57 AM
Forty-six Years Of Refinement Make It The Pony Car To Beat
Potentially ruinous. All that work on an impressive new 5.0-liter V8 engine, chassis tweaks and other piecemeal refinements for the 2011 Ford Mustang GT are almost all for naught because of a single glaring issue. What could erase all the gains the Mustang has made for 2011? The answer is nestled between the front seats, and it goes by the name 6R80.
Despite the promise that a smooth-shifting six-speed automatic transmission carries, not to mention the associated fuel economy, the auto 'box blunts the Mustang's edge severely. Can the new 5.0-liter V8 and wind in your hair make up for the dulling effect of the Mustang GT Convertible's transmission?
The 2011 Mustang wears year-old styling that still looks up-to-the-minute fresh. Of course, there are retro cues in the sheetmetal, but the changes to the Mustang's looks for 2010 deftly separate the newest Mustangs from the 2005-2009 cars. Surfaces are far more sculpted and much more playful with light, and the front-end styling brings a lot of the Shelby GT500 to the everyman's Mustang. The $34,645 entry point for a V8-powered Mustang convertible is attainable, and the GT Premium Convertible carries SYNC as standard equipment, as well as the Shaker 500 audio system (both options on lower trims), along with interior ambient lighting. The gauges in the GT Premium also get into the chameleon routine with MyColor, and trim detailing dresses up the Premium's interior with chrome accents and a glossy center stack finish.
With the arrival of the new V8, "5.0" badges make a return to the Mustang's flanks after an 18-year absence. The folding soft top on the convertible saves weight and only consumes 3.8 cu. ft. of trunk space, though it does add some buggy-whip anachronism to the Mustang's otherwise slick profile. Mustang GTs are also quickly identifiable by their grille-mounted foglamps and 18-inch wheels that fit snugly under the boldly flared wheelarches. Awkwardness does creep in around the tapered rear corners, but ponycars are bold, and the 2011 Mustang is no wallflower.
Fine assembly quality is on display both inside and out. Panel gaps are close enough to pass muster in the luxury world, and even without its roof, the Mustang Convertible feels tight, though there is cowl shake on some surfaces and distinctly less body rigidity than the coupe. The interior is much improved over the previous generation, though it won't be winning any awards for opulence. The cabin is on par with its Chevrolet Camaro and Dodge Challenger competition. The dashboard is made of low-gloss, soft-touch material that presents well and the leather upholstered seats in the GT Premium Convertible we drove are comfortable, if under-bolstered.
Sadly, door panels are cheap-feeling hard plastic and make elbows ache. A power lower cushion and manual backrest adjustment may save weight, but it's annoying in practice and gives the impression of cost-cutting more than any nod to trimming a few pounds. Taken in context with the rest of its class, however, the Mustang's interior is well-imagined and functionally excellent. The power-operated convertible top has a rigid front panel that makes it less necessary to wrestle with the tonneau cover, and weather sealing is good. Predictably, noise is up over coupe versions; good in that you can hear the burble of the 5.0 more, bad in that there's more wind noise at highway speeds. It's nothing that the Shaker 500 audio system can't overcome, if it's tinnitus you seek.
The retro-themed interior, with its patterned-metal inlay, chrome-ringed electroluminescent gauges sporting a retro narrow font and running-horse emblems will please baby boomers looking to recapture their senior year of high school. Modern details hide inside, too. Ford's Sync system is a star in everything, and illuminated door pulls, sill plates and footwells are a nice touch ? in switchable colors, no less. The Rapid Spec 401A Premier Trim and Color Accent Package was tossed in on our test car, a $395 charge that adds colored trim to the seats, stitching and Pony badges on the door panels and a darker finish on the instrument panel.
The real news is the 5.0 liter V8 that makes its debut in the 2011 Mustang GT. Dubbed the Coyote during development, the dual overhead cam engine independently varies the timing of intake and exhaust events with a system Ford calls Twin Independent Variable Camshaft Timing (Ti-VCT.) Tubular exhaust headers and a classic "Powered by Ford" legend on the valve covers are outward signals of performance. Inside the aluminum engine block, jets of oil keep the pistons cool, main bearing caps are cross-bolted for rigidity and a baffled oil pan shrugs off repeated hi-g cornering. Ford knows it's built a killer affordable performance car that can mop the floor with most vehicles it encounters, and has endowed it with an engine that can stand up to racing right off the showroom floor.
From behind the wheel, it's immediately evident that the Mustang GT Convertible is no parade float, even with the automatic. The engine's 11.0:1 compression ratio realizes its full potential on premium fuel, resulting in 412 horsepower and 390 pound-feet of torque. Horsepower drops off to 402 on regular fuel, while torque takes a greater hit, falling to 377 lb-ft. Truth be told, the automatic transmission is okay once you get used to it. There's a delay for kickdown, as in most modern automatics, but shift quality is good and it gets itself into locked-up overdrive as soon as possible, resulting in EPA fuel economy estimates of 17 mpg city and 26 mpg highway.
There is no manual shift gate, sport mode or paddles on the non-telescoping steering wheel. You're faced with the very same shifting options as your grandmother's Crown Victoria: PRND321. It's frustrating. Of all the cars in Ford's lineup, the Mustang should be first in line when doling out the sporty shift programs. The V8 with automatic is perfectly happy to swallow interstate miles or drag race tarmac, but when the road turns twisty, it's a dud thanks to the recalcitrant transmission.
It's a shame that the automatic cuts into enjoyment, because the rest of the 2011 Mustang is so fully realized. The engine is responsive, throaty and strong; it's a trifle to blow the car sideways by pulling into traffic over-zealously. There's low-end torque and plentiful high-rpm power. The 245/45 Pirelli P Zero Nero tires on 19-inch wheels that our tester wore can only resist the wave of muscle from the engine so much, though the Mustang is easy to bring back under control once it breaks traction.
There's finally satisfying mojo under the hood of a Mustang that can keep up with the excellent V8 engines in the Camaro and Challenger. The new 5.0 is the last piece of the puzzle to Mustang dominance in the segment, too. It's still significantly lighter than its two main rivals, and moreover, it feels lighter on its feet. Live axle or not, this is one great-handling car. Ford's electric power steering system can do impressive things like compensate for crown in the road or unevenly worn tires, but it's also slightly on the numb side. The roofless structure is relatively solid, with only some occasional cowl shake. Load up those 19-inchers in a tight corner and the Mustang Convertible doesn't feel like a clockspring winding up; that's good.
For a $37,845 base price, our 2011 Mustang GT Premium Convertible was not only very well equipped, as it should be, but very capable. And most drivers will likely see the automatic transmission as an asset, rather than the detriment to driving enjoyment we found it to be. In our experience, the live rear axle simply isn't an issue, despite the constant drone of the naysayers. The Mustang rides and performs impressively, with tightly controlled chassis motions and predictable handling. It's a better-rounded package than either of its neo-ponycar colleagues, and it's the only convertible in town, at least until the drop-top Camaro arrives next year.
In addition to being at the head of its own class, the 2011 Mustang GT Convertible is also a scrappy athlete that can mix it up with much more expensive and snooty hardware. In that sense, it's a repeat of what's always been great about Detroit performance cars ? just try and find a better deal on a new car that performs this well. Even with the wrong transmission
Second Opinion: 2011 Ford Mustang GT Premium
by John Neff
I'm not a convertible guy. Aside from the extra weight and platform compromising characteristics of a drop-top, I just don't like sharing my stereo with the rest of the neighborhood. I'll also take a manual transmission over an automatic any day, so I thank the car gods that the 2011 Ford Mustang GT delivered to me wasn't the same one Mr. Roth reviewed. Mine was the coupe with the six-speed MT82 transmission, sprayed in evocative Grabber Blue and commanding a less-expensive base price than the convertible at $32,845 (all Mustangs carry an additional $850 in destination charges, as well).
In the case of the 2011 Ford Mustang GT, if you're interested in things like performance, handling and price more than whether or not your not cranium can get a tan, go for the coupe. Comparing manual-equipped models of both, the Mustang GT coupe is 118 pounds lighter than the automatic and $5,000 less expensive. There's not much left to consider unless you plan to drive your Mustang GT in a parade every weekend.
As for Dan's distaste of the Mustang GT's automatic transmission, I'll agree that saddling any modern day muscle car with an automatic transmission is a disappointment from the get-go, especially when said slushbox comes with no manual shifting functions. The 'Stang's six-speed manual is the transmission you want if you're going for the full muscle car effect; accept no substitutes.
Whereas the six-speed automatic effectively corrals the new 5.0-liter V8, the six-speed manual lets those ponies run free, fuel economy be damned. The shifter action is nice and deliberate if a little notchy, but definitely not sloppy. The stick itself is also very short, which makes throws quick and easy unless you've got a beverage in the center console's cup holders. Best to avoid bottles of any kind, which are tall enough to get right in the way of your arm's motion when shifting gears.
The new 5.0-liter V8 is a gem of an engine and plays perfectly with the manual transmission. Perhaps its most surprising characteristic is that it delivers power everywhere, even high in the rev range before it tops out a redline just shy of 7,000 rpm. That makes the new 5.0 more than just what its peak power numbers of 412 horsepower at 6,500 rpm and 390 pound-feet of torque at 4,250 suggest, since its broad powerband is working hard for you at every rpm. Of course, that's to say nothing of the engine's aesthetic qualities, a feature so often forgotten these days under the many plastic shrouds that commonly obscure an engine's actual shape. The Mustang GT bucks this, showing off its tubular exhaust headers like a body builder's bicep peeking out from the sleeve of his muscle shirt.
Fortune had it that I also drove a 2010 Dodge Challenger SRT8 a couple weeks prior to the Mustang GT, and a comparison between either the Challenger or this car's other obvious competitor, the Chevrolet Camaro, brings into sharp relief what Ford is doing with the Mustang. Its cross-town rivals are less focused on bringing a balanced performance car to the party than creating an experience. At its most basic level, the feeling of driving a modern day muscle car requires retro styling and a big, powerful engine. Both the Challenger and Camaro offer this, though each takes their own tack at what "retro styling" means.
The Mustang, however, hasn't taken a break in 46 years, and so doesn't need to convince anyone that it shares a direct link with the cars from the late '60s and early '70s that defined this class. Instead, the latest generation Mustang nearly evolves the car right out of the muscle segment. It is a high-performance car on every level, perhaps evidenced best by what it's being compared with other than the Challenger and Camaro. We ourselves pitted the new 2011 Mustang V6 against the Nissan 370Z and Hyundai Genesis Coupe, while Motor Trend put up this same GT model against the BMW M3. Let me repeat: the BMW M3. And the Mustang GT almost won, which is a victory itself.
All this is to say that the 2011 Ford Mustang GT is laser-focused on being the best all-around performance value on the market, not just the best reinterpretation of what it means to be a muscle car in 2010. If you just want to look good in a Mustang, get the automatic-equipped convertible model reviewed above and idle along on Woodward Avenue to your heart's content. If you want Challengers and Camaros in your rearview mirror while nipping at the back bumper of an M3, get this model.
From the November 2010 issue of Consumer Reports, pages 60-62, comes their test of the 2011 Mustang GT 5.0 coupe & convertible! To say they like this coupe is quite the understatement--the convertible, not so much.
Both are Recommended selections, the coupe in the "Sports Cars" category and the convertible in the "4-Seat Convertibles" category. The coupe is the only vehicle to get five out of six Excellents in the performance categories when they compared the Mustang GT and the Mustang GT convertible to three vehicles in the "Luxury Sedans" article :huh: also in the November issue (the Infiniti M37, the Hyundai Genesis V8, and the BMW 535i). Does this mean they're moving Mustangs up in the world? :winkguy: The Mustang GT coupe scored five Very Goods and four Goods in all the other categorys except for a Fair in Trunk and a Poor in Rear-Seat Comfort.
Certain accolades were awarded in the vehicle class of "Sports Cars"--which included the BMW 135i at $37,650; the Subaru Impreza WRX STi at $37,640; the Mazda RX-8 at $31,305; the Volkswagen GTI (4-door) at $27,504; the Subaru Impreza WRX at $26,088; the Mustang GT Premium 5.0 at $36,310; the Misti Bushi Lancer Evolution GSR at $38,078; the Mustang Premium (V6) at $28,680; the Camaro 2SS (V8) at $35,425; the Hyundai Genesis Coupe Grand Touring (V6) at $28,195; the Camaro 2LT (V6) at $28,195; and the Dodge Challenger R/T (V8) at $36,600, in that order. "For acceleration and agile handling" had one recommendation: the Mustang GT Premium 5.0. "For an agile convertible" had one recommendation: the Mustang GT Premium convertible. The two Mustangs were the only vehicles to achieve a Safety rating of Very Good.
"The Mustang GT is fast and agile and tackles corners and straightaways with equal ability. A decent ride and comfortable front seats make it livable. The V8 engine is powerful, sounds great, and gets decent fuel economy...In either form (coupe or convertible), and with either the manual or automatic transmission, the GT is an enjoyable muscle car...Quick, well-weighted steering does a good job at conveying road feel, but recent tweaks have diminished feedback a little...The coupe turned in an impressive speed in our track-handling trials. The convertible was less capable, but drivers felt confident at the wheel. The well-calibrated stability control intervenes appropriately for both. The 402-hp, 5.0-liter V8 engine delivers excellent performance. With premium fuel, that horsepower number bumps up to 412. The coupe, with a six-speed manual transmission, got an impressive 22 mpg overall on regular fuel (only Consumer Reports would roadtest a musclecar on regular :facepalm:); the automatic convertible topped it by 1 mpg. The manual transmission in the coupe has ratios well matched to the engine, short throws, and a sporty feel. Our convertible came with a six-speed automatic, which only slightly detracts from the high-performance feel. Stopping distances were short overall, with a firm, easy to modulate pedal...We expect above-average reliability for the V8 Mustangs.
Highs: Acceleration, handling, braking, exhaust sound, relatively good fuel economy
Lows: Tight rear seat, small trunk opening, awkward top operation (convertible), no telescoping steering wheel"
SHELBY ADDS $750, 624-HORSE "R" TUNE TO GT350 LINEUP
By Andrew Ganz
If the 525-horsepower supercharged Shelby GT350 isn't quite enough for you, the Las Vegas-based performance tuner will now offer a 624-pony GT350 variant.
Topping the Shelby GT350 range, the "R" tune model (don't call it GT350R, although Shelby will neither confirm nor deny plans for such a model) boasts unique engine and supercharger tuning compared to the standard model. Shelby says all will be capable of running on standard pump gas. Both come with a Shelby/Ford Racing Whipple black finish supercharger and a host of suspension, styling and brake upgrades. All GT350s, whether supercharged or naturally aspirated, start with Ford's new 5.0-liter V8 plucked from the 2011 Ford Mustang GT coupe.
Shelby hasn't released many performance details on the GT350 with the "R" tune aside from the uprated horsepower figure, but the company's president says that the model is the "ultimate small block muscle car."
?The results show that the Shelby GT350 takes American performance to an entirely new level." said John Luft, president of Shelby American.
"In recent tests, the standard supercharged car hit 60 miles per hour in just 3.7 seconds and ran the quarter in 12 seconds flat at 121.4 mph, all while generating 1.05g of lateral acceleration and stopping from 60 mph in only 107 feet. We believe the "R" tuned GT350 will be even faster.?
Tweaks
All GT350s also come with a unique Shelby/Ford Racing suspension package, Shelby caster camber plate kit, upgraded Baer/ERADISPEED brakes, Cragar 19-inch alloy wheels, a Borla exhaust and a complete styling package. Like its siblings, the "R" tune will be registered in the ever-important Shelby Registry with its own unique VIN.
Shelby also announced today that it will offer all versions of the GT350 with either solid painted-on stripes (pictured) or GT350-labeled adhesive stripes (like on the preproduction GT350 Leftlane drove earlier this year). A new "Powered by Ford" badge will also be added to the front fender of all GT350s.
But perhaps the biggest surprise is the reasonable $750 price tag for the "R" tune on top of the $33,995 for the supercharged GT350 conversion (which doesn't include the purchase price of a 2011 Ford Mustang GT coupe).
That's gotta be the cheapest 99 real horsepower ever offered! Chevy uprated the V6 Camaro from 304 HP to 312 HP without doing ANYTHING to the Camaro or to its V6--which is the cheapest horsepower ever offered by anyone and is as real as the hoodscoop on a Camaro SS! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
HA! Sucks for anyone that got the 525 hp one.
Quote from: hotrodalex on October 07, 2010, 05:41:10 PM
HA! Sucks for anyone that got the 525 hp one.
I don't know. I'm willing to bet the 525 hp version is faster to 60 mph.
Quote from: hotrodalex on October 07, 2010, 05:41:10 PM
HA! Sucks for anyone that got the 525 hp one.
hotrodalex: I wonder if anyone actually has, since I believe all three horsepowers were offered simultaneously? Some things are just beyond comprehension..."Born to Be Mild" Schleppenwolf :lol:
This brief article is also posted in Morris Minor's "The Power & the Fuel-Sipping Glory" thread. Since the award was given by Popular Mechanics for the new 5.0L V8 as well as for the new 3.7L V6 so credit needs to be given in this thread, too:
The Top 10 Cars of 2011: Auto Excellence Awards
PERFORMANCE VEHICLE OF THE YEAR:
Throughout the year, (the editors of Popular Mechanics) record the functionality, technology, value and feel of new cars from our test drives. Near the end of the year, we gather and argue for the best cars and trucks of 2011. Here they are, the year's top 10 cars and trucks. By The Editors
Ford Mustang
Base Price: $22,145
Last year, we picked the Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 as the best performance car, and we didn't expect to bestow the honor on the original ponycar again for quite some time. After all, the performance category is brimming with dynamic-handling, powerfully motivated competitors from around the globe?the BMW M3 and the Chevrolet Corvette were recent winners?and they're all improving, all the time.
But over the course of the past few months, Ford has re energized the entire Mustang lineup. First, the new (base Mustang) arrived with an astonishingly versatile V6 engine that developed 305 hp while attaining more than 30 mpg. Alongside that entry-level engine, we witnessed the rebirth of the 5.0, a nostalgic number that represents high performance?by virtue of its 412 hp?like none other.
Except, perhaps, for the 302. Ford reincarnated the Boss 302 nameplate for 2011 as a naturally aspirated 440-hp race car you can drive to the racetrack. You can manually tune the adjustable shocks to their hardest settings, win the race, and then revert to the softer street settings and drive home.
Finally, the 2011 Shelby GT500 still sits at the extreme side of the spectrum, featuring a new, lighter aluminum block for its supercharged 5.4-liter V8 (which makes 550 hp and 510 lb-ft of torque). Race ya' for pinks?
October 2010 sales figures:
Mustang: 5,317
Camaro: 5,013
Challenger: 3,182
2010 sales numbers through October:
Camaro: 71,512
Mustang: 64,1171
Challenger: 30,964
Cougs is a much worse troll than I give him credit for. He has to post the YTD numbers to show how well the Camaro is doing because it got outsold last month. Step aside Nethead.
Quote from: GoCougs on November 03, 2010, 06:49:54 PM
2010 sales numbers through October:
Camaro: 71,512
Mustang: 64,1171
Challenger: 30,964
Yearly sales numbers 1965-2001
Mustang: 7,899,556
Camaro: 4,821,768
:lol:
(http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h308/Standman38637/DSC00286.jpg)
(http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h308/Standman38637/DSC00283.jpg)
(http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h308/Standman38637/DSC00284.jpg)
First item of business:
(http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h308/Standman38637/DSC00292.jpg)
Quote from: Cobra93 on November 03, 2010, 08:08:48 PM
Yearly sales numbers 1965-2001
Mustang: 7,899,556
Camaro: 4,821,768
:lol:
That doesn't factor in that the Mustang has had 11 more model years than the Camaro. Accounting for that, the across-the-lifetime average for each is more like this:
Mustang: 168,076/yr.
Camaro: 133,938/yr.
Mustangs have traditionally sold more "secretary" versions than Camaros, so it's naturally going to carry more volume.
Quote from: the Teuton on November 14, 2010, 05:01:21 PM
That doesn't factor in that the Mustang has had 11 more model years than the Camaro. Accounting for that, the across-the-lifetime average for each is more like this:
Mustang: 168,076/yr.
Camaro: 133,938/yr.
Mustangs have traditionally sold more "secretary" versions than Camaros, so it's naturally going to carry more volume.
That's true. Most women wouldn't be caught dead driving a Camaro :huh:.
Quote from: the Teuton on November 14, 2010, 05:01:21 PM
That doesn't factor in that the Mustang has had 11 more model years than the Camaro. Accounting for that, the across-the-lifetime average for each is more like this:
Mustang: 168,076/yr.
Camaro: 133,938/yr.
Mustangs have traditionally sold more "secretary" versions than Camaros, so it's naturally going to carry more volume.
You took that seriously? :facepalm:
Quote from: FoMoJo on November 14, 2010, 05:21:24 PM
That's true. Most women wouldn't be caught dead driving a Camaro :huh:.
Women don't drive cars that look like giant phalli.
Quote from: FoMoJo on November 14, 2010, 05:21:24 PM
That's true. Most women wouldn't be caught dead driving a Camaro :huh:.
Last Wednesday I saw a blonde MILF in an IOM Camaro SS 6MT with what sounded like headers+exhaust. She was awesome. :wub:
Quote from: 68_427 on November 14, 2010, 05:35:02 PM
Last Wednesday I saw a blonde MILF in an IOM Camaro SS 6MT with what sounded like headers+exhaust. She was awesome. :wub:
The Camaro SS is way too muffled from the factory. Just saying...
Also, I got to sit in one again. It's better than I initially reported, but not much. I could drive one if need-be.
Which is why I was saying it sounded like it had some aftermarket goodies.
Quote from: HotRodPilot on November 14, 2010, 05:37:37 PM
Nice job, thoughts?
Love it but haven't had a chance to drive it much yet. Definitely much stronger than my 2005 was.
Quote from: Cobra93 on November 14, 2010, 05:45:39 PM
Love it but haven't had a chance to drive it much yet. Definitely much stronger than my 2005 was.
How's the ride comfort compare?
If you've been able to drive it aggressively, does it wheel hop as much as the '05?
Quote from: HotRodPilot on November 14, 2010, 05:47:24 PM
How's the ride comfort compare?
If you've been able to drive it aggressively, does it wheel hop as much as the '05?
It rides noticeably better than the 2005. I haven't driven it hard enough to induce wheel hop yet
Quote from: 68_427 on November 14, 2010, 05:35:02 PM
Last Wednesday I saw a blonde MILF in an IOM Camaro SS 6MT with what sounded like headers+exhaust. She was awesome. :wub:
There's a super hot blonde chick that owns a white Camaro w/ flat black stripes around here. It's perfect. :wub:
Very nice there Cobra93.
Quote from: GoCougs on November 16, 2010, 07:37:50 AM
Very nice there Cobra93.
Thank you very much. You're actually the
last guy I expected that from. ;) :lol:
I'll post some more after it's lowered and the 275 rears are on there.
Quote from: Cobra93 on November 16, 2010, 08:22:00 AM
Thank you very much. You're actually the last guy I expected that from. ;) :lol:
I'll post some more after it's lowered and the 275 rears are on there.
Dunno why - I've always said that the Mustang was a great car, with the '10 refresh being a very good styling update.
Quote from: GoCougs on November 16, 2010, 08:57:25 AM
Dunno why - I've always said that the Mustang was a great car, with the '10 refresh being a very good styling update.
It was far more than a styling update.
Quote from: Cobra93 on November 14, 2010, 04:47:21 PM
(http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h308/Standman38637/DSC00286.jpg)
That is sweet. I'm so envious Christians would say I'm going to hell.
EDIT: Is the pony finished in black chrome? It doesn't look like it, but it's supposed to be.
Quote from: SVT666 on November 16, 2010, 09:15:06 AM
That is sweet. I'm so envious Christians would say I'm going to hell.
EDIT: Is the pony finished in black chrome? It doesn't look like it, but it's supposed to be.
From what I've read, the 2010's had the black chrome pony. The 2011's don't.
Quote from: Cobra93 on November 16, 2010, 09:42:04 AM
From what I've read, the 2010's had the black chrome pony. The 2011's don't.
Well, when I get my 2011 (in about 3 years), I'll be getting a black chrome pony to put on it. I think it looks better.
Quote from: SVT666 on November 16, 2010, 11:46:34 AM
Well, when I get my 2011 (in about 3 years), I'll be getting a black chrome pony to put on it. I think it looks better.
It's a popular mod for the black ones. I've seen several people do it.
275s will be a nice touch. I've believed ever since I heard the 412 hp figure that 275s should have been standard.
Quote from: SVT666 on November 16, 2010, 09:13:28 AM
It was far more than a styling update.
Anything to start something, eh?
(Enter a laundry list of the non-styling updates...)
I'm not sure about the flat black lower trim that surrounds the whole car. Probably not realistic to get it painted the same sheen as the body, and removing it probably uncovers some unsightliness.
Quote from: GoCougs on November 16, 2010, 02:55:28 PM
I'm not sure about the flat black lower trim that surrounds the whole car. Probably not realistic to get it painted the same sheen as the body, and removing it probably uncovers some unsightliness.
The only solution is to replace the bumper covers. Unfortunately there aren't any bumper covers that I can find to fix the rear end, but the front end is greatly improved with the Roush bumper.
(http://www.tunner.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/2010-ROUSH-427R-Ford-Mustang-front-angle-view-575x431.jpg)
Quote from: GoCougs on November 16, 2010, 02:51:58 PM
Anything to start something, eh?
(Enter a laundry list of the non-styling updates...)
2010 updates included a fully revised suspension, brakes, steering, gearing, tires, etc.
2011 updates included a completely new engine, completely new suspension, completely new steering system, brakes, and new tires, etc.
The Mustang went from being a competent handler in 2009 to being a an M3 rival in 2011. That wasn't accomplished with just styling updates.
Quote from: GoCougs on November 16, 2010, 02:55:28 PM
I'm not sure about the flat black lower trim that surrounds the whole car. Probably not realistic to get it painted the same sheen as the body, and removing it probably uncovers some unsightliness.
The worst is the rear diffuser. Some people are painting the top half of the diffuser body color. I'm considering that myself.
(http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h308/Standman38637/Rear_paint.jpg)
Quote from: Cobra93 on November 16, 2010, 03:29:42 PM
The worst is the rear diffuser. Some people are painting the top half of the diffuser body color. I'm considering that myself.
(http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h308/Standman38637/Rear_paint.jpg)
I like that actually. The only problem that I see is that it won't match up with the side skirt though.
Quote from: SVT666 on November 16, 2010, 03:41:16 PM
I like that actually. The only problem that I see is that it won't match up with the side skirt though.
I don't think you'd notice as much on a black car.
Quote from: Cobra93 on November 16, 2010, 04:00:47 PM
I don't think you'd notice as much on a black car.
No that's true, but it is noticeable on the white one you posted.
Quote from: Cobra93 on November 16, 2010, 03:29:42 PM
The worst is the rear diffuser. Some people are painting the top half of the diffuser body color. I'm considering that myself.
(http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h308/Standman38637/Rear_paint.jpg)
That looks like the best option.
I'm also thinking about matte black Shelby stripes. Opinions?
Quote from: Cobra93 on November 16, 2010, 04:12:48 PM
I'm also thinking about matte black Shelby stripes. Opinions?
Matte black would look good, and though I started out really liking stripes on the Mustang back in 2005, I prefer the new car without stripes.
Quote from: Cobra93 on November 16, 2010, 04:12:48 PM
I'm also thinking about matte black Shelby stripes. Opinions?
I've always wanted a matte black car, but I've never gotten a clear answer as to how to take car of them.
Cobra about the stripes. Try to find time one weekend to get some washable matte duplicolor (if they makes it in matte black) and do them with that yourself. Then you don't have to worry about not liking them because it wouldn't be expensive and you can just wash them off.
Quote from: hotrodalex on November 16, 2010, 04:21:19 PM
I've always wanted a matte black car, but I've never gotten a clear answer as to how to take car of them.
Make like a present and wrap.
Matte black on black can look pretty sharp. I remember seeing some photos of MCoA Editions which got satin black stripes even on black colored cars and it looked quite good. It wasn't obviously striped from some angles and in certain lighting, but in others it kind of popped. I liked it.
I just want to rip the black rear diffuser off and leave it that way :lol:
(http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l21/iamrich17/IMG_0682f.jpg)
(http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l21/iamrich17/IMG_0682.jpg)
Quote from: SVT666 on November 16, 2010, 03:17:43 PM
2010 updates included a fully revised suspension, brakes, steering, gearing, tires, etc.
2011 updates included a completely new engine, completely new suspension, completely new steering system, brakes, and new tires, etc.
The Mustang went from being a competent handler in 2009 to being a an M3 rival in 2011. That wasn't accomplished with just styling updates.
Right, 2010 was 95% a styling update.
(Please don't make me ignore you
again.)
Quote from: HotRodPilot on November 16, 2010, 06:47:08 PM
I just want to rip the black rear diffuser off and leave it that way :lol:
(http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l21/iamrich17/IMG_0682f.jpg)
(http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l21/iamrich17/IMG_0682.jpg)
I do not understand the point of these two pictures. And why one has ellipses and the other does not.
It was a cut and paste out of another thread. I edited the 2nd photo's rear diffuser, making it as I wish it would look
O. Ur mad FotoShopeeng skillz fooled me.
Quote from: SVT666 on November 16, 2010, 03:17:43 PM
2010 updates included a fully revised suspension, brakes, steering, gearing, tires, etc.
Not really. The bulk of it really was aesthetics (inside and out). The suspension got some upgrades (carry-over from the '09 Bullitt) and that was the biggest functional change as far as standard equipment goes. Transmission was the same as the '05-'09. Engine got a better intake (another carryover from the Bullitt) for a very modest bump in output. Brakes were the same as the '09 unless you got the Track Pack or the 3.73 gear package. And I don't consider better tires a legitimate "redesign" effort since any Joe can walk into a tire shop and upgrade to better rubber.
Quote from: giant_mtb on November 16, 2010, 07:41:17 PM
O. Ur mad FotoShopeeng skillz fooled me.
I be ballin' with MS Paint
Quote from: GoCougs on November 16, 2010, 07:19:17 PM
Right, 2010 was 95% a styling update.
(Please don't make me ignore you again.)
There were enough changes to the things that matter that every comparo raved about the handling and all but one picked it over your precious Camaro. Oh and go ahead and ignore me. Only someone of your (im)maturity level would do that.
Quote from: SVT666 on November 16, 2010, 11:46:34 AM
Well, when I get my 2011 (in about 3 years), I'll be getting a black chrome pony to put on it. I think it looks better.
Im going to get one also.
Quote from: SVT666 on November 16, 2010, 08:51:15 PM
There were enough changes to the things that matter that every comparo raved about the handling and all but one picked it over your precious Camaro. Oh and go ahead and ignore me. Only someone of your (im)maturity level would do that.
:facepalm:
Any chance to hate on the Camaro. Unbelievable.
Got the suspension, GT500 axle-back exhaust and lower diffuser on today. Much better. :ohyeah:
(http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h308/Standman38637/DSC00319.jpg)
(http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h308/Standman38637/DSC00314.jpg)
(http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h308/Standman38637/DSC00307.jpg)
Still gotta put the 275's on.
That's gorgeous. The rear diffuser is better, but still not ideal. FUCK! I'm jealous.
That looks alot better.
Looks good!!!!!!
...and that Toyota pickup in the foreground?
Quote from: the Teuton on November 21, 2010, 01:04:57 AM
...and that Toyota pickup in the foreground?
For Home Depot runs. '86 long bed, 87,000 original miles, $1,000.
Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on November 21, 2010, 12:33:07 AM
Looks good!!!!!!
:hesaid:
I don't even mind the black plastic, doesn't look too bad with the black paint. :ohyeah:
Car and Driver does their annual thing, and the Nethead here takes issue only with the Sonata:
Car and Driver Names its 10Best Cars for 2011Three American, three German, one Korean, and three Japanese brands win? the magazine's highest honor
November 23, 2010 - Ann Arbor, Michigan ?
Car and Driver, the world's largest automotive enthusiast publication, today announced its 10Best Cars for 2011. Amid high-horsepower machinery such as the 556-hp Cadillac CTS-V, the editors at Car and Driver included an electrically powered vehicle for the first time ever-the groundbreaking Chevrolet Volt.
"Our 10Best award celebrates the best cars on sale in America for less than $80,000," said Car and Driver VP/editor-in-chief, Eddie Alterman. "In our testing," Alterman continued, "we are looking for those automobiles that deliver spectacular value, real driver engagement, and the highest fulfillment of their intended missions. Our testing takes place over a week on real roads in the real world, marshalling more than 60 new test cars and our entire editorial staff. It's a real workout, and the best cars on the market emerge victorious."
Below is the list of Car and Driver's 10Best Cars for 2011:
BMW 3-series/M3
Cadillac CTS-V
Chevrolet Volt
Ford Mustang GT
Honda Accord
Honda Fit
Hyundai Sonata
Mazda MX-5 Miata
Porsche Boxster/Cayman
Volkswagen Golf/GTI
For the complete story, check out the January issue of Car and Driver, or head to caranddriver.com.
2011 Ford Mustang GT - 10Best Cars
Ponyboy, going gold.
VEHICLE TYPE >
front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door coupe
BASE PRICE >
$30,495
ENGINE TYPE >
DOHC 32-valve 5.0-liter V-8, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injection
Power (SAE net) > 412 bhp @ 6500 rpm
Torque (SAE net) > 390 lb-ft @ 4250 rpm
TRANSMISSIONS >
6-speed automatic with manumatic shifting, 6-speed manual
DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase > 107.1 in
Length > 188.1 in
Width > 73.9 in
Height > 55.8 in
Curb weight > 3600 lb
FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving >
17?18/25?26 mpg
You might wonder why we?ve left the Mustang GT?s equine siblings to snort in the paddock. It?s simple: The GT is the ideal blend of performance and value, serving up brutal muscle, daily usability, and the agility of an honest-to-Edsel sports coupe at an eminently fair $30,495. The V-6 model is less expensive, but it cedes more than 100 horsepower to the GT and lacks the V-8?s final measure of polish (the six goes gritty at high rpm, for example). The Shelby GT500 betters the GT?s 0.94 g of grip, 153-foot 70-to-0 braking distance, and 4.6-second 0-to-60 sprint, but those bragging rights cost an extra 19 grand?a nicely optioned five-door Fiesta, or just $4000 shy of a V-6 Stang?and it isn?t as livable besides. Yes, the Mustang?s interior still could use better materials, but the drive is the thing. From the how-the-hell?d-they-do-that? taming of the live rear axle to the tactile steering to the crisp six-speed manual, the 2011 GT is, save for the GT supercar, perhaps the most gratifying Ford ever made. But even better than the chassis is the five-point-oh! V-8 thundering away underhood: It?s a soulful marvel, smooth in its power delivery and mellifluous in its sound. Where the V-6 and GT500 are good?make that really good?the Mustang GT is greatness at a great price, and that?s why it alone grabs the trophy. :praise:
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/10q4/2011_10best_cars-10best_cars/2011_ford_mustang_gt_page_5
2011 Ford Mustang GT earns Best Resale Value Award in high-performance car category
November 25, 2010 By jon
KBB.com just rated the 2011 Mustang GT as the best retail value for a high-performance car. Given the stiff competition in the high-performance category (BMW, Mercedes, Audi, etc?) it?s a pretty impressive accolade!
Kelley Blue Book itself sez:
2011 Best Resale Value Awards: Category Winners
Posted 11/16/2010 12:29 PM
In addition to crowning two brands and 10 overall winners with 2011 Best Resale Value Awards, we also named 18 category champions.
Segment winners you might recognize from last year's list include Honda Accord, Toyota Sienna and seven others. Cars that bumped their way onto the podium this year include the GMC Acadia, which replaced the Honda Pilot, and the Ford Mustang, supplanting the Chevy Corvette. The Best Brand and Best Luxury Brand winners - Subaru and BMW, respectively - each claimed two category wins.
.
.
.
2011 Ford Mustang GT | Best Resale Value: High-Performance Car
Fuel economy may be all the rage, but the appeal of affordable horsepower is as strong as ever. For the 2011 model year, Ford upgraded the Mustang GT with a new 5.0-liter V8 that pumps out 412 horsepower and returns up to 26 highway miles per gallon. Topped off with a Best Resale Value Award, the Mustang is smarter fun than ever. How much fun? Check out our Mustang GT video.
.
.
.
2011 Ford F-Series Super Duty | Best Resale Value: Full-Size Pickup
For decades now, Ford's Super Duty pickup trucks have served as ultra-reliable workhorses for those who tow for work or play. The latest Super Duty continues to offer immense towing abilities but with an added focus on passenger comfort and a newfound level of technological sophistication. With a new, more powerful, more fuel-efficient engine lineup for 2011, the Ford Super Duty's second category win in as many years isn't likely to be its last.
From www.cars.com:
Shoppers' Choice Award
Millions of shoppers visit Cars.com each month as they search for their next car, truck or SUV. While here, they make contacts with and send leads to dealers, and often review their own cars as well. From all of that activity (and a little online voting), we determine which car best represents the voice of our shoppers.
And the winner is:
Ford Mustang
The American muscle-car classic scored very highly in search and leads to dealers, and got high marks from many of the consumers who reviewed it.
Award Nominees
Cadillac Escalade
Chevrolet Corvette
Chevrolet Silverado 1500
Ford Fusion
Ford Expedition
Ford Mustang
Mazda Mazda6
Nissan Murano
Subaru Impreza
Toyota Prius
www.leftlanenews.com:
Jeep, Cadillac, Ford win Internet Car and Truck of the Year awards
The all-new 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee proved a favorite of automotive journalists and the public alike, taking home both the ?Internet Pros? and ?Average Joes? Truck of the Year Award.
The ?Internet Pros? ? made up of 15 online automotive journalists including Leftlane?s Mark Elias ? also selected the Cadillac CTS-V as their Car of the Year. ?Average Joes,? including thousands of online voters, picked the Ford Mustang GT as their Car of the Year recipient, although the Mustang won out over the CTS-V by just one percentage point. (No, the CTS-V lost by a full percentage point :lol:)
Also competing for the awards were the Ford Fiesta, Ford F-Series Super Duty and Ram 2500.
The award will be officially presented to automaker representatives later today at the New England International Auto Show in Boston.
First-ever ?Internet Automotive Journalist of the Year? award
Beginning a new tradition for 2010, Jerry Flint was posthumously nominated for the Internet Automotive Journalist of the Year award. Flint was renowned for his straight-shooting style and long standing work with major publications including Forbes. Flint also has countless awards for his work in the automotive journalism field, including the Gerald Loeb Award for Distinguished Business and Financial Journalism in 2003, for his Forbes ?Backseat Driver? column.
Flint?s award will be presented to his widow, and fellow automotive journalist Kate McLeod.
The Internet Car and Truck of the Year awards were created by Keith Griffin and a group of internet automotive websites and the New England Motor Press Association.
Got the 275's on it today. A subtle but worthwhile improvement. :rastaman:
(http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h308/Standman38637/DSC00363.jpg)
(http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h308/Standman38637/DSC00362-1.jpg)
(http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h308/Standman38637/DSC00365.jpg)
(http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h308/Standman38637/DSC00366.jpg)
(http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h308/Standman38637/DSC00361.jpg)
And I can verify that it will easily spin them through second gear. :ohyeah:
I. Hate. You.
Quote from: Cobra93 on December 03, 2010, 12:57:15 PM
:cry:
:lol:
No. Really. You are doing everything to it that I would do...except I would have gone with Magnaflow Magnapacks for the mufflers.
Quote from: SVT666 on December 03, 2010, 01:02:58 PM
No. Really. You are doing everything to it that I would do...except I would have gone with Magnaflow Magnapacks for the mufflers.
I went with the GT500's because, being an OEM piece, they're guaranteed not to drone. Would you have put on a Steeda CAI and computer tune? Because that's next. :praise:
And what do you think about this shifter boot that matches the OEM seat stripe?
(http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h308/Standman38637/Mustang10-07.jpg)
Quote from: Cobra93 on December 03, 2010, 01:27:55 PM
I went with the GT500's because, being an OEM piece, they're guaranteed not to drone. Would you have put on a Steeda CAI and computer tune? Because that's next. :praise:
And what do you think about this shifter boot that matches the OEM seat stripe?
(http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h308/Standman38637/Mustang10-07.jpg)
Seriously. Are you trying to make me hate you more?
This is the intake I will be putting on when I get my 2011. MM&FF tested the one they made for the '05-'10 and the results whowed it provided the most and the coolest air of all the CAIs on the market and produced the best ETs.
http://www.wmsracing.com/wmsweb/2011_hvi.html (http://www.wmsracing.com/wmsweb/2011_hvi.html)
Needs 295's. :lol:
And that shifter boot is sweet. :ohyeah:
Quote from: hotrodalex on December 03, 2010, 02:54:02 PM
Needs 295's. :lol:
That would require changing wheels. Perhaps a bit later. ;)
Quote
And that shifter boot is sweet. :ohyeah:
I thought so too. It should be here by Tuesday. :ohyeah:
Redline products?
God damn... I want a Mustang
Quote from: Cobra93 on December 03, 2010, 12:47:26 PM
Got the 275's on it today. A subtle but worthwhile improvement. :rastaman:
Excellent! The striped shifter boot is a class touch!
Another non-shocker from www.wardsauto.com:
Ward?s Names 10 Best Engines Winners
By Tom Murphy
WardsAuto.com, Dec 7, 2010 9:00 AM
The auto industry is embracing the age of electrification, and so too is the Ward?s 10 Best Engines list.
Both the Nissan Leaf electric vehicle and Chevrolet Volt extended-range EV earn their way onto the 2011 list, as selected by Ward?s editors after evaluating 38 vehicles with new or significantly improved engines for the ?11 model year.
But fuel efficiency and environmental friendliness are not the most important criteria for eligibility this year, as seen by recognition of the new 5.0L V-8 in the Ford Mustang GT, 5.0L V-8 in the Hyundai Genesis and the 3.0L supercharged V-6 in the Audi S4.
?We have something for everybody on this year?s Ward?s 10 Best Engines list,? says Drew Winter, editor-in-chief of Ward?s AutoWorld magazine. ?It?s the most diverse mix we?ve ever had, as well as the most technologically advanced.?
This year?s winners and the applications tested:
?3.0L TFSI Supercharged DOHC V-6 (Audi S4)
?3.0L N55 Turbocharged DOHC I-6 (BMW 335i)
?1.6L Turbocharged DOHC I-4 (Mini Cooper S)
?3.6L Pentastar DOHC V-6 (Dodge Avenger)
?5.0L DOHC V-8 (Ford Mustang GT) :thumbsup:
?1.4L DOHC I-4/111kW Drive Motor (Chevrolet Volt)
?5.0L Tau DOHC V-8 (Hyundai Genesis)
?80kW AC Synchronous Electric Motor (Nissan Leaf)
?2.0L DOHC I-4 Turbodiesel (Volkswagen Jetta TDI)
?3.0L Turbocharged DOHC I-6 (Volvo S60)
Now in its 17th year, the Ward?s 10 Best Engines competition is designed to recognize powertrains that set new benchmarks in their respective vehicle segments.
Banquet room fills up for 2010 Ward?s 10 Best Engines ceremony last January.
?The one thing they have in common is they all are stand-out performers in their own way and sell the value proposition of the vehicles they power,? Winter says.
Ward?s editors spent October and November driving the vehicles in their routine daily commutes around metro Detroit and scored each engine based on power, technology, observed fuel economy and noise, vibration harshness. There was no instrumented testing.
This year?s list represents the biggest turnover in the history of the competition, with six completely new engines or propulsion systems, two heavily modified engines (from BMW AG and Hyundai Motor Co. Ltd.) and only two direct carryover engines (from Volkswagen AG and Audi AG) from the 2010 list.
The Audi S4 supercharged V-6 muscles its way onto the list for a second straight year with a stealthy 333 hp and 325 lb.-ft. (440 Nm) of torque that peaks at 2,900 rpm and holds steady until 5,300 rpm. The effect is all-consuming, washing over the driver like waves on a beach.
Through it all, the TFSI V-6 manages better than 25 mpg (9.4 L/100 km) on the highway during Ward?s evaluation. Having replaced a gas-guzzling 4.2L V-8, the forced-induction V-6 demonstrates how engine downsizing need not come with a performance penalty.
BMW?s well-regarded 3.0L N54 twin-turbocharged inline-6 earned Ward?s 10 Best Engines honors in 2007, 2008 and 2009. For 2011, the N55 I-6 in the 335i replaces the two compressors with a single twin-scroll turbocharger that saves weight, improves throttle response, boosts fuel efficiency (15% over the N54) and reduces friction, while decimating the notion of turbo lag.
Integrating the third-generation Valvetronic intake and Double-VANOS stepless variable valve timing, the 300-hp ?Twin Power? N55 reaches its torque apex of 300 lb.-ft. (407 Nm) at a mere 1,200 rpm, propelling the 335i sedan with shocking ease. For drivability and smoothness, the N55 is unparalleled.
Another new engine on this year?s list is the 1.6L turbocharged direct-injection I-4 that packs a mighty punch in the Mini Cooper S. With a specific output of 113 hp/L, this package quickly rose to the top of a crowded field of new small-displacement 4-cyl. engines in this year?s competition.
The latest ?Prince? engine in the Cooper S is assembled for BMW by PSA Peugeot Citroen in Douvrin, France, and integrates BMW?s excellent Valvetronic fully variable valve timing system, which enhances power and fuel efficiency. Driven hard, this prince of an engine still musters better than 34 mpg (6.9 L/100 km) during our test drive.
Freshly launched from Chrysler Group LLC?s Trenton, MI, and Saltillo, Mexico, engine plants, the all-new 3.6L Pentastar V-6 arrives with extremely high expectations, powering 10 model-year ?11 applications ranging from sedans to SUVs.
Editor-in-Chief Drew Winter addresses crowd at 2010 Ward?s 10 Best Engines banquet.
Ward?s editors drove the Dodge Avenger and Jeep Grand Cherokee for 10 Best Engines and found the Pentastar up for any challenge. Even without direct injection and turbocharging, the V-6 does not seem to lack sophistication. At idle, it is as quiet as a whisper. After driving the Avenger, one editor said it?s difficult to believe an engine this good is in such an affordable car.
The Ford Mustang has a long history with V-8s, but pony-car aficionados formed a special bond with the 5.0L V-8 that launched in 1979. For ?11, the all-aluminum ?Five-Oh? returns, dazzling potential buyers with 412 hp and advanced twin independent variable camshaft timing, which boosts low-end torque, peak power and fuel economy.
Of course, few 5.0L buyers are shopping MPG. For those who are, one Ward?s editor exceeded 19 mpg (12.3 L/100 km) in mostly highway driving. This engine might be politically incorrect by today?s standards, but there is a place for it in the market. Embrace your inner muscle car and enjoy this burly V-8 as long as the Environmental Protection Agency deems it street legal.
Like Chrysler, General Motors Co. was pulling itself out of bankruptcy little more than a year ago. Meanwhile, it was developing a car that revolutionizes mobility: the Chevrolet Volt. Some consider it a glorified hybrid while others just don?t understand it.
Here are the facts: It plugs into a 120V wall socket and charges in 10 hours, or four hours on a dedicated 240V charger. Depending on several factors, the range will last anywhere from 25 to 40 miles (40 to 64 km), at which point an 84-hp 1.4L 4-cyl. engine imperceptibly kicks on to spin a generator that continues turning the wheels.
The EPA rates the Volt?s overall combined fuel efficiency at 60 mpg (3.9 L/100 km); in electric mode, the rating is 93 mpg equivalent (2.5 L/100 km). Drive the Volt almost exclusively in electric mode and gas stations will become less a part of daily life. The ?Voltec? propulsion system is brilliant ? a technological masterpiece.
Returning to the Ward?s 10 Best Engines list is Hyundai?s excellent Tau V-8. In 2009, when Hyundai?s first-ever V-8 won a Ward?s 10 Best Engines award, it displaced 4.6L, employed conventional port injection and produced 375 hp. In 2010, it was tweaked to generate 385 hp.
For ?11, the Tau returns practically as a clean-sheet design, with more displacement (5.0L), direct injection and staggering output (429 hp and 376 lb.-ft. [510 Nm] of torque) for the Genesis and Equus flagship sedan.
Meanwhile, fuel efficiency is rated higher with the new Tau than the current 4.6L. During our drives of the 5.0L, Ward?s editors achieved 19 mpg (12.3 L/100 km). It?s enough savvy thrust for this scrappy South Korean upstart to command respect among the world?s best luxury brands.
Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. manages the first-ever Ward?s 10 Best Engines award for an all-electric vehicle, the Leaf. True, the Leaf has no engine ? just a battery-powered electric motor that turns the wheels through a single speed reducer.
What?s remarkable about the Leaf is how much it feels like a conventional car, with four doors, five seats and accelerator and brake pedals that could have been borrowed from a Nissan Versa, or any other gas-driven subcompact. The Leaf is affordable ? about $25,000 with a federal tax credit ? and a thrill to drive.
Range anxiety is a hurdle, just like in 1908, when the first Ford Model T buyers worried about finding gas stations. But an electrical socket ? ubiquitous in the developed world ? is all that is needed for people who want to own and drive a Leaf, while consuming no gasoline and creating zero emissions. As a propulsion system, it truly deserves recognition.
The Volkswagen Jetta TDI, with its 2.0L 140-hp turbodiesel, becomes the dean of the Ward?s 10 Best Engines list, the only returning winner with three consecutive wins at the same output levels with the same technologies onboard.
This quiet, pleasurable, torque-rich 4-cyl. demonstrates the finest attributes of the new generation of clean diesels, using regenerating particulate filters and oxidation catalysts to meet federal emissions standards.
The 2.0L engine?s small footprint lets it function without expensive urea-injection aftertreatment. There is no better vehicle for a roadtrip than the Jetta TDI, capable of 42 mpg (5.6 L/100 km).
Last but not least, Volvo Car Corp. lands its first Ward?s 10 Best Engines honor, for the 3.0L turbocharged I-6 in the S60 sedan. Volvo clearly benchmarked BMW in developing the supremely smooth ?T6? engine, based on its delicious mid-range power band and paucity of turbo lag.
This engine is perfectly suited for the all-new S60 and powers it into contention against bigger, better-established luxury entries. The T6 creates a new performance-oriented dimension for a brand seeking to expand under new Chinese ownership.
To be eligible for the competition, each engine must be available in a regular-production U.S.-specification model on sale no later than first-quarter 2011, in a vehicle priced no more than $55,000, a price cap indexed to the average cost of a new vehicle.
Winners from the 2010 competition automatically were eligible and evaluated against the new engines.
The awards will be presented at a Jan. 12 ceremony in Detroit during the North American International Auto Show.
Complete stories about the Ward?s 10 Best Engines will be featured Dec. 16 on WardsAuto.com and in upcoming issues of Ward?s AutoWorld magazine and Ward?s Engine & Vehicle Technology Update newsletter.
tmurphy@wardsauto.com
My Mustang no longer belongs to the bank as of today :praise:
Now just work on saving for retirement :huh:
Quote from: HotRodPilot on December 14, 2010, 02:11:48 PM
My Mustang no longer belongs to the bank :praise:
That was....fast.
Quote from: HotRodPilot on December 14, 2010, 02:11:48 PM
My Mustang no longer belongs to the bank as of today :praise:
Mine never did. Feels good, don't it? :thumbsup:
Yep. :praise: I figured yours was paid for since you were looking at more expensive cars. So you have some mod money too. Want to spare some for a gt500 spoiler and borla exhaust? :lol:
Automobile Magazine did their All-Stars selections this month, and the ten selections are shown below, along with the reasons why the Mustang (basic and Mustang GT) is one of those ten:
Automobile Magazine names 2011 All-Stars
by Jeff Glucker (RSS feed) on Dec 16th 2010 at 5:33PM
Automobile has compiled a list of the 2011 model year vehicles deserving of all-star recognition. To show off each choice, the buff book has enlisted illustrator Daniel Stolle to turn each vehicle into a child's toy. The list of 2011 Automobile All-Stars features:
BMW 3 Series
Cadillac CTS-V Sport Wagon
Dodge Ram 1500
Ford Mustang
Honda Odyssey
Hyundai Sonata
Jaguar XJ
Porsche Boxster/Cayman
Volkswagen GTI
Volvo S60
It's hard to argue with that rundown and you can head over to Automobile for more insight into how and why the pub's editors picked this group to be honored.
And here's Automobile Magazine's reasons for choosing the 2011 Mustang over any of the imitations:
FEATURES:
2011 Automobile Magazine All-Stars
Ford Mustang
Just one year after we gave the 2010 Chevy Camaro an All-Star award, the Ford Mustang brings home the prize for 2011. This is just the latest chapter in the punch-for-punch pony-car battle that has been going on for the better part of forty years. This year's knockout blow came when Ford brought the 5.0-liter V-8 back from the dead, but even Vanilla Ice knows that the new "five point oh" isn't the only engine that the frequently revised Mustang has going for it.
The base 2011 Mustang's very capable, very impressive V-6 makes 305 hp, gets 31 mpg on the highway, and starts at less than $23,000. Although the V-6 is suitable for many buyers, it's the V-8-powered GT and the supercharged Shelby GT500 that get our enthusiast blood pumping. With 412 hp and 550 hp, respectively, it's nearly impossible to keep a big, fat grin off your face-and points off your driving record-when you're behind the wheel of either of these ponies. The GT gallops to 60 mph in just 4.6 seconds-not too shabby for a $30,000 car. The hot-rod GT500 does it about half a second quicker.
Despite all this new performance, the Mustang still uses one of the oldest technologies in the business: a live rear axle. But, honestly, Ford pulls it off just fine. The Mustang's nimble chassis, lighter weight, and close-ratio transmission give it a clear advantage over the heavier, less fluid Camaro on a curvy road. The Ford's cabin is much nicer, too, compared with the unattractive plastics that plague the Camaro.
This pony-car fight is certainly not over, and with the Z28 model on its way, the Chevy Camaro isn't down for the count. But we can definitively say that this round goes to the Mustang and that it is well-deserving of a 2011 Automobile Magazine All-Star award.
- Mike Ofiara, Road Test Coordinator
BASE PRICE RANGE: $22,995-$54,495
ENGINES: 3.7L V-6, 305 hp, 280 lb-ft; 5.0L V-8, 412 hp, 390 lb-ft; 5.4L supercharged V-8, 550 hp, 510 lb-ft.
December 2010 sales figures:
Camaro: 5,614
Mustang: 5,452
Challenger: 3,330
2010 sales figures:
Camaro: 81,299
Mustang: 73,716
Challenger: 36,719
All the Ford guys swore that the new engines would help the 'Stang outsell the Camaro....
Also, the Mustang had a tough task being a better seller as it's basically a 7-year-old model...
Quote from: GoCougs on January 04, 2011, 08:27:35 PM
Also, the Mustang had a tough task being a better seller as it's basically a 7-year-old model...
If only you actually knew something about the subject. Too bad you don't.
Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on January 04, 2011, 08:17:41 PM
All the Ford guys swore that the new engines would help the 'Stang outsell the Camaro....
I've admitted to being wrong on that account. Something the Troll could never do. Better sales don't make it a better car though.
Well a little later this year or early 2012 I think I'll be ready for a new car. I might even consider an ecoboost engine over the 5.0. Or I might just keep my car till it hits 200k miles, it's been a really good one.
Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on January 04, 2011, 08:17:41 PM
All the Ford guys swore that the new engines would help the 'Stang outsell the Camaro....
A couple even bet their happiness on it, and are now as a result of the Camaro's success absolutely miserable on teh Innernets.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 04, 2011, 09:41:52 PM
A couple even bet their happiness on it, and are now as a result of the Camaro's success absolutely miserable on teh Innernets.
Wow. You have a really warped view of things Troll.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 04, 2011, 04:12:12 PM
December 2010 sales figures:
Camaro: 5,614
Mustang: 5,452
Challenger: 3,330
2010 sales figures:
Camaro: 81,299
Mustang: 73,716
Challenger: 36,719
Kudos to GM for stepping up the competition and building a popular car. :ohyeah: Maybe if they sell enough of them, they won't need to use my money to bail them out. As for me, I simply bought the best ponycar available. It doesn't make sense to me to base buying decisions on popularity, since the vast majority of the public is stupid. If I adopted that approach, I'd be watching American Idol, listening to Justin Bieber and eating Big Macs.
Yeah, that GM is still on the government dole keeps me from considering the best pony car available, and the biggest Detroit product success story of the last few years, that is the Camaro. If/when the government divests itself fully of GM ownership it may be an option - could be as early as 2012. Not only will the GT500-besting Z28 then be available (probably too much car for me), by then the Camaro SS will have 450 - 475 hp and an optional lower rear gear ratio putting it way out ahead.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 05, 2011, 08:55:27 AM
Yeah, that GM is still on the government dole keeps me from considering the best pony car available,
When everyone who has actually driven the cars disagrees with you, I have no idea how you keep coming to that conclusion. Troll.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 05, 2011, 08:55:27 AM
Yeah, that GM is still on the government dole keeps me from considering the best pony car available, and the biggest Detroit product success story of the last few years, that is the Camaro.
:facepalm: At this point I can only conclude that sometime in your past a Ford ran over your puppy.
Quote from: Cobra93 on January 05, 2011, 10:03:29 AM
:facepalm: At this point I can only conclude that sometime in your past a Ford ran over your puppy.
Because my opinion is different than yours?
Quote from: GoCougs on January 05, 2011, 10:20:03 AM
Because my opinion is different than yours?
Oh! Since it's just your opinion, try this:
Quote from: GoCougs on January 05, 2011, 08:55:27 AM
Yeah, that GM is still on the government dole keeps me from considering IMO the best pony car available, and the biggest Detroit product success story of the last few years, that is the Camaro.
Now we're good.
Quote from: Cobra93 on January 05, 2011, 10:25:46 AM
Now we're good.
And let's try this:
Quote from: Cobra93 on January 05, 2011, 08:39:40 AM
Kudos to GM for stepping up the competition and building a popular car. :ohyeah: Maybe if they sell enough of them, they won't need to use my money to bail them out. As for me, I simply bought IMO the best ponycar available. It doesn't make sense to me to base buying decisions on popularity, since the vast majority of the public is stupid. If I adopted that approach, I'd be watching American Idol, listening to Justin Bieber and eating Big Macs.
NOW we're all good. ;)
Quote from: GoCougs on January 05, 2011, 08:55:27 AM
Yeah, that GM is still on the government dole keeps me from considering the best pony car available, and the biggest Detroit product success story of the last few years, that is the Camaro. If/when the government divests itself fully of GM ownership it may be an option - could be as early as 2012. Not only will the GT500-besting Z28 then be available (probably too much car for me), by then the Camaro SS will have 450 - 475 hp and an optional lower rear gear ratio putting it way out ahead.
I'd call the Camaro a competitive niche item, not a runaway success for Detroit.
Runaway successes for Detroit include their pickups and the Ford Fusion and Chevrolet Malibu, both which have done far better than expected, given their pretty sad predecessors (previous generation Malibu and Taurus).
Quote from: SVT666 on January 04, 2011, 10:22:55 PM
Wow. You have a really warped view of things Troll.
...yet you keep engaging him. If you don't like him, ignore him. There's actually a forum feature for which you can ignore people.
The Camaro does have certain advantages over the Mustang (independent rear suspension and more aggressive styling) and the Mustang has certain advantages over the Camaro. It comes down to which you prefer, which makes this pissing match annoying. Neither car trumps the other wholly and completely, but each has its strengths. Those who can't appreciate that are fanboys, plain and simple.
You were close so I amended it for accuracy's sake :ohyeah:
Quote from: Cobra93 on January 05, 2011, 08:39:40 AM
Kudos to GM for stepping up the competition and building a popular car. :ohyeah: Maybe if they sell enough of them, they won't need to use my money to bail them out. As for me, I simply bought what is, in the opinion of every known automotive journalist and almost everyone else except GoCougs, the best ponycar available. It doesn't make sense to me to base buying decisions on popularity, since the vast majority of the public is stupid. If I adopted that approach, I'd be watching American Idol, listening to Justin Bieber and eating Big Macs.
Quote from: 3.0L V6 on January 05, 2011, 10:41:20 AM
There's actually a forum feature for which you can ignore people.
I've been loathe to use it but I'm coming around to the idea.
Quote from: 3.0L V6 on January 05, 2011, 10:41:20 AM
I'd call the Camaro a competitive niche item, not a runaway success for Detroit.
Runaway successes for Detroit include their pickups and the Ford Fusion and Chevrolet Malibu, both which have done far better than expected, given their pretty sad predecessors (previous generation Malibu and Taurus).
I didn't state "runaway" success I stated "the biggest Detroit product success story of the last few years." Detroit has always sold a ton of trucks, the Fusion debuted in MY2005 and the Malibu already sold a fair amount.
The Camaro came back after hiatus, and not only did it immediately become the segment sales leader after almost always having been outsold by the Mustang in years past, it sold ~80,000 units of such a non-essential car in the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression.
Quote
...yet you keep engaging him. If you don't like him, ignore him. There's actually a forum feature for which you can ignore people.
The Camaro does have certain advantages over the Mustang (independent rear suspension and more aggressive styling) and the Mustang has certain advantages over the Camaro. It comes down to which you prefer, which makes this pissing match annoying. Neither car trumps the other wholly and completely, but each has its strengths. Those who can't appreciate that are fanboys, plain and simple.
Some people simply can't tolerate opinions different than their own, and otherwise predicate their happiness on what/how others think. THAT is a fanboy IMO.
LOL on Camaro haters. Ha, ha! Better luck next time!
Quote from: GoCougs on January 05, 2011, 11:18:45 AM
Some people simply can't tolerate opinions different than their own, and otherwise predicate their happiness on what/how others think. THAT is a fanboy
Funny. I thought fanboys like to invent things about the cars they don't like and always use the slowest ever times recorded to make the other car look bad...kinda like what you do Troll.
Quote from: 3.0L V6 on January 05, 2011, 10:41:20 AM
The Camaro does have certain advantages over the Mustang (independent rear suspension and more aggressive styling) and the Mustang has certain advantages over the Camaro. It comes down to which you prefer, which makes this pissing match annoying. Neither car trumps the other wholly and completely, but each has its strengths. Those who can't appreciate that are fanboys, plain and simple.
:hesaid:
Quote from: GoCougs on January 05, 2011, 11:18:45 AM
The Camaro came back after hiatus, and not only did it immediately become the segment sales leader after almost always having been outsold by the Mustang in years past, it sold ~80,000 units of such a non-essential car in the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression.
:hesaid:
As a Chevy guy The 'Stang would not be an option for me (even though I've owned a fox body 'Stang) and I think thats what it will come down to (styling aside) for most owners. Brand loyalty and the fresh styling of the Camaro are bigger selling points than it's lap time at VIR. Another thing is I think we all forget (like 93 said) that us car guys are really a small group of the buying public. Most people that buy these cars don't even know if they're front or rear wheel drive. :nutty:
Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on January 05, 2011, 04:02:09 PM
As a Chevy guy The 'Stang would not be an option for me (even though I've owned a fox body 'Stang) and I think thats what it will come down to (styling aside) for most owners. Brand loyalty and the fresh styling of the Camaro are bigger selling points than it's lap time at VIR. Another thing is I think we all forget (like 93 said) that us car guys are really a small group of the buying public. Most people that buy these cars don't even know if they're front or rear wheel drive. :nutty:
Exactly. Brand loyalty figures strongly in the Camaro's sales. I really like the Camaro, but the limited visibility and the bailout turned me off to it.
It's absurd to not believe that
Quote from: GoCougs on January 05, 2011, 11:18:45 AM
it immediately become the segment sales leader after almost always having been outsold by the Mustang in years past
isn't mainly because
Quote from: GoCougs on January 05, 2011, 11:18:45 AM
The Camaro came back after hiatus
Simply put, Mustang loyalists have been buying Mustangs for years. They're not in the market for a new Mustang. Camaro loyalists have been waiting for years for the opportunity to buy a new Camaro. Thankfully, GM delivered a good, competitive product for them while simultaneously forcing Ford to improve their product. I see it as a win-win.
Quote from: Cobra93 on January 05, 2011, 04:45:18 PM
Simply put, Mustang loyalists have been buying Mustangs for years. They're not in the market for a new Mustang. Camaro loyalists have been waiting for years for the opportunity to buy a new Camaro. Thankfully, GM delivered a good, competitive product for them while simultaneously forcing Ford to improve their product. I see it as a win-win.
Exactly.
Quote from: 3.0L V6 on January 05, 2011, 10:41:20 AM
The Camaro does have certain advantages over the Mustang (independent rear suspension and more aggressive styling) and the Mustang has certain advantages over the Camaro. It comes down to which you prefer, which makes this pissing match annoying. Neither car trumps the other wholly and completely, but each has its strengths. Those who can't appreciate that are fanboys, plain and simple.
I fail to see how the Camaro's IRS gives it an advantage in any way. The Mustang outhandles it while providing a decent ride. The only thing the Camaro has over the Mustang is the fresh styling, but it is the styling that is responsible for the Camaro's biggest fault...the sightlines.
I'm almost certain that if I'd test-driven a Camaro SS while car shopping there'd be one in my driveway today.
Or perhaps not, depending on how bad it was. :lol:
Quote from: Cobra93 on January 05, 2011, 08:39:40 AM
Kudos to GM for stepping up the competition and building a popular car. ohyeah Maybe if they sell enough of them, they won't need to use my money to bail them out. As for me, I simply bought what is, in the opinion of every known automotive journalist and almost everyone else except GoCougs, the best ponycar available. It doesn't make sense to me to base buying decisions on popularity, since the vast majority of the public is stupid. If I adopted that approach, I'd be watching American Idol, listening to Justin Bieber and eating Big Macs.
And, uh, those very same sources in 2007 were anointing both the all-new Tundra and all-new Camry with the same awards and praise, yet the very various fanboys, many of which who are way bent on the Camaro's success, went on an anti-Toyota/pro-Detroit jihad claiming BS on the "experts." Funny how that works, huh? Not saying that was you, but yeah, you get the idea.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 05, 2011, 08:44:29 PM
And, uh, those very same sources in 2007 were anointing both the all-new Tundra and all-new Camry with the same awards and praise, yet the very various fanboys, many of which who are way bent on the Camaro's success, went on an anti-Toyota/pro-Detroit jihad claiming BS on the "experts." Funny how that works, huh? Not saying that was you, but yeah, you get the idea.
The Tundra was a really good truck when it came out. The Camry sucks ass.
Quote from: SVT666 on January 05, 2011, 06:30:22 PM
I fail to see how the Camaro's IRS gives it an advantage in any way. The Mustang outhandles it while providing a decent ride. The only thing the Camaro has over the Mustang is the fresh styling, but it is the styling that is responsible for the Camaro's biggest fault...the sightlines.
To be honest the IRS helps a car that's 300LBS heavier handle just as well as your "feather weight" Mustang. You gotta look at it both ways. And I'll say it one more time. People are acting like the SS is some sloppy handling pig of a car. The SS is Just as fast as the GT around any track 99% of the time and will still flat outrun (check the 0-150 times) the GT in a straight line. The sight lines are the only serious flaw that the anti GM fanbois have to gripe about. I'm pretty sure that after a few days in the Camaro most of you guys would adapt to the narrow windows.
Quote from: giant_mtb on January 05, 2011, 06:49:23 PM
I'm almost certain that if I'd test-driven a Camaro SS while car shopping there'd be one in my driveway today.
Or perhaps not, depending on how bad it was. :lol:
It's not a bad car! The biggest flaw is that it's a GM product!
Quote from: SVT666 on January 05, 2011, 11:08:19 PM
The Tundra was a really good truck when it came out. The Camry sucks ass.
Isn't it still a pretty good truck?
Or has it been outclassed?
Quote from: CALL_911 on January 06, 2011, 12:17:35 AM
Isn't it still a pretty good truck?
Or has it been outclassed?
It's been outclassed by the Big 3. Nissan gave up.
Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on January 06, 2011, 12:11:55 AM
To be honest the IRS helps a car that's 300LBS heavier handle just as well as your "feather weight" Mustang. You gotta look at it both ways. And I'll say it one more time. People are acting like the SS is some sloppy handling pig of a car.
No, it is a good car. It's just not as good as the Mustang. I've driven it. The handling is good, but you really do feel the weight compared to the Mustang. The steering is not as nice (feedback is not good). The shift knob is fucking huge and doesn't feel natural, and the sightlines are horrendous.
[/quote]The SS is Just as fast as the GT around any track 99% of the time and will still flat outrun (check the 0-150 times) the GT in a straight line.[/quote]
Again, that 0-130mph number you guys like to quote was from the one and only comparo where the Camaro outran the Mustang to 130mph. Every other comparo has the Mustang ahead. Around a track, it probably comes down to a driver's race. In the 1/4 mile the Mustang has it by a couple ticks, which is almost a couple cars lengths. Again, a good driver in the Camaro will beat a bad driver in the Mustang...no question. Equally good drivers in both cars has the Mustang ahead. I have a much easier time of admitting this stuff than the Troll does. He refuses to.
QuoteThe sight lines are the only serious flaw that the anti GM fanbois have to gripe about. I'm pretty sure that after a few days in the Camaro most of you guys would adapt to the narrow windows.
Have you driven it yet? The sightlines aren't something to get used to...they're downright shitty. I think I would get panicky if I had to drive the thing in heavy traffic in a large city because you can't see the cars around you.
Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on January 06, 2011, 12:11:55 AM
To be honest the IRS helps a car that's 300LBS heavier handle just as well as your "feather weight" Mustang. You gotta look at it both ways. And I'll say it one more time. People are acting like the SS is some sloppy handling pig of a car. The SS is Just as fast as the GT around any track 99% of the time and will still flat outrun (check the 0-150 times) the GT in a straight line. The sight lines are the only serious flaw that the anti GM fanbois have to gripe about. I'm pretty sure that after a few days in the Camaro most of you guys would adapt to the narrow windows.
Some also forget that the Camaro SS does not have a ride and road noise sacrificing handling option as does the Mustang, as the "Track Pack" used to be an option on the pre-face lift Mustang GT. Ford made this standard on the GT. Perhaps the Camaro will get a similar option but either way no one ever didn't buy pony car A because it was 0.2 sec slower around some road course than pony car B.
Quote from: SVT666 on January 06, 2011, 12:59:47 AM
Have you driven it yet? The sightlines aren't something to get used to...they're downright shitty. I think I would get panicky if I had to drive the thing in heavy traffic in a large city because you can't see the cars around you.
I agree with your points, and I'd take a Mustang over the Camaro.
That said, I disagree with that. My dad and I rented an SS in summer '09. At first, I thought the sightlines were awful, almost dangerously so, but having spent about an hour or two in it, I got used to them quickly. That's a complaint about the Camaro that I dismiss almost automatically.
Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on January 06, 2011, 12:14:35 AM
It's not a bad car! The biggest flaw is that it's a GM product!
That is true. And to be honest, the fact that it's a GM product definitely steered me away from it. I refuse to support GM in any way for as long as I live. Would I buy a used GM product? Perhaps, but I will never, ever purchase anything directly from GM, whether it be a t-shirt, a keychain, or a car.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 06, 2011, 07:30:44 AM
Some also forget that the Camaro SS does not have a ride and road noise sacrificing handling option as does the Mustang,
There you go making shit up again Cougs. Even if it were true, nobody buys a pony/muscle car expecting Lexus-like serenity and ride.
The 2010 Mustang I rented in Vegas didn't have any noticeable road noise and I thought the ride was fine.
Every review I've read has complimented the Mustang on its ride.
That is what makes Cougs a Trolling Fanboi. He invents stuff.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 05, 2011, 11:18:45 AM
The Camaro came back after hiatus, and not only did it immediately become the segment sales leader after almost always having been outsold by the Mustang in years past, it sold ~80,000 units of such a non-essential car in the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression.
Idiot. Mulletheads had
NOTHING for 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. Mustang lovers were buying Mustangs
in all those years. :thumbsup:
The true comparison between Mustang sales and Camaro sales is the sum total of all Mustang sales and all Camaro sales since the day after the last 2002 Camaro rolled of the assembly line in 2002, since Ford had been selling Mustangs before Chevy rushed its imitation to market in '67 and Ford has been selling Mustangs since the original Camaros got their asses sent down the rusty road of automotive history back in '02. These are just the facts, ma'am.
The tragedy is: with six full years to develop a new Camaro, Chevy finally brings out a Camaro no better than the one we have today :(--with quite a few warranty issues to add insult to injury :cry:. Some things never change... :facepalm:
Quote from: Nethead on January 06, 2011, 12:51:42 PM
Idiot. Mulletheads had NOTHING for 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. Mustang lovers were buying Mustangs in all those years. :thumbsup:
The GTO kicked Mustang ass in all of those years dude. Just because it wasn't called a Camaro didn't mean GM didn't offer competition to the Mustang. :nutty:
Quote from: SVT666 on January 06, 2011, 12:59:47 AMHave you driven it yet? The sightlines aren't something to get used to...they're downright shitty. I think I would get panicky if I had to drive the thing in heavy traffic in a large city because you can't see the cars around you.
Yes I have (A rental over XMas weekend) and the car does have very small windows. For me it was no big deal and actually the sightlines kinda reminded me of my moms CTS. And when compared to the sightlines in my '99 vert. the new Camaro didn't take much adjusting to.
Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on January 06, 2011, 05:18:22 PM
And when compared to the sightlines in my '99 vert. the new Camaro didn't take much adjusting to.
I'm assuming you mean with the top up. I would hope it has much better visibility with it down. :lol:
I don't think the new one is any worse than a '71 in regards to sight lines. Higher sills, but that's about it.
Quote from: hotrodalex on January 06, 2011, 05:28:24 PM
I'm assuming you mean with the top up. I would hope it has much better visibility with it down. :lol:
I don't think the new one is any worse than a '71 in regards to sight lines. Higher sills, but that's about it.
:lol:
Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on January 06, 2011, 05:18:22 PM
The GTO kicked Mustang ass in all of those years dude. Just because it wasn't called a Camaro didn't mean GM didn't offer competition to the Mustang. :nutty:
That's what Mustangists call "an Inconvenient History."
Quote
Yes I have (A rental over XMas weekend) and the car does have very small windows. For me it was no big deal and actually the sightlines kinda reminded me of my moms CTS. And when compared to the sightlines in my '99 vert. the new Camaro didn't take much adjusting to.
"Sight lines." Of all the things to hate on, er, get "panicky" on. :facepalm:
Quote from: GoCougs on January 06, 2011, 05:40:50 PM
That's what Mustangists call "an Inconvenient History."
:lol:
Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on January 06, 2011, 05:43:55 PM
:lol:
Ha, ha! Now just wait for the flood of links to "expert" comparison tests that said the Mustang GT was the cooler/nicer/quietest/stickiest/brakiest/faster/bestest/whatever car!
Nope. GTO smoked the GT. I have even considered a GTO. The problem with the GTO was the styling. Personally I liked the sleeper look, but a lot of people didn't. Oh and the GTO was far more money than the GT too, so that was another problem the GTO had to overcome.
Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on January 06, 2011, 05:18:22 PM
The GTO kicked Mustang ass in all of those years dude. Just because it wasn't called a Camaro didn't mean GM didn't offer competition to the Mustang. :nutty:Yes I have (A rental over XMas weekend) and the car does have very small windows. For me it was no big deal and actually the sightlines kinda reminded me of my moms CTS. And when compared to the sightlines in my '99 vert. the new Camaro didn't take much adjusting to.
Based on the Holy Grail of sales numbers that some people believe constitute superiority, the GTO was a resounding failure. Nevertheless, I liked it. It was basically killed by poor dealership practices.
Quote from: Cobra93 on January 06, 2011, 09:57:34 PM
Based on the Holy Grail of sales numbers that some people believe constitute superiority, the GTO was a resounding failure. Nevertheless, I liked it. It was basically killed by poor dealership practices.
And a total lack of advertisment. Ditto for the G8!
Quote from: SVT666 on January 06, 2011, 06:59:15 PM
Nope. GTO smoked the GT. I have even considered a GTO. The problem with the GTO was the styling. Personally I liked the sleeper look, but a lot of people didn't. Oh and the GTO was far more money than the GT too, so that was another problem the GTO had to overcome.
And for the life of me I can't understand why called the car too bland. For years everyone had been whinning about the Trans Ams styling being too boy racer. :nutty:
Pontiac was just one clusterfuck in their last 5 years or so.
Quote from: Cobra93 on January 06, 2011, 09:57:34 PM
Based on the Holy Grail of sales numbers that some people believe constitute superiority, the GTO was a resounding failure. Nevertheless, I liked it. It was basically killed by poor dealership practices.
The UAW had in their contract to limit imports to 18,000 units/year. There was no secretary (V6) or 'vert versions. It didn't have 20-25% rental fleet sales (in Mustang terms in those years that's 20,000 - 30,000 units/year). It was only available loaded (i.e., leather).
Quote from: GoCougs on January 06, 2011, 11:00:24 PM
The UAW had in their contract to limit imports to 18,000 units/year. There was no secretary (V6) or 'vert versions. It didn't have 20-25% rental fleet sales (in Mustang terms in those years that's 20,000 - 30,000 units/year). It was only available loaded (i.e., leather).
So now you're a GTO apologist? By the way Troll, there were GTO's languishing on dealer lots for up to a year after they stopped production. I still want one though. Too bad a 2006 will be 6 or 7 years old by the time I'm ready for a new car...though they will be dirt cheap.
I know a lot of dealers did a pretty high mark up on the GTO, that likely turned a lot of people away from the brand.
Quote from: Mustangfan2003 on January 06, 2011, 11:08:46 PM
I know a lot of dealers did a pretty high mark up on the GTO, that likely turned a lot of people away from the brand.
Big time. They did the same with the G8 GT and GXP.
Quote from: Mustangfan2003 on January 06, 2011, 11:08:46 PM
I know a lot of dealers did a pretty high mark up on the GTO, that likely turned a lot of people away from the brand.
Only when first released in 2003; thereafter they routinely sold as pretty much any domestic - below MSRP. In the last model year (2006) they were being sold with deep discounts - without any haggling they could be driven off a dealer lot for less than $30k.
The GTO suffered hugely from a lot of bad decisions:
It was a shameless rebadging of an import. This was just soooo wrong...
It used the dreadful Catera IRS, a contender for the worst IRS of all time. I believe the current Camaro also uses the Catera IRS, which would explain a lot...In a comparo against the Charger SRT8 and the Shelby GT500 (Motor Trend, July 2006, pgs 48--57) the 3777 lbs GTO got beat in the slalom and the figure-eight by the 3990 lbs GT500 and by the 4266 lbs Charger SRT8 (that's just 11 pounds less than a whoppin' 500 lbs handicap for the Charger vs. the GTO!!!). BTW, the GT500 also beat the GTO in braking (as did the Charger), 0-60, 0-100, and the quarter-mile--by the time the GTO reached 100 MPH, the GT500 was ahead by more than the length of a football field.
The gas tank was moved from underneath the car into an already small trunk.
There was no possibility of overlooking the resemblance to the Cavalier, a distinction that woulda been fatal even if the suspension hadda been OK.
GTOs were overpriced, too. That 2006 GTO in the Motor Trend comparo listed for $32,685--more than a standard 2011 Mustang GT 5.0 and many thousands more than the Mustang GT of 2006 (although you could option out a 2006 Mustang GT convertible to more than $32,685).
It was planned to sell 18,000/year, but it never got anywhere remotely close to that. In the first 30 selling days of 2006, Mustangs outsold the entire 2006 sales of GTOs.
But this is a Mustang thread--if you scroll back 40-50 pages in "The Fast Lane" there are probably some GTO threads in which to discuss the resurrected GTO for those so inclined...
Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on January 06, 2011, 10:41:46 PM
And a total lack of advertisment. Ditto for the G8!
I recall a fair amount of advertising being devoted to it but that may just be because it was a memorable car for me. I don't think I've ever seen or heard a Toyota Camry ad. ;)
As for the dealerships, every one around me stocked only automatics and tacked on $5K "limited availability" markups. It's poetic justice that they eventually had to resort to fire saling them at a loss.
Oldhead you compare the performance of the GT500 to the GTO but then quote the price of the GT. :nutty: Both the STR8 and the GT500 cost waaaay more than the GTO dude! And I could care less about how many sold. Like Hemi said in another thread "Higher sales numbers does not make it a better car!" If we only go by sales the Cobalt is a better car than the Enzo............................
Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on January 07, 2011, 08:10:02 AM
Oldhead you compare the performance of the GT500 to the GTO but then quote the price of the GT. :nutty: Both the STR8 and the GT500 cost waaaay more than the GTO dude! And I could care less about how many sold. Like Hemi said in another thread "Higher sales numbers does not make it a better car!" If we only go by sales the Cobalt is a better car than the Enzo............................
Yeah. There's a few of us that have been saying exactly that. There were quite a few years where the Mustang was outperformed by the Camaro but still outsold it. It's the exact opposite now. Another factor affecting new sales may be that for years, Mustang shoppers have had a supply of used, late model Mustangs to buy. I suspect that what we'll see if the government doesn't totally phuck it up, is that the Mustang and Camaro will continue to sell in comparable numbers throughout their production.
Quote from: Cobra93 on January 07, 2011, 08:19:23 AM
Yeah. There's a few of us that have been saying exactly that. There were quite a few years where the Mustang was outperformed by the Camaro but still outsold it. It's the exact opposite now. Another factor affecting new sales may be that for years, Mustang shoppers have had a supply of used, late model Mustangs to buy. I suspect that what we'll see if the government doesn't totally phuck it up, is that the Mustang and Camaro will continue to sell in comparable numbers throughout their production.
I agree. I know guys that refuse to buy any car new. And with a little hunting you can find the Mustang optioned the way you want in the used market 9 outta 10 times.
Quote from: Cobra93 on January 07, 2011, 08:08:21 AM
I recall a fair amount of advertising being devoted to it but that may just be because it was a memorable car for me. I don't think I've ever seen or heard a Toyota Camry ad. ;)
What planet do you live on? LOL!
Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on January 07, 2011, 08:10:02 AM
Oldhead you compare the performance of the GT500 to the GTO but then quote the price of the GT. :nutty: Both the STR8 and the GT500 cost waaaay more than the GTO dude! And I could care less about how many sold. Like Hemi said in another thread "Higher sales numbers does not make it a better car!" If we only go by sales the Cobalt is a better car than the Enzo............................
g-q-z: Read with more attention to what the words mean--the spanking that the GT500 & Charger SRT8 gave to the much lighter '06 GTO was to illustrate just how awful GM's decision to stick with the mega-fail Catera IRS was in a performance car. Can you not comprehend the dimension of GM's mistake when your performance car just got outhandled by a car weighing 500 pounds more than yours?? Sure, the two cost more than the GTO--performance ain't cheap and can't be accomplished with a little money spent on some badges, a stitched steering wheel cover, hood scoops, and a gas tank in the trunk. Who did they think they were fooling? Not many, as GTO sales starkly attest...
Now, the Mustang GT's price was never quoted--please read more carefully next time. It was only mentioned that the 2006 GTO cost more than the current Mustang GT 5.0 and thousands more than the Mustang GT of 2006. In other words, the GTO was hugely overpriced--a big part of the reason Pontiac dealerships had more than a six-month's supply of GTOs on their lots in the Spring of 2006. Thousands felt the Mustang GT's performance was a bargain at the Mustang GT's price (it was). The GTO's, not so much...
Mustangs aren't the best performance vehicles ever made--Ferrari makes vehicles that'll beat Mustangs soundly in every category of performance except fuel mileage. Everyone knows that!
But Mustangs offer more performance for the buck than any other new vehicles sold in North America--plus they're really good vehicles as well. Astonishingly, it was the current base V6 Mustang that was the first car ever tested by the EPA that has over 300 HP and gets over 30 MPG (and turns the quarter in under 14 at over 100--not to mention .86 G)--you woulda thunk it woulda been some Asian boosted four-cylinder fuglyshit that looks like Roseanne Barr with a hoodscoop on her nose and a wing on her ass. The V8 Mustang offers M3 performance for half the price--they don't do comparos with Camaros (or GTOs back in the day) against BMW M3s, now do they?
There are reasons for that...
Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on January 07, 2011, 08:10:02 AM
Oldhead you compare the performance of the GT500 to the GTO but then quote the price of the GT. :nutty: Both the STR8 and the GT500 cost waaaay more than the GTO dude! And I could care less about how many sold. Like Hemi said in another thread "Higher sales numbers does not make it a better car!" If we only go by sales the Cobalt is a better car than the Enzo............................
Because all's fair in putting Mustang at the top of the heap; sales numbers, irrelevant or irrational comparisons, weight, MPG (LOL), or just plain ole crazy person screed.
Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on January 07, 2011, 08:58:34 AM
What planet do you live on? LOL!
I'm sure there were plenty of Camry ads. Nothing that caught my attention like these though:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEyR8dztAsE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddWBsf7yfvw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqY3iPJUsX4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo6vRafScqA
With ads like the third and fourth you posted, Cobra, is it any wonder the car didn't sell?
Unless you're an absolute gearhead, who cares? It was a terrible ad campaign.
Loyalists and gearheads all knew what the GTO was though, and they knew it to be expensive, bland, and a hand-me-down from Down Under. Plus, the GTO moniker hadn't carried any cache since 1967.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 07, 2011, 10:18:48 AM
Loyalists and gearheads all knew what the GTO was though, and they knew it to be expensive, bland, and a hand-me-down from Down Under. Plus, the GTO moniker hadn't carried any cache since 1967.
So what you're saying is that GM didn't actively try to go after a newer, broader audience with the new GTO.
Quote from: the Teuton on January 07, 2011, 10:10:29 AM
With ads like the third and fourth you posted, Cobra, is it any wonder the car didn't sell?
Unless you're an absolute gearhead, who cares? It was a terrible ad campaign.
I always assumed the car was aimed at gearheads. :huh:
Anyway, I don't know a single person that ever bought a new car because of an ad campaign.
Quote from: the Teuton on January 07, 2011, 10:25:53 AM
So what you're saying is that GM didn't actively try to go after a newer, broader audience with the new GTO.
I'm sure they would have loved to but the car just wasn't right for it. This was aimed squarely at the the Mustang and Camaro demographic but not only do those cars sell primarily on legacy they are cheaper. The GTO didn't have much legacy and it cost a good deal more.
Quote from: Cobra93 on January 07, 2011, 10:35:40 AM
I always assumed the car was aimed at gearheads. :huh:
Anyway, I don't know a single person that ever bought a new car because of an ad campaign.
No one will admit to buying a car because of an ad, but to see a dream car being flung sideways in slowmo with some rock music on in the background will always make us want it, at least psychologically.
How else would anyone know what's in the marketplace as part of his or her consideration set?
Quote from: the Teuton on January 07, 2011, 11:06:15 AM
No one will admit to buying a car because of an ad, but to see a dream car being flung sideways in slowmo with some rock music on in the background will always make us want it, at least psychologically.
How else would anyone know what's in the marketplace as part of his or her consideration set?
Maybe magazines, both in print and online, other enthusiasts, automotive forums, etc. In other words, places where they can obtain real and detailed information on a car. After all, this
is the information age.
I have to agree with Teuts.
This segment makes me want the GT500 Vert. BADLY.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMkH1HFsLZw&playnext=1&list=PLDAEC4FBBF2DC8AD1&index=11
And, this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O46E0gCF5os
Quote from: hounddog on January 07, 2011, 01:09:00 PM
I have to agree with Teuts.
This segment makes me want the GT500 Vert. BADLY.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMkH1HFsLZw&playnext=1&list=PLDAEC4FBBF2DC8AD1&index=11
And, this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O46E0gCF5os
Except that neither of those are ads. :huh:
And BTW.......
ROLL TIDE!
Sorry. ;)
Yes, I realize they are not adds.
I was just saying that the sort of thing Teuts was saying was accurate.
I would also like to point out that your head coach, two of your assistants and your best player all have direct ties to MSU and would not be where they are were it not for MSU.
You are welcome.
Get that Forrest Gump bullshit out of here Cobra.
Quote from: hounddog on January 07, 2011, 02:26:48 PM
Yes, I realize they are not adds.
I was just saying that the sort of thing Teuts was saying was accurate.
I would also like to point out that your head coach, two of your assistants and your best player all have direct ties to MSU and would not be where they are were it not for MSU.
You are welcome.
HA! Alabama's not actually my team. My team sucks even worse than MSU. Although we did only lose to Alabama by 31 . ;)
My team was 11-2.
That is not suck.
Quote from: hounddog on January 07, 2011, 02:38:53 PM
My team was 11-2.
That is not suck.
Good for you.
With that strength of schedule you should be.
Quote from: Nethead on January 07, 2011, 09:29:31 AM
g-q-z: Read with more attention to what the words mean--the spanking that the GT500 & Charger SRT8 gave to the much lighter '06 GTO was to illustrate just how awful GM's decision to stick with the mega-fail Catera IRS was in a performance car. Can you not comprehend the dimension of GM's mistake when your performance car just got outhandled by a car weighing 500 pounds more than yours??
What do you mean stick with? The car had been in production for years. You act like the GTO was a new design from the ground up. The only major change was the moving of the gas tank. You double talk more than a criminal headed to prison.........................
[
Quote from: Nethead on January 07, 2011, 07:34:24 AM
The GTO suffered hugely from a lot of bad decisions:
It was a shameless rebadging of an import. This was just soooo wrong...
It used the dreadful Catera IRS, a contender for the worst IRS of all time. I believe the current Camaro also uses the Catera IRS, which would explain a lot...In a comparo against the Charger SRT8 and the Shelby GT500 (Motor Trend, July 2006, pgs 48--57) the 3777 lbs GTO got beat in the slalom and the figure-eight by the 3990 lbs GT500 and by the 4266 lbs Charger SRT8 (that's just 11 pounds less than a whoppin' 500 lbs handicap for the Charger vs. the GTO!!!). BTW, the GT500 also beat the GTO in braking (as did the Charger), 0-60, 0-100, and the quarter-mile--by the time the GTO reached 100 MPH, the GT500 was ahead by more than the length of a football field.
The gas tank was moved from underneath the car into an already small trunk.
There was no possibility of overlooking the resemblance to the Cavalier, a distinction that woulda been fatal even if the suspension hadda been OK.
GTOs were overpriced, too. That 2006 GTO in the Motor Trend comparo listed for $32,685--more than a standard 2011 Mustang GT 5.0 and many thousands more than the Mustang GT of 2006 (although you could option out a 2006 Mustang GT convertible to more than $32,685).
It was planned to sell 18,000/year, but it never got anywhere remotely close to that. In the first 30 selling days of 2006, Mustangs outsold the entire 2006 sales of GTOs.
But this is a Mustang thread--if you scroll back 40-50 pages in "The Fast Lane" there are probably some GTO threads in which to discuss the resurrected GTO for those so inclined...
:nono:
Camaro = Zeta platform. All-new for '06
GTO = V platform.
Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on January 07, 2011, 06:40:20 PM
What do you mean stick with? The car had been in production for years. You act like the GTO was a new design from the ground up. The only major change was the moving of the gas tank. You double talk more than a criminal headed to prison.........................
g-q-z: GQZdude, I agree that my statement was poorly worded, and thank you for pointing that out! I've corrected it below:
"Read with more attention to what the words mean--the spanking that the GT500 & Charger SRT8 gave to the much lighter '06 GTO was to illustrate just how awful GM's decision to leave the GTO stuck with the Commodore's mega-fail Catera IRS was in a performance car. Can you not comprehend the dimension of GM's mistake when your performance car just got outhandled by a car weighing 500 pounds more than yours??"
Whether the failure was achieved via a brand-new failure or via a known failure long neglected, a 3777-pound performance car being outhandled by a 4266-pound performance car is still a failure. However poorly I may have worded my statement, those facts remain unchanged. BlowCougs wouldn't understand that, but I know you do...
And OmiDude pointed out that the new Camaro uses the later Zeta Obese chassis, which is true...unfortunate for the Camaro, for sure, but true nonetheless.
Gentlemen, the Nethead here stands corrected! I should pay more attention to also ran vehicles so that I don't make gaffes like these! I'm gettin' too slack...
Ahem, I remind you once again that there are CarSPIN threads for also ran vehicles where their details can be discussed and lamented at length.
Oh, yeah! Why do they never compare the current Camaro SS to a BMW M3 on a handling course???
Anyone know why that is??? :huh: They compare Mustang GTs to BMW M3s on handling courses...
Quote from: Nethead on January 12, 2011, 08:47:56 AM
Oh, yeah! Why do they never compare the current Camaro SS to a BMW M3 on a handling course???
BMW won't let them, as they fear the M3 will look silly.
Quote from: hotrodalex on January 12, 2011, 08:52:41 AM
BMW won't let them, as they fear the M3 will look silly.
Ahhh! That's got to be it!
Meanwhile, back on the topic...Edmunds Inside Line is goin' 2011 Mustang GT, and will be presenting periodic updates during the year:
Long-Term Test: 2011 Ford Mustang GT 5.0
Introduction
By Mike Magrath, Associate Editor | Published Jan 12, 2011
"Mike, wait just a second. Sit down." The meeting with a key executive was going well until this. "One more question." Uh oh. Those are words you never want to hear. "We've got some budget to burn. What should we get: a 2011 Ford Mustang GT 5.0, or a [generic family hauler *redacted*]?"
The generic family hauler would certainly sell more units than the 412-horsepower V8-powered Mustang GT, and so the reply was carefully calculated. "I want the Mustang, but the GFH sure does have a lot going for it. It'll sell well and is crucial for that brand. But that new 5.0-liter engine is cool. And we did just give up our 2010 Chevy Camaro. And we don't have a muscle car right now...."
"And we haven't had a Mustang since 2005. That was before the blog," he replied.
A few days later, the search was on for a 2011 Ford Mustang GT for a 12-month/20,000-mile road test.
What We Bought
The 2011 Ford Mustang GT Premium starts out at $32,845. And for that you get some serious performance by way of a 412-hp DOHC V8 connected to a slick-shifting six-speed manual transmission. And with a curb weight some 200 pounds lighter than a Chevy Camaro, 412 hp is more than sufficient. A six-speed automatic is optional, but really, no thanks.
Apart from a manual trans and a V8 we had three more rules for our long-term Mustang: 1) It couldn't be a stupid color; 2) 3.73 rear end; 3) keep the price as low as possible. This is a Mustang; it's supposed to be cheap fun.
We managed two out of three.
Early in the shopping process we realized that a GT would be harder to find than a GT Premium. The Premium gets you Bluetooth, iPod integration, satellite radio, leather seats, a power driver seat, leather-wrapped steering wheel and color-adjustable gauges. It also adds $3,200 to the price. Rule three was already looking difficult.
The first Mustang we found was yellow and the second was Kona Blue. See Rule 1 for why those wouldn't work. And then came a spate of fully loaded navigation-equipped cars with dealer-installed wheels. No, no and no.
So when a black 6MT showed up with the requisite 3.73 gearing ($395), and the Brembo brake package ($1,695), we jumped on it despite some extras.
We could certainly do without the $1,200 1,000-watt Shaker audio system that has two trunk-mounted subwoofers. The rear video camera ($385) is nice, but unnecessary. HIDs are $525 and the Rapid Spec 401A package is $395 and gets us contrasting leather and a cool ball shifter, which the aforementioned executive really digs.
Altogether, our 2011 Ford Mustang rocks the register to the tune of $38,780. That price, however, was before the negotiation began. We were offered the Ford Executive Plan, which got us the car for just about $200 over invoice. There were also $1,500 in incentives on the hood so our price was $34,717.61, or, $38,850.94 out the door including all tax/title/license fees.
It's a lot of car for $34,717.61.
Why We Bought It
Life with a 2010 Chevy Camaro SS didn't end the way we expected. The limited visibility and Martian ergonomics meant that unless you had a need for speed, you passed on the Camaro. Despite 426 horses, it was often the last car out of the garage at night. In comparison, another muscle car, the 2009 Dodge Challenger R/T came in as a lame duck ? low on power, big on flashy looks ? but won us over in the end with its real-world livability and addictive soundtrack.
The Mustang seems to split the difference. It looks just wild enough to be cool and has just enough power to make you grin. The test remains, though, whether this "just right" blending of style and function works in the real world, 365 days in a row for 20,000 miles.
There is accommodation to be found in the middle ground, but rarely greatness. The Chevy Camaro outsold the Ford Mustang in 2010 without a convertible and without owners being able to see out of it. Still, our long-term Camaro lost us somewhere during the test, and the Challenger won us over. Will the Mustang cruise along in mediocrity, rise to the top choice in the fleet or simply fade away and make us wish we'd chosen that generic family hauler?
Twelve months and 20,000 miles will help us decide. Follow along on our long-term road test blog for a year of living with a brand-new 2011 Ford Mustang GT 5.0.
Current Odometer: 1,573
Best Fuel Economy: 21.5 mpg
Worst Fuel Economy: 13.0 mpg
Average Fuel Economy (over the life of the vehicle): 17.2 mpg
Edmunds purchased this vehicle for the purpose of evaluation.
Quote from: Nethead on January 12, 2011, 09:09:37 AM
Meanwhile, back on the topic...Edmunds Inside Line is goin' 2011 Mustang GT, and will be presenting periodic updates during the year:
Long-Term Test: 2011 Ford Mustang GT 5.0
Introduction
By Mike Magrath, Associate Editor | Published Jan 12, 2011
"Mike, wait just a second. Sit down." The meeting with a key executive was going well until this. "One more question." Uh oh. Those are words you never want to hear. "We've got some budget to burn. What should we get: a 2011 Ford Mustang GT 5.0, or a [generic family hauler *redacted*]?"
The generic family hauler would certainly sell more units than the 412-horsepower V8-powered Mustang GT, and so the reply was carefully calculated. "I want the Mustang, but the GFH sure does have a lot going for it. It'll sell well and is crucial for that brand. But that new 5.0-liter engine is cool. And we did just give up our 2010 Chevy Camaro. And we don't have a muscle car right now...."
"And we haven't had a Mustang since 2005. That was before the blog," he replied.
A few days later, the search was on for a 2011 Ford Mustang GT for a 12-month/20,000-mile road test.
What We Bought
The 2011 Ford Mustang GT Premium starts out at $32,845. And for that you get some serious performance by way of a 412-hp DOHC V8 connected to a slick-shifting six-speed manual transmission. And with a curb weight some 200 pounds lighter than a Chevy Camaro, 412 hp is more than sufficient. A six-speed automatic is optional, but really, no thanks.
Apart from a manual trans and a V8 we had three more rules for our long-term Mustang: 1) It couldn't be a stupid color; 2) 3.73 rear end; 3) keep the price as low as possible. This is a Mustang; it's supposed to be cheap fun.
We managed two out of three.
Early in the shopping process we realized that a GT would be harder to find than a GT Premium. The Premium gets you Bluetooth, iPod integration, satellite radio, leather seats, a power driver seat, leather-wrapped steering wheel and color-adjustable gauges. It also adds $3,200 to the price. Rule three was already looking difficult.
The first Mustang we found was yellow and the second was Kona Blue. See Rule 1 for why those wouldn't work. And then came a spate of fully loaded navigation-equipped cars with dealer-installed wheels. No, no and no.
So when a black 6MT showed up with the requisite 3.73 gearing ($395), and the Brembo brake package ($1,695), we jumped on it despite some extras.
We could certainly do without the $1,200 1,000-watt Shaker audio system that has two trunk-mounted subwoofers. The rear video camera ($385) is nice, but unnecessary. HIDs are $525 and the Rapid Spec 401A package is $395 and gets us contrasting leather and a cool ball shifter, which the aforementioned executive really digs.
Altogether, our 2011 Ford Mustang rocks the register to the tune of $38,780. That price, however, was before the negotiation began. We were offered the Ford Executive Plan, which got us the car for just about $200 over invoice. There were also $1,500 in incentives on the hood so our price was $34,717.61, or, $38,850.94 out the door including all tax/title/license fees.
It's a lot of car for $34,717.61.
Why We Bought It
Life with a 2010 Chevy Camaro SS didn't end the way we expected. The limited visibility and Martian ergonomics meant that unless you had a need for speed, you passed on the Camaro. Despite 426 horses, it was often the last car out of the garage at night. In comparison, another muscle car, the 2009 Dodge Challenger R/T came in as a lame duck ? low on power, big on flashy looks ? but won us over in the end with its real-world livability and addictive soundtrack.
The Mustang seems to split the difference. It looks just wild enough to be cool and has just enough power to make you grin. The test remains, though, whether this "just right" blending of style and function works in the real world, 365 days in a row for 20,000 miles.
There is accommodation to be found in the middle ground, but rarely greatness. The Chevy Camaro outsold the Ford Mustang in 2010 without a convertible and without owners being able to see out of it. Still, our long-term Camaro lost us somewhere during the test, and the Challenger won us over. Will the Mustang cruise along in mediocrity, rise to the top choice in the fleet or simply fade away and make us wish we'd chosen that generic family hauler?
Twelve months and 20,000 miles will help us decide. Follow along on our long-term road test blog for a year of living with a brand-new 2011 Ford Mustang GT 5.0.
Current Odometer: 1,573
Best Fuel Economy: 21.5 mpg
Worst Fuel Economy: 13.0 mpg
Average Fuel Economy (over the life of the vehicle): 17.2 mpg
Edmunds purchased this vehicle for the purpose of evaluation.
Take it back IL, take it back! :rage:
That blue color looks awesome!
Kona Blue is sexy as hell, but I think they really meant the Grabber Blue.
(http://www.autofiends.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/gt1.jpg)
Ugh yeah, that is hideous. IIRC, one of the newer Mustangs on the board is Kona Blue (MX's?) and its a fine choice. Personally, it would be my choice too; black is so boring.
Quote from: Xer0 on January 12, 2011, 07:36:09 PM
Ugh yeah, that is hideous. IIRC, one of the newer Mustangs on the board is Kona Blue (MX's?) and its a fine choice. Personally, it would be my choice too; black is so boring.
HotRodPilot
Quote from: hounddog on January 07, 2011, 01:09:00 PM
I have to agree with Teuts.
This segment makes me want the GT500 Vert. BADLY.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMkH1HFsLZw&playnext=1&list=PLDAEC4FBBF2DC8AD1&index=11
And, this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O46E0gCF5os
Makes me want a Roush instead. :huh:
For hemi
http://www.autoblog.com/2011/01/17/coyote-cobra-superformance-mkiii-roadster-powered-by-the-mustan/
I was wondering how long that would take. Sweet. Though the old carburated motors sound better.
Ford lies about rear brakes on Mustang.
http://blogs.insideline.com/roadtests/2011/01/2011-ford-mustang-gt-50-has-brembos-single-piston-sliding-rear-calipers.html
Plus their brand new long term 5.0 GT has already broken down.
http://blogs.insideline.com/roadtests/2011/01/2011-ford-mustang-gt-50-tsb-in-az-part-1.html
LOLz at the blue over spray on the GT500 pic, including the vertical sway bar link...
Obviously that's not cool, but I also don't know why this is such a big surprise. The Brembo Brake Package applies to the front brakes only. The rears are the GT's stock brakes...as mentioned in every single article about the car.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 22, 2011, 02:42:32 AM
LOLz at the blue over spray on the GT500 pic, including the vertical sway bar link...
I don't think that's overspray. I think the frame and chassis components are actually painted blue (the color is darker than the grabber blue on the body).
Quote from: MX793 on January 22, 2011, 10:24:31 AM
I don't think that's overspray. I think the frame and chassis components are actually painted blue (the color is darker than the grabber blue on the body).
Yeah, upon second look you're right - look at the body sealant dripping at the top of the frame rail - plainly that was applied after painting. Plus, they gotta paint the unibody
something, right?
Quote from: 565 on January 22, 2011, 01:42:19 AM
Ford lies about rear brakes on Mustang.
http://blogs.insideline.com/roadtests/2011/01/2011-ford-mustang-gt-50-has-brembos-single-piston-sliding-rear-calipers.html
Yeah, it sucks that someone at Ford listed the specs wrong, but that really wasn't a deal maker for me.
Quote from: 565 on January 22, 2011, 01:42:19 AM
Plus their brand new long term 5.0 GT has already broken down.
http://blogs.insideline.com/roadtests/2011/01/2011-ford-mustang-gt-50-tsb-in-az-part-1.html
Yep. There's a TSB out for a bad fuel pump relay. This marks the first time ever that a major OEM has gotten a bad part from a supplier.
From the article:
"Except the AAA guy can't get the spout of his plastic gas can into the Mustang's capless fuel-filler neck.
A metal flap within an inch or so of the Mustang's filler opening won't swing aside to admit the spout. The AAA guy looks at me and I look at him and then we both scratch our heads. Maybe we're doing something wrong? This capless fuel-filler thing is relatively new, after all. He replies that his service truck is a Ford F-250 with a capless filler. We walk over to his truck and find that the flapper in the truck's fuel-filler neck swings out of the way free and easy.
Well, maybe the Mustang thinks it's upside-down and has shut down the fuel pump and closed up the fuel system. The
owner's manual tells us that you can reset the fuel-pump cutout by just switching on the ignition. We try it. Engine runs but no luck with fuel filler."
That very same owner's manual tells you that there's an adapter funnel in the trunk for refilling the tank with a gas can. :rolleyes:
Well, asking people to actually read the owners manual is a stretch these days. And the brake issue is an upgraded brake package all around that has been tested and works, and every test mentions the single piston rear caliper (as the rear brakes do very little of the work). Too bad it's in the press info and on the window stickers as dual piston.
Quote from: ChrisV on January 24, 2011, 01:17:23 PM
Well, asking people to actually read the owners manual is a stretch these days. And the brake issue is an upgraded brake package all around that has been tested and works, and every test mentions the single piston rear caliper (as the rear brakes do very little of the work). Too bad it's in the press info and on the window stickers as dual piston.
Actually, it's not on the window stickers, but it was on the website and in the order guide.
Which is unfortunate, but the Brembo Brake Package only upgrades the front brakes and that is mentioned everywhere.
Quote from: SVT666 on January 24, 2011, 01:43:00 PM
Which is unfortunate, but the Brembo Brake Package only upgrades the front brakes and that is mentioned everywhere.
Actually, the confusion may be from mixing Mustang GTs with Shelby GT500s:
The GT500 has Brembos on front, and IIRC the Mustang GT's rear brakes are then replaced with the front brakes that were removed to make room for the Brembos.
In the Mustang GT Brembo package, I believe it is just a straight up replacement of the Mustang GT's front brakes with the GT500's Brembos and the rear brakes remain OEM (except possibly for the pads--check on that if you're interested).
No lead weights need to be applied--as they have to be in some rushed-into-production Brembo applications :facepalm:
Quote from: Nethead on January 12, 2011, 09:09:37 AM
Meanwhile, back on the topic...Edmunds Inside Line is goin' 2011 Mustang GT, and will be presenting periodic updates during the year:
Long-Term Test: 2011 Ford Mustang GT 5.0
Introduction
By Mike Magrath, Associate Editor | Published Jan 12, 2011
"Mike, wait just a second. Sit down." The meeting with a key executive was going well until this. "One more question." Uh oh. Those are words you never want to hear. "We've got some budget to burn. What should we get: a 2011 Ford Mustang GT 5.0, or a [generic family hauler *redacted*]?"
The generic family hauler would certainly sell more units than the 412-horsepower V8-powered Mustang GT, and so the reply was carefully calculated. "I want the Mustang, but the GFH sure does have a lot going for it. It'll sell well and is crucial for that brand. But that new 5.0-liter engine is cool. And we did just give up our 2010 Chevy Camaro. And we don't have a muscle car right now...."
"And we haven't had a Mustang since 2005. That was before the blog," he replied.
A few days later, the search was on for a 2011 Ford Mustang GT for a 12-month/20,000-mile road test.
What We Bought
The 2011 Ford Mustang GT Premium starts out at $32,845. And for that you get some serious performance by way of a 412-hp DOHC V8 connected to a slick-shifting six-speed manual transmission. And with a curb weight some 200 pounds lighter than a Chevy Camaro, 412 hp is more than sufficient. A six-speed automatic is optional, but really, no thanks.
Apart from a manual trans and a V8 we had three more rules for our long-term Mustang: 1) It couldn't be a stupid color; 2) 3.73 rear end; 3) keep the price as low as possible. This is a Mustang; it's supposed to be cheap fun.
We managed two out of three.
Early in the shopping process we realized that a GT would be harder to find than a GT Premium. The Premium gets you Bluetooth, iPod integration, satellite radio, leather seats, a power driver seat, leather-wrapped steering wheel and color-adjustable gauges. It also adds $3,200 to the price. Rule three was already looking difficult.
The first Mustang we found was yellow and the second was Kona Blue. See Rule 1 for why those wouldn't work. And then came a spate of fully loaded navigation-equipped cars with dealer-installed wheels. No, no and no.
So when a black 6MT showed up with the requisite 3.73 gearing ($395), and the Brembo brake package ($1,695), we jumped on it despite some extras.
We could certainly do without the $1,200 1,000-watt Shaker audio system that has two trunk-mounted subwoofers. The rear video camera ($385) is nice, but unnecessary. HIDs are $525 and the Rapid Spec 401A package is $395 and gets us contrasting leather and a cool ball shifter, which the aforementioned executive really digs.
Altogether, our 2011 Ford Mustang rocks the register to the tune of $38,780. That price, however, was before the negotiation began. We were offered the Ford Executive Plan, which got us the car for just about $200 over invoice. There were also $1,500 in incentives on the hood so our price was $34,717.61, or, $38,850.94 out the door including all tax/title/license fees.
It's a lot of car for $34,717.61.
Why We Bought It
Life with a 2010 Chevy Camaro SS didn't end the way we expected. The limited visibility and Martian ergonomics meant that unless you had a need for speed, you passed on the Camaro. Despite 426 horses, it was often the last car out of the garage at night. In comparison, another muscle car, the 2009 Dodge Challenger R/T came in as a lame duck — low on power, big on flashy looks — but won us over in the end with its real-world livability and addictive soundtrack.
The Mustang seems to split the difference. It looks just wild enough to be cool and has just enough power to make you grin. The test remains, though, whether this "just right" blending of style and function works in the real world, 365 days in a row for 20,000 miles.
There is accommodation to be found in the middle ground, but rarely greatness. The Chevy Camaro outsold the Ford Mustang in 2010 without a convertible and without owners being able to see out of it. Still, our long-term Camaro lost us somewhere during the test, and the Challenger won us over. Will the Mustang cruise along in mediocrity, rise to the top choice in the fleet or simply fade away and make us wish we'd chosen that generic family hauler?
Twelve months and 20,000 miles will help us decide. Follow along on our long-term road test blog for a year of living with a brand-new 2011 Ford Mustang GT 5.0.
Current Odometer: 1,573
Best Fuel Economy: 21.5 mpg
Worst Fuel Economy: 13.0 mpg
Average Fuel Economy (over the life of the vehicle): 17.2 mpg
Edmunds purchased this vehicle for the purpose of evaluation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installment 2:
Track Tested: 2011 Ford Mustang GT
By Mike Magrath | January 23, 2011
This one doesn't need a whole lot of introduction: We bought ourselves a long term 2011 Ford Mustang GT with the 412-horsepower 5.0-liter V8 and a six-speed manual transmission. It rides on summer tires, has a 3:73 rear-end and the Brembo brake package. It was built to tear up the track.
So, no more waiting, want to see what this pony managed during our testing? 0-60, quarter mile, slalom, skidpad, braking and specs after the jump....
Vehicle: 2011 Ford Mustang GT
Odometer: 1,451
Date: 1/5/2011
Driver: Chris Walton
Price: $38,780
Specifications:
Drive Type: Front engine, rear-wheel drive
Transmission Type: six-speed manual
Engine Type: Naturally aspirated V8
Displacement (cc/cu-in): 4,951 (302)
Redline (rpm): 7,000
Horsepower (hp @ rpm): 412 @ 6,500
Torque (lb-ft @ rpm): 390 @ 4,250
Brake Type (front): 14-inch ventilated disc with four-piston Brembo fixed calipers
Brake Type (rear): 11.8-inch ventilated disc with single-piston sliding calipers
Steering System: Electronic speed-proportional power steering
Suspension Type (front): MacPherson strut
Suspension Type (rear): Solid live axle
Tire Size (front): 255/40ZR19
Tire Size (rear): 255/40ZR19
Tire Brand: Pirelli
Tire Model: P Zero
Tire Type: Asymmetrical Summer performance
Wheel size: 19-by-9.0
Wheel material (front/rear): Alloy
As tested Curb Weight (lb): 3,629
Test Results:
Acceleration
0-30 (sec): 2.2 (2.3 w/TC on)
0-45 (sec): 3.5 (3.6 w/TC on)
0-60 (sec): 5.0 (5.2 w/TC on)
0-75 (sec): 6.8 (6.9 w/TC on)
1/4-Mile (sec @ mph): 13.1 @ 109.5 (13.2 @ 109.2 w/TC on)
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): 4.8 (4.9 w/TC on)
Braking
30-0 (ft): 27
60-0 (ft): 109
Handling
Slalom (mph): 69.0 (67 w/TC on)
Skid Pad Lateral acceleration (g): 0.92 (0.91 w/TC on)
Db @ Idle: 48.8
Db @ Full Throttle: 83.6
Db @ 70 mph Cruise: 69.8
Comments
Acceleration: As we've noted before, this car runs consistent 5.1-second 0-60 times, but getting under 5.0 requires an optimal launch with virtually no spin (or bog). Hard to "hear" if the tires are spinning or gripping -- they just sort of haze. Shifter felt a little tight / binding but never missed a gate. These are very short gears and I had to go to 5th for the quarter mile. (2-3 shift @ 59.5!)
Braking: Little / moderate dive, moderate pedal effort and idle stroke, but straight, short and highly fade resistant.
Handling: Skidpad: Balance seems to shift around quite a bit with ESC off so there is some (not much) steering input required to maintain consistent arc. Mild understeer at limit with so-so steering feel/info. With ESC on, very subtle brake corrections and high threshold for intrusion. Slalom: Still amazes me how much better the 2011 is above the 2010 here: Crisp trustworthy turn-in, takes a set very well and so long as throttle input is minute and smooth, there's some lift throttle rotation available. Too much throttle-out and the rear end gets very lose. Steering is precise and weighted just right for quick "dabs of oppo" -- especially at the exit. Well done.
2000 mile update:
Edmunds Long-Term Road Tests
Daily updates on our fleet of cars and trucks
That Didn't Take Long
By Karl Brauer | January 20, 2011
Seems like just yesterday we got our long-term 2011 Ford Mustang GT, probably because it was just a couple weeks ago and the Ford still has that new-car smell and sheen.
But the odometer passed the big 2-0-0-0 yesterday, proof of how easy this 412-horsepower performance coupe is to live with. I still haven't decided what I like best: the throaty exhaust roar, the properly-weighted steering, the comfortable seats or the rapid acceleration.
Another 2,000 miles might help narrow it down.
Karl Brauer, Edmunds.com Editor at Large @ 2,000 miles
2011 Ford Mustang GT 5.0: And That's Why You Buy a 5.0 Mustang
By Scott Oldham | January 24, 2011
This car rules.
Scott Oldham, Editor in Chief
There's a photos-partially-obscuring-the-text issue at Edmunds Inside Line, so here's the readable part of this update:
2100 Mustang GT 5.0: *Sigh*
So I guess this is part four.
Never mind how I came to drive our 2001 Mustang GT home, just know that while I was on my way to work I saw the above message ("CHECK FUEL FILL INLET") about fifteen minutes into my trip. Seeing the message, I paused. I turned the radio off, steadied the throttle and listened for a hiccup. A car can have a lot of problems that can go undetected for a few minutes, miles or months but an issue with fuel will get your attention immediately.
As I wasn't sputtering to a stop or bursting in to flames, I reached for the RESET button located to the left of the steering wheel and cleared the message from the display. When the message failed to reappear after 30 seconds, I whacked the throttle to the floor and tached it out through two gears.
I continued on my way to work.
Not more than ten minutes after I arrived at work, not the least bit on fire, Dan Edmunds was downstairs with a scan gauge in hand, ready to diagnose the Mustang.
fuel2.jpg
Yeah, that's frustrating. While I tried to convince Dan that perhaps the fuel filler just needed a good kick, he began thumbing through the owner's manual. And wouldn't you know it, there's a section in the manual for situations just like this one. To my surprise, it mentioned nothing of hammers, cursing or kicking any part of the ECU. Instead, it instructed us to go to the truck, lift up the mat and retrieve a small plastic funnel.
The funnel, the manual stated, was to be used to clear any debris from the filler area and/or reset the little filler flap (see below) to it's closed position.
fuel3.jpg
The manner in which Dan had to um, manipulate the filler door, bordered on pornographic. Naturally, I took a picture.
fuel4.jpg
After a flurry of funnel thrusting, and way too much laughing, Dan noted that according to the manual, the car would have to remain off for at least four hours and then have to be driven, perhaps multiple times, for the message to clear from the system. Since I was expendable familiar with the problem, I was charged with driving the car home and back again the next day, you know, just to be sure.
So I drove the piss out of it.
The next morning, there was no message. Even after I refilled the tank and drove it around some more, nothing. Had it not already had a TSB performed on a fuel related issue, I would chalk this up to this just being one of those things. But with the car's recent history, it left me a little wary.
I'm a little sad knowing perhaps the only time I'll ever spend with this car (it will never get to the bottom of the 'take-home' list again) was spent wondering if it would get me home. But I'll make no bones about it, I love this car.
Kurt Niebuhr, Photo Editor
Long-Term Road Tests
Daily updates on our fleet of cars and trucks
2011 Ford Mustang GT 5.0: Has Brembos, SINGLE Piston Sliding Rear CalipersBy Mike Magrath | January 19, 2011
This is a screencap from the Ford website. It says the same thing on our window sticker and it says the same thing in every press kit and vehicle specifications page we've seen. The Brembo Brake Package ($1,695) gets you 19-by-9.0 Dark Stainless wheels, Unique ESC tuning and a Brembo Brake Package. This includes 14" Brembo rotors with four-piston fixed calipers and 11.8" rotors with two piston calipers in back.
Trouble is....this Mustang GT (just like the Convertible we tested earlier ) with the Brembo package has single piston rear calipers.
Reader cz_75 called us out on our Ford Mustang GT 5.0 Convertible Track Tested saying, "The rear brakes do have sliding calipers, but they have TWO pistons, not one." Sure enough, the specs say two, but our data sheet, which we compile ourselves, said one.
I scolded the guy who made the sheet and changed the data to reflect the spec chart. When we got our long-term Mustang GT in, I supervised the brake inspection.
"How many pistons."
"One." came the muffled response from under the car.
"how many?"
"One."
"Try again. How many?"
"One. Go look."
Hmm
So a couple of [us] got dirty to check it out. Sure enough, the spec chart was wrong and our car, like the 2011 Ford Mustang GT500, has single piston sliders.
We called Ford from the track to find out what was going on. Told them we'd bought the car off a lot and that it was not a press vehicle or any other sort of pre-production / tuner vehicle.
A few hours (an eternity for a response from a PR rep) we got a call back that the 2011 Ford Mustang GT with the Brembo package does have SINGLE piston sliding rear calipers and not the two-piston ones as advertised.
Media and consumer information is set to be changed as soon as is possible. Expect some pissed off Mustang owners.
Mike Magrath, Associate Editor Inside Line
Long-Term Road Tests
Daily updates on our fleet of cars and trucks
Ford Mustang GT: TSB in AZ, Part 3
By John DiPietro | January 19, 2011
"JDP, how would you like to take an all-expenses paid trip to Phoenix?" Seeing that I was already in sunny SoCal, I was a bit suspect at Executive Editor Michael Jordan's question. (I didn't yet know about the Mustang GT saga). He clarified: "Our new Mustang GT is at a Ford dealer over there and needs to be picked up."
It would be a quick, one-day deal. Fly in, take a taxi to the Ford dealer, hop into the new 'stang and aim it west for 400 miles. Well, we were talking about the new GT 5.0. The pick up could've been in Hades and I would've jumped on it.
As you've already read, MJ had logged only about 600 miles on the odo when the new pony lost its giddyup. A faulty fuel pump system was to blame, and our new GT was taken to Earnhardt Ford (no relation to the racers) where the TSB for this glitch was tended to. When I arrived at the dealership the friendly service advisor told me the car was all set.
Five minutes later I was outta there. I fueled up right before hitting the 10 Interstate -- love the capless fuel filler. After turning right onto the vacant on-ramp, I leaned on it, taking it to about 4500 rpm on each of the 1-2, 2-3 and 3-4 upshifts, windows halfway down so I could enjoy the crisp, urgent bellow of the exhaust. No, I didn't light 'em up at the mouth of the on-ramp nor chirp the tires on the subsequent upshifts. The 5.0 had less than 700 miles on it and even though there's no official break-in procedure, I don't believe in driving a car hard (hence the non-redline upshifts) until the engine's components have gotten to know each other a bit better.
I soon had a companion for the trip -- rain, which stayed with me nearly all the way to L.A. But apart from 8 miles of stop-and-go traffic just outside Phoenix where the 10 went from two lanes to one, it was easy cruising. A fairly quiet cabin, supportive seats, satellite radio and a Bluetooth connection helped pass the miles -- all that was missing were heated seats (though they're optional).
All in all, a thoroughly enjoyable trip, despite the rain.
John DiPietro, Automotive Editor @ around 1,100 miles.
Yes, our long-term 2011 Ford Mustang GT 5.0 is alive and kicking. I drove it over the long MLK weekend and had no problems at all.
There are some stylish details on the Mustang, including the rear turn signals.
The 3-section repeaters strobe from inboard to outboard when activated.
Very nice.
Albert Austria, Senior VE Engineer @ 1,950 miles
2011 Ford Mustang GT 5.0: Nineteens
By Albert Austria | January 18, 2011
When Edmunds Consumer Advice Associate Ron Montoya informed me that we bought a Mustang GT, the first thing I asked him was "Did we get the Nineteens?" When he confirmed that, I responded, "Yesssss." So we did get the 19-inch wheels fitted with 255/40 ZR19 PZeros (all part of the $1695 Brembo brake package.)
We ended up with 18s on our dearly departed Dodge Challenger R/T, and I hated them. That vehicle was huge, and from the back it looked like it rode on bicycle tires.
I'm happier with the Mustang GT and love the look of the 19s; they really improve the stance.
And the ride quality is just fine too.
Albert Austria, Senior VE Engineer @ 1,945 miles
Quote from: GoCougs on January 22, 2011, 12:01:33 PM
Yeah, upon second look you're right - look at the body sealant dripping at the top of the frame rail - plainly that was applied after painting. Plus, they gotta paint the unibody something, right?
Yeah, BlowCougs, we were sorta negligent not warning you that there will be blue paint on blue Mustangs. And we're really remiss in not warning you that Ford also paints the undersides of the vehicles they produce, a technique you may not be familiar with. 'Sorry--our bad...
Just want to share that a few weeks ago I had the opportunity to ride shotgun on a new 5.0 at the track that I usually attend. The car was a six-speed, mostly stock except for firmer springs, and better tires and pads. The driver was very very good.
Well, I loved the Stang. It definitely felt as fast as my M3 or probably even faster in the hands of this particular guy with great hands. Engine sound was magnificent, handling balance seemed great and wilder (re: more oversteer-prone) than the M3. Couldn?t compare times b/c I wasn?t running my car that day (and the track was in a different configuration) but like I said I wouldn?t be surprised if the stang ran better times.
There is no other car I would get in that price range. This is a driver?s car. I am happy for Ford, it?s great to see an american manufacturer doing such a good job.
Of course the interior and "refinement" sucks compared to the M3 but at that price, who cares? A 5.0 here is less than half the price of an M3. Is the M3 better overall? Yes. Is it better as a performance, driver?s car? Slightly but debatable. Is the price premium over the Stang worth it? Probably not unless you are a BMW lover (like yours truly).
Convertible comparison:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/convertibles/1101_2011_chevrolet_camaro_ss_ford_mustang_gt_comparison/index.html
Let the (http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h308/Standman38637/pm.jpg) begin.
LOL - two large paragraphs complaining about the steering wheel and shift knob? And the dude's fingers actually hurt from driving the car??? :facepalm:
Shades of how M/T tried to justify the Camaro V6's last place finish despite being a better performer than the Mustang V6. Sure, don't like the car because you don't like the styling but at least be honest about it. LOL.
And oh noes, in addition to better ride and braking the Camaro is now the better handler. Nethead, where are you? The Mustang needs you. Badly.
First Place
Mustang GT Convertible: A loveable and affordable performance car, top or no top. It's hard to overstate how wonderful the new 5.0 is.
Second Place
Chevrolet SS Convertible: While we prefer the convertible to coupe, the Camaro is just too flawed to challenge the Mustang's American performance hegemony.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 27, 2011, 08:49:09 AM
LOL - two large paragraphs complaining about the steering wheel and shift knob? And the dude's fingers actually hurt from driving the car??? :facepalm:
Shades of how M/T tried to justify the Camaro V6's last place finish despite being a better performer than the Mustang V6. Sure, don't like the car because you don't like the styling but at least be honest about it. LOL.
And oh noes, in addition to better ride and braking the Camaro is now the better handler. Nethead, where are you? The Mustang needs you. Badly.
I guess you missed this part eh Cougs:
"The Mustang's a different story. "This car makes me want to do bad things. Dangerously bad things." Evans' voice crackled over the radio after driving the Mustang about 140 feet. While the Chevy is much improved, it's still not competitive with the Ford. As a driver you feel more confident in the Mustang. Not only that, but it's more fun and a better dance partner in the corners. The rear tires hop around less. The steering feels more direct, the pedals are placed better, the shifter shifts better, and (broken record time), because you can actually see out of the thing, the Mustang allows you to drive faster and more aggressively. All very good attributes for a sports car to possess, no? Plus the Ford sounds great and looks good, just like the Camaro. The problem for Chevy is that we can't think of a single thing the Camaro does better than the Mustang, save for braking and brake pedal feel. You might whip out the clich? mentioning that the Chevy has an independent rear end whereas the Mustang makes do with a solid rear axle. But I'd argue that the Mustang GT features the most refined solid axle ever fit to a production vehicle, while the Camaro makes do with a very average independent setup. Case in point: Evans and I both liked how the Mustang handled better. As did our entire testing crew, even though the Camaro put up better figure-eight numbers."
Quote from: GoCougs on January 27, 2011, 08:49:09 AM
LOL - two large paragraphs complaining about the steering wheel and shift knob? And the dude's fingers actually hurt from driving the car??? :facepalm:
Shades of how M/T tried to justify the Camaro V6's last place finish despite being a better performer than the Mustang V6. Sure, don't like the car because you don't like the styling but at least be honest about it. LOL.
And oh noes, in addition to better ride and braking the Camaro is now the better handler. Nethead, where are you? The Mustang needs you. Badly.
BlowCougs: Not since I read reviews of the Yugo years & years ago have I read of a new car that
STANK as much in the review as the Camaro convertible did in this article. It's positively deplorable! I will go so far as to say that Chevies were better built in the late 'Sixties and early 'Seventies than the Camaro in this review--and that is a damnation beyond all human contemplation!
Did you fail to pick up that this car may be built worse than Consumer Reports all-time build-quality loser, the Chevy Venture? Or does your PC have a rose-tinted screen cover???
Someday, hot steaming turds will come to realize that IT IS THE WHOLE VEHICLE THAT MAKES A GREAT VEHICLE. Sometime thereafter, hot steaming turds with mullets will come to realize this, and then you'll get it...maybe :facepalm:
Hey Nethead, don't hate on the Venture. My mom's may have rusted apart and the electronics may have failed well before the transmission and engine, but it still made it to 185k miles before they sold it for scrap.
That said, I have a friend whose mom bought a 1999 Sienna new. It still feels new with 200k on it to the point that we drove it from Pa. to Va. with no concerns whatsoever.
I have a hard time figuring out what kind of cars that Cougs even likes. He seems to like the Camaro despite not driving one but then he bashes GM for taking a bailout. Then I've seen him bash about every other car that's been posted here.
Oh and Cougs, if you hate the way the steering wheel and shifter knob feel in your hands, then it will really diminish your driving enjoyment since those are the only two things you actually hold onto while driving.
January 2011 sales figures:
Camaro: 4,763
Mustang: 3,165 (third lowest sales month in Mustang history)
Challenger: 2,526
Camaro convertible production begins this week.
FUCK! Camaro must be the better car then.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 02, 2011, 09:59:31 AM
January 2011 sales figures:
Camaro: 4,763
Mustang: 3,165 (third lowest sales month in Mustang history)
Challenger: 2,526
Camaro convertible production begins this week.
And in <a href="http://www.buzzle.com/articles/watching-mullet-haircuts-for-men-make-a-comeback.html">related news... :lol:
Quote from: SVT666 on February 02, 2011, 12:10:16 PM
FUCK! Camaro must be the better car then.
Yep, just like Bud Light is the best beer and McDonald's is the best restaurant
From www.edmunds.com:
2011 Ford Mustang GT 5.0: Boom-Boom Radio Not Required
By Jason Kavanagh | February 3, 2011
First off: this is a killer engine. Killer.
Our longterm 2011 Ford Mustang GT's V8 is super tractable, pulls with authority and sounds great.
The honkus you see above doesn't do a thing at all for the first two items. But it does help with the latter bit.
The honkus is the corrugated tube that's teed off of the snorkus.
This guy is plumbed around the engine bay and under the tower brace, where it is then connected to a drum-looking resonator whozit before terminating at the firewall. The whole purpose of this assemblage is to transmit certain intake frequencies to the cabin. It's purely for sound, and nothing else. We've seen a similar device on other cars like the GTI.
I have to say, the intake note in this car sounds great, and this tube is surely helping to create that impression. Ford clearly valued a good-sounding engine enough to spend the little bit of extra time and money to develop and produce the honkus, and I like that too. I'd personally like it better if they instead put those resources toward an independent rear end, but that's a subject for another day.
Mustangs of 2010 vintage also came equipped with a sound tube like this, and I've noticed that it's somewhat common for owners to remove it. For looks, or to save the pound or two, I guess. Me, I'd leave it in there. Sounds too good to mess with.
What about you, fair reader -- would you keep the honkus, or pitch it?
Jason Kavanagh, Engineering Editor
From www.edmunds.com:
2011 Ford Mustang GT: Outlet Placement Win
By Mike Magrath | February 3, 2011
Sure, the giant cord to my V1 falls over some of the buttons in this shot, but if the Mustang were mine, I'd ditch the giant curley thing in favor of a shorty foot-long power cable.
With most cars, you've got to run this, or the flat cable, through, over and around everything to get it plugged in and out of the way, manual trans = more routing. ( For some cars flat cable up over the sun visor, down the molding on the A-pillar and then around the panel gap for the glove box is the most convenient, out of the way place.)
But not here. Someone at Ford was thinking ahead for dash (there's a sunken area on the dash for a little more clearance dead-center) mounted electronics. Thank ya, Ford.
In unrelated news: MAN is this car fast. It's pretty quick on paper, but on the road it feels light and fast and like a sports car, not a Pony Car.
Mike Magrath, Associate Editor, Inside Line.
From www.edmunds.com:
2011 Ford Mustang GT: No Heated Seats...but it's OK
By Karl Brauer | February 2, 2011
I had a whole rant ready to go about our Long Term 2011 Ford Mustang GT not having heated seats for these "cold" Los Angeles mornings...but decided that probably isn't something I should complain about right now.
All U.S. residents located north and east of St. George, Utah...never mind.
Karl Brauer, Edmunds Editor at Large
From www.edmunds.com:
2011 Ford Mustang: Non-Muscle-Car Guy Approved
By James Riswick | February 1, 2011
I actually got to drive the Mustang last night, and although I've begun calling it the Jokermobile, I must say that it's absolutely awesome.
Now, I'm not a muscle car guy by any means. I prioritize sharp handling over straight-line brute force. I like a nice interior over one featuring sheets of hard plastic nailed together. I don't find burnouts to be pornographic. Growing up in the 90s, the Mustangs, Camaros and Firebirds of the day had absolutely ZERO appeal. The ones of yore were (and are) but a mild curiosity.
And yet, I love our new Mustang.
It may look like a muscle car, it may go like a muscle car, but it also feels like a sports car that's great to drive in directions other than a straight line. The electric steering (shockingly) is very good; the shifter is one of the best I've ever used; the clutch is easy in traffic or when hauling ass; the body is controlled through corners and over most bumps. Unlike the Camaro and Challenger, it doesn't feel enormous when behind the wheel; unlike the Camaro, its wheel and shifter are shaped for a human being.
I also appreciate that its interior doesn't need to fall back on the tired excuse of "yeah, but it goes from zero to 60 in X.X seconds and therefore all other criticisms are irrelevant." (Yo, BlowCougs--now we're talkin' down to your level of comprehension! :thumbsup:) Oh, there are still a few cheap pieces here and there, but sitting in a Mustang no longer feels like you're being penalized.
Come to think of it, I loved our Challenger too, but for completely opposite dynamic reasons. It looked like a muscle car, it went like a muscle car, but it also felt like a grand American touring coupe that was spacious and comfortable enough to also serve as a daily driver or road trip companion. It too had a nice interior.
Since they're so different, it's hard to pick which I like better. I do know I'd be happy to own either one, but that still doesn't make me a muscle car guy.
James Riswick, Automotive Editor @ 2,660 miles
From www.edmunds.com:
2011 Ford Mustang GT: Go...Bucks?
By Mike Magrath | January 31, 2011
(Man, that tach-sweep shot is hard.)
When you first hop into our Long Term 2011 Ford Mustang GT, there are a lot of cool details to take in. The rad metal-ball shifter is first and then, once you start 'er up, you notice the gauges. Now, they're nothing special -- the numbers are big and the needle is easy to read but small enough to be precise -- until someone goes and messes with the color adjustable gauges that come on the premium pack. Like someone here did who is a big fan of the Milwaukee Bucks and their green and purple color scheme. :facepalm:
Follow the jump for a video of the colors for both the gauge, trim ring and ambient lighting. (Note: my camera wasn't thrilled with these colors... they are truer to the color listed than they actually appear.)
Bonus information: The 2011 Ford Mustang GT500 can be programmed to do a red, white and blue color scheme with the speedo in red, center info in white and the tach in blue. :orly:
Mike Magrath, Associate Editor @ 2,637 miles
Quote from: the Teuton on January 27, 2011, 11:00:54 AM
Hey Nethead, don't hate on the Venture. My mom's may have rusted apart and the electronics may have failed well before the transmission and engine, but it still made it to 185k miles before they sold it for scrap.
That said, I have a friend whose mom bought a 1999 Sienna new. It still feels new with 200k on it to the point that we drove it from Pa. to Va. with no concerns whatsoever.
TeutDude: The Sienna was a consideration when we bought our 2010 Flex last November. It was edged out by the Odyssey because the WifeDude is all paranoid about Toyota quality issues of late. The Odyssey and the Sienna are clearly the cream of the minivan crop, IMO, but we've come to grips with the fact that we really don't need that much carrying capacity except on rare occasions anymore (one of which was this past week-end, as a matter of fact--and we borrowed our former minivan from the DaughterDude and the SonInLawDude for a day of moving items for the SonDude).
It is so vastly better to be in a Flex, loaded or not, than it is to be in a minivan, loaded or not. We still have seating for seven as we had in all our minivans (the full-sized Dodge van we had prior to our first minivan had seating for only five), but without the embarrassment of being seen in a minivan by family, friends, acquaintances, or rank strangers!
A fire hydrant outside a kennel gets more respect than a minivan...
http://blogs.insideline.com/roadtests/2011/02/2011-ford-mustang-gt-50-stolen-from-general-motors.html#more
Hmm I never knew the Mustang 5.0 now uses a skip shift system stolen from GM.
I agree it's funny that the press never mentions it a single time, and as Edmunds tested previous Mustang GT's and never noticed it, I suspect the Ford press cars didn't have the feature (makes you wonder how else Ford changed its press cars.) Not there is anything wrong with skip shift, but I remmeber the diehard blue oval fanboys making a big fuss about the GM's having skip shift and how it wasn't real fuel economy. Well looks like Ford's copying GM again. I wonder what those Ford fanboys are saying now.
Well, in all fairness to Mustang fanboyists, in times prior (with 5sp M/T) skip-shift simply wasn't feasible.
But what are MFBists saying now? Probably nothing - they'd likely rather not be reminded that a 6sp M/T is almost 20 years late to Mustang GT party.
I've known about this for a while. When the news broke that it would have skip-shift, most of the Mustang crowd were upset and hoping it would be as easy to bypass as the system that GM is using.
In other news. It appears the Mustang's tranny is made in China.
http://www.allfordmustangs.com/forums/2011-mustang-talk/241494-transmission-made-china.html
I don't like skip shift at all. Every Mustang site I know of that has mentioned it complains about it too Cougs. It isn't something we're happy about.
Quote from: 565 on February 15, 2011, 08:23:28 PM
In other news. It appears the Mustang's tranny is made in China.
http://www.allfordmustangs.com/forums/2011-mustang-talk/241494-transmission-made-china.html
That sucks. But it still comes with 5 year warranty and it is one of the slickest shifting transmissions on the market.
Quote from: 565 on February 15, 2011, 08:13:26 PM
http://blogs.insideline.com/roadtests/2011/02/2011-ford-mustang-gt-50-stolen-from-general-motors.html#more
Hmm I never knew the Mustang 5.0 now uses a skip shift system stolen from GM.
I agree it's funny that the press never mentions it a single time, and as Edmunds tested previous Mustang GT's and never noticed it, I suspect the Ford press cars didn't have the feature (makes you wonder how else Ford changed its press cars.) Not there is anything wrong with skip shift, but I remmeber the diehard blue oval fanboys making a big fuss about the GM's having skip shift and how it wasn't real fuel economy. Well looks like Ford's copying GM again. I wonder what those Ford fanboys are saying now.
Skip-shift shit came on some Euro cars so long ago that I can't even narrow it down to which decade. GM can't take the blame for inventing it, although they're as shameful as Ford for adding it.
I've never read a Mustang automatic roadtest that missed mentioning the skip-shift "feature" as a suck-up to the EPA, and you know that the Nethead here has not missed many Mustang roadtests, eh? No one likes it in Mustangs, but as I recall the roadtesters felt it worked better with the Mustang gear ratios than it does with the gear ratios in the GM cars equipped with it. I can't recall much enthusiasm for it decades ago in the the cars from Yurp that came equipped with it either...
But arguing the merits of automatic tranmissions is as pointless as arguing whether Roseanne Barr has a cuter ass than the lady who plays the housekeeper in "Two and a Half Men". Who really wastes their time on such contemplation? :nutty:
Other than 565 and BlowCougs, I mean :thumbsup:
Quote from: Nethead on February 16, 2011, 08:58:04 AM
Skip-shift shit came on some Euro cars so long ago that I can't even narrow it down to which decade. GM can't take the blame for inventing it, although they're as shameful as Ford for adding it.
I've never read a Mustang automatic roadtest that missed mentioning the skip-shift "feature" as a suck-up to the EPA, and you know that the Nethead here has not missed many Mustang roadtests, eh? No one likes it in Mustangs, but as I recall the roadtesters felt it worked better with the Mustang gear ratios than it does with the gear ratios in the GM cars equipped with it. I can't recall much enthusiasm for it decades ago in the the cars from Yurp that came equipped with it either...
But arguing the merits of automatic tranmissions is as pointless as arguing whether Roseanne Barr has a cuter ass than the lady who plays the housekeeper in "Two and a Half Men". Who really wastes their time on such contemplation? :nutty:
Other than 565 and BlowCougs, I mean :thumbsup:
Skip-shift is on the manual transmissions Nethead. :rolleyes:
Quote from: SVT666 on February 16, 2011, 09:30:15 AM
Skip-shift is on the manual transmissions Nethead. :rolleyes:
WHOA! Shows how much time I spend contemplating skip-shift, huh? The Yurp cars from decades ago were automatics--or were they? Maybe they were manuals, too :confused:...As I said, who spends time contemplating skip-shift?
Unbelievable.
We Europeans are a far too advanced civilization to equip our vehicles with such a stupid feature.
No. You Europeans are far too primitive for an average-cost 412 hp performance vehicle. "Free" health care, global warming legislation, 8+ weeks of vacation, nationalization of industry and natural resources, catastrophic levels of vehicle and fuel taxes, et al., = mean, miserable, effeminate econo boxes.
Quote from: 565 on February 15, 2011, 08:13:26 PM
http://blogs.insideline.com/roadtests/2011/02/2011-ford-mustang-gt-50-stolen-from-general-motors.html#more
Hmm I never knew the Mustang 5.0 now uses a skip shift system stolen from GM.
I agree it's funny that the press never mentions it a single time, and as Edmunds tested previous Mustang GT's and never noticed it, I suspect the Ford press cars didn't have the feature (makes you wonder how else Ford changed its press cars.) Not there is anything wrong with skip shift, but I remmeber the diehard blue oval fanboys making a big fuss about the GM's having skip shift and how it wasn't real fuel economy. Well looks like Ford's copying GM again. I wonder what those Ford fanboys are saying now.
I never understood the big deal about skip shift. I've driven several GM manuals that had the feature, and never once ran into it. Skip shift gets disabled at 2000RPM. The only time I could see it being an issue is in snow.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 16, 2011, 11:40:20 AM
No. You Europeans are far too primitive for an average-cost 412 hp performance vehicle. "Free" health care, global warming legislation, 8+ weeks of vacation, nationalization of industry and natural resources, catastrophic levels of vehicle and fuel taxes, et al., = mean, miserable, effeminate econo boxes.
yeeeee
Quote from: GoCougs on February 16, 2011, 11:40:20 AM
No. You Europeans are far too primitive for an average-cost 412 hp performance vehicle. "Free" health care, global warming legislation, 8+ weeks of vacation, nationalization of industry and natural resources, catastrophic levels of vehicle and fuel taxes, et al., = mean, miserable, effeminate econo boxes.
No need to be bitter, Cougs. I love you like a retarded little brother.
I wouldn't mind an 8 week vacation atleast.
Quote from: Mustangfan2003 on February 16, 2011, 12:40:50 PM
I wouldn't mind an 8 week vacation atleast.
And a little Global Warming would be effin' appreciated, too! Where's Al Gore when you really need him?
Quote from: Mustangfan2003 on February 16, 2011, 12:40:50 PM
I wouldn't mind an 8 week vacation atleast.
I imagine not many people would. However, the government that has the power to make such a thing a law has the power to make your gasoline $8/gallon, to tax engine displacement, and to tax you based on CO2 emissions. It's so so so sad, really.
Quote from: Raza on February 16, 2011, 11:45:29 AM
I never understood the big deal about skip shift. I've driven several GM manuals that had the feature, and never once ran into it. Skip shift gets disabled at 2000RPM. The only time I could see it being an issue is in snow.
I disabled it in my Z28 as soon as I brought it! It was annoying when it did activate so I purchased a "Skip-Shift" eliminator for RK Sports.
Here's some shit I put on my car. It doesn't do anything but I think it looks badass. When I bought it, I thought it did something but now I know it doesn't.
(http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h308/Standman38637/DSC00390.jpg)
(http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h308/Standman38637/DSC00391.jpg)
Here's a dyno chart I posted so that, later in this thread, another forum member could misread it and post a wildly inaccurate hypothesis that the power gain was consistent across the RPM range, meaning that the stock airbox couldn't have been a restriction. In truth, what the dyno chart shows is a 20 HP gain at 3000 RPM and a 40 HP gain at 6500 RPM. This would tend to support the idea that the CAI DID provide increased airflow. However, my automotive knowledge must pale in comparison to his. After all he's the guy that unleashed THIS gem: "If it was FWD architecture, the engine would be sideways..." BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :winkguy:
(http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h308/Standman38637/2011-mustang-cold-air-intake-8.jpg)
I bought this shit from a company called Steeda. They apparently produce a lot of "performance" parts that actually don't do anything. I don't know how they've stayed in business for years fooling the buying public but kudos to them. I now know better than to buy anything from them again thanks to the boundless wisdom of a fellow poster on this forum. I had foolishly believed that back to back dyno tests showing a performance gain, and markedly quicker quarter mile times were indicators of improved power. I now know that only an engine dyno can verify horsepower gains because chassis dynos are notoriously inaccurate. Interestingly, in all my years in the race engine business, I never saw back to back dyno pulls on an engine dyno produce the same numbers, but I must have been mistaken then too. So again I must thank GoCougs for setting me straight. He is a god. He knows all there is to know about performance cars (except how to buy and drive one of course). He can do anything. I mean ANYTHING automotive. What's that you say? Oh right, he can't do a brake job but other than that....
I will now leave this thread to devolve into the normal carspin pissing match lead by the following ignorant troll :ohyeah:
v v v
Look nice but almost 40 hp (10%) from only a CAI? Sorry, I don't buy that at all.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 20, 2011, 03:15:56 PM
Look nice but almost 40 hp (10%) from only a CAI? Sorry, I don't buy that at all.
He said CAI and tune (ECU reflash).
I see - well, I also don't buy tune + CAI = 40 hp/10% on a stock N/A motor...
Remember, these "tuner" shops all use ball-sucking chassis dynos.
I buy it. I've seen Camaros get big gains from intakes and tunes too. Engine tuning is the biggest problem with modern day engines. They're tuned for emissions more than anything, so when an after market tune gets installed where it's all about performance, you can see some big gains. My own Focus saw a 7% increase in max power just from a tune and as much as 24 hp (15%) at certain points in the rev range.
Quote from: Cobra93 on February 20, 2011, 04:17:13 PM
I'm sure that the fact that hundreds of different owners have corroborated the results on hundreds of different dynos won't sway you, but maybe if you ever drove or even rode in a Camaro or Mustang, you'd believe it. :rolleyes:
No, it does not sway me; only facts sway me. First, there's relatively little that can be done to A/F mixture and timing curve before a stock N/A gas engine runs way off peak performance; and with modern controls once that happens all sorts of issues arise - from 02 errors to tripping knock sensors. Second, chassis dynos are only good for 5-10% accuracy. When dealing with such small % only a stand-alone engine dyno will do.
Now let's think about this philosophically rather than technically - How likely is it Ford left ~40 hp on the table owing to a crappy stock CAI design and "conservative" ECU tuning? Ford has an engine engineering team that is bigger than all tuners put together, and with that kind of brain power Ford isn't going to botch ~40 hp, and the lost efficiency that comes with that. It's just not going to happen.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 20, 2011, 05:05:11 PM
No, it does not sway me; only facts sway me. First, there's relatively little that can be done to A/F mixture and timing curve before a stock N/A gas engine runs way off peak performance; and with modern controls once that happens all sorts of issues arise - from 02 errors to tripping knock sensors. Second, chassis dynos are only good for 5-10% accuracy. When dealing with such small % only a stand-alone engine dyno will do.
Now let's think about this philosophically rather than technically - How likely is it Ford left ~40 hp on the table owing to a crappy stock CAI design and "conservative" ECU tuning? Ford has an engine engineering team that is bigger than all tuners put together, and with that kind of brain power Ford isn't going to botch ~40 hp, and the lost efficiency that comes with that. It's just not going to happen.
Maybe they left room for quick improvement in case Chevy bumped up the Camaro's numbers. Just like they came out with a new ECU flash for the SuperDuty after Chevy came out with better numbers.
Yes Cougs, they would. Intake design is compromised for noise and sound requirements and ECU programming is compromised due to fuel economy and emissions requirements and the fact that after the tune, all you can put in it is Premium fuel. Stock tunes suck.
Quote from: hotrodalex on February 20, 2011, 05:09:08 PM
Maybe they left room for quick improvement in case Chevy bumped up the Camaro's numbers. Just like they came out with a new ECU flash for the SuperDuty after Chevy came out with better numbers.
F/I motor is an entirely different animal as you have direct control over volumetric efficiency (by way of boost). N/A motors have no such mechanism to muck with that can greatly affect power.
Quote from: SVT666 on February 20, 2011, 05:10:31 PM
Yes Cougs, they would. Intake design is compromised for noise and sound requirements and ECU programming is compromised due to fuel economy and emissions requirements and the fact that after the tune, all you can put in it is Premium fuel. Stock tunes suck.
Lost power = lost efficiency, and no way is Ford leaving 40 hp and some mpg on the table for "noise" or "sound" requirements or the catch-22 of decreasing efficiency to increase mpg.
Most any ECU today is already self adjusting to fuel octane, and as a result many automakers rate HP based on fuel grade, just as does Ford for the Mustang GT (402 hp on regular, 412 hp on premium).
Sorry, IMO you're buying snake oil.
So engines coming from the factory are not able to be improved on? And engines from the factory are maximized for power? You are so full of shit, I can't tell which end is your ass.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 20, 2011, 05:05:11 PM
No, it does not sway me; only facts sway me. First, there's relatively little that can be done to A/F mixture and timing curve before a stock N/A gas engine runs way off peak performance; and with modern controls once that happens all sorts of issues arise - from 02 errors to tripping knock sensors. Second, chassis dynos are only good for 5-10% accuracy. When dealing with such small % only a stand-alone engine dyno will do.
Now let's think about this philosophically rather than technically - How likely is it Ford left ~40 hp on the table owing to a crappy stock CAI design and "conservative" ECU tuning? Ford has an engine engineering team that is bigger than all tuners put together, and with that kind of brain power Ford isn't going to botch ~40 hp, and the lost efficiency that comes with that. It's just not going to happen.
It will if Ford wants to sell Ford Performance Parts
But Cougs knows better than real life, I guess
:facepalm: Are those last two posts serious posts???
Quote from: GoCougs on February 20, 2011, 08:56:00 PM
:facepalm: Are those last two posts serious posts???
Yes. Are yours? You obviously don't know shit and you prove it every time you type something on this subject. You live in a fantasy world.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 20, 2011, 08:56:00 PM
:facepalm: Are those last two posts serious posts???
Only slightly less serious than your allegations which run counter to reality
Seriously every piece of reasoning you have presented has been rebutted, and in classic Cougs form your rebuttal is more vagueness and indignation
Lol
Yes, Ford left a bit on the table power wise for a myriad of real world reasons- noise constraints, emissions restraints, and in some small part to leave room for the booming aftermarket that has made the Rustang the success it is today
The idea that every modern engine is tuned to absolute max power from the factory is absolute comedy, but not surprising coming from the first anti auto enthusiast I've ever come across on a message board.
Yes, you're wrong
Well everyone knows that the Camaro is gods gift to the auto world.
Ford hamstrings the 5.0L to give its minuscule aftermarket business a chance? Ford is worried about noise on the Mustang? You gotta be kidding me.
Plus, an emissions-killing affecting tune would throw ECU errors like crazy and cause the car to not pass emissions. Also remember emission are a sliding scale; it's not a go/no go (haven't you seen the EPA scale on new car stickers (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm)). The '11 Mustang GT shows 5 on a scale from 0-10 (i.e., plenty of room).
Ha, ha! No offense but you two turkeys don't stand a chance but I'm just nice enough to (re)educate you all the same, even in light of the immaturity. No worries, we'll get you two tuned up (like that pun?) in no time. LOL.
As to the beginnings of the (re)education for you two, enter the 2008 Bullitt. To go from 300 hp to 315 hp, Ford did the following - custom CAI, new exhaust including crossover pipe and lower restriction mufflers, and new-for-2008 what Ford called "adaptive spark" capability which adjusts timing curve based on fuel grade (to get 315 hp one had to use premium).
Quote from: GoCougs on February 20, 2011, 10:41:42 PM
Ford hamstrings the 5.0L to give its minuscule aftermarket business a chance? Ford is worried about noise on the Mustang? You gotta be kidding me.
It's not miniscule. :rolleyes:
QuotePlus, an emissions-killing affecting tune would throw ECU errors like crazy and cause the car to not pass emissions. Also remember emission are a sliding scale; it's not a go/no go (haven't you seen the EPA scale on new car stickers (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm)). The '11 Mustang GT shows 5 on a scale from 0-10 (i.e., plenty of room).
If you knew anything at all, you would know that ECU errors would not be going crazy. I have the most aggressive after market tune you can get for my car and I have had one error pop up in 3 years. I plugged in my tuner and cleared the code. Never happened again.
QuoteHa, ha! No offense but you two turkeys don't stand a chance but I'm just nice enough to (re)educate you all the same, even in light of the immaturity. No worries, we'll get you two tuned up (like that pun?) in no time. LOL.
Your arrogance is your downfall.
Continue to call me names and attack me all you want. I secretly know you're actually learning something.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 20, 2011, 10:55:16 PM
As to the beginnings of the (re)education for you two, enter the 2008 Bullitt. To go from 300 hp to 315 hp, Ford did the following - custom CAI, new exhaust including crossover pipe and lower restriction mufflers, and new-for-2008 what Ford called "adaptive spark" capability which adjusts timing curve based on fuel grade (to get 315 hp one had to use premium).
Let me educate you then:
A Bullitt put on a dyno back to back with a GT will show a greater power advantage than 15 horses too. Ford initially pegged power at 325, but knocked it back to 315 right before it was released. It couldn't be seen to have the exact same horsepower rating as the Shelby GT that cost several grand more even though the modifications were identical.
Ford still has to worry about emissions and noise levels. An after market CAI is quite loud compared to a stock CAI...even the Bullitt's CAI. Without a nice loud exhaust system, a totally uncorked intake can have an undesirable sound. I should know. The stock air box on my Mustang had a snorkel that fed into the fender. The snorkel was less than 2" in diameter. The CAI I installed was 4" diameter all the way to a 6" cone filter that resided in the fender. Just in case you didn't know a 4" pipe carries a shit load more air than a 2" pipe. I hated the sound mine made in my Mustang until I swapped out my exhaust system with Magnapacks, high flow cats, and long tube headers. After that I could barely hear it anymore.
After market tunes are still more aggressive than what Ford did because the after market doesn't give a shit about emissions if you don't live where they are enforced. An X-pipe does nothing to increase power over an H-pipe. It just changes the sound from a deeper baritone sound to a higher pitched metallic sound. Stock exhaust systems are so good these days that a new cat-back will only net you 5-7 horsepower. The real gains are made in the cats. If you replace the stock cats with high-flow cats, you will see much bigger gains.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 20, 2011, 11:41:18 PM
Continue to call me names and attack me all you want. I secretly know you're actually learning something.
Your arrogance is your downfall.
Hey Cougs
(http://www.theospot.net/pictures/misc/francis.jpg)
Sigh - chassis dyno equivalency fail.
The assertion that a CAI adds power to a stock motor is insanity.
X-pipe = straighter flow and probably less overall pipe (I recommend drawing it out).
The Shelby/Bullitt power pump came from the slightly more aggressive timing map owing to premium gas usage over the stock 4.6 GT (something the 5.0 GT already has).
Quote from: GoCougs on February 20, 2011, 10:55:16 PM
As to the beginnings of the (re)education for you two, enter the 2008 Bullitt. To go from 300 hp to 315 hp, Ford did the following - custom CAI, new exhaust including crossover pipe and lower restriction mufflers, and new-for-2008 what Ford called "adaptive spark" capability which adjusts timing curve based on fuel grade (to get 315 hp one had to use premium).
I thought CAIs didn't add power to stock motors?
Quote from: GoCougs on February 21, 2011, 12:19:30 AM
Sigh - chassis dyno equivalency fail.
How is a chassis dyno any less valid than an engine dyno? They use exactly the same technology, and all the parts between the engine and the rollers don't turn up friction to cancel out all gains. Plus 99% of the time when bolt on gains are tested they're tested on the same dyno, same day, same car etc....
Fact is,
very few to no manufacturers tune their cars to 100% of their potential power, even just from the tune (as evidenced by gains from tunes on various 100HP/L+
Honda engines), and given the Mustang's HP/L, Ford's own performance parts program and the Mustang's long standing relationship with various bolt on parts makers it's safe to say the Coyote did not leave the factory with a tune that could not yield some more power.
Honest question- why do you even care? You don't even like fun to drive cars. I bet it's been at least a decade since you drove or owned a stickshift car, let alone did any performance mods to one. You're way out of your element.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 21, 2011, 12:19:30 AM
Sigh - chassis dyno equivalency fail.
Same dyno, same day. Whether the readout is 100% accurate or not, the readings will be out by the same amount on both cars. That's why they always do a minimum of 3 pulls to ensure as accurate a reading as possible.
QuoteThe assertion that a CAI adds power to a stock motor is insanity.
No. Insanity is believing that engines are tuned to max capabilities from the factory. A 4" pipe carries 4 times more air than a 2" pipe. More air = more power. A CAI combined with a tune nets large gains....that is a fact.
QuoteX-pipe = straighter flow and probably less overall pipe (I recommend drawing it out).
Wrong. So wrong you have no idea how wrong. Massive fail Cougs. :facepalm:
QuoteThe Shelby/Bullitt power pump came from the slightly more aggressive timing map owing to premium gas usage over the stock 4.6 GT (something the 5.0 GT already has).
Huh. I thought you stated an aftermarket tune wouldn't net any appreciable gains? Just so you know, the Shelby GT is rated at 325 hp and the Bullitt is rated at 315 hp despite being identical. The Shelby GT costs more, so Ford couldn't have the Bullitt with the same rating.
Your internetry needs some work you arrogant fool.
Ha, ha! This is almost as good as torque "vs." horsepower!
Well I guess we can all end this discussion as we're all in agreement that Cougs doesn't know what he's talking about, but is adamant about getting the "last word". The floor is yours Cougs.
Anyways apparently people are taking these things into the low 10s w/slicks and bolt ones. LOW 10S.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 21, 2011, 11:13:27 AM
Ha, ha! This is almost as good as torque "vs." horsepower!
Yeah. Your arguments are totally ridiculous.
:facepalm: C'mon there Cobra93, I thought you were much more knowledgeable than this. That engine, as described there and elsewhere, I had installed the Edelbrock Performer power package (AFB carb, intake, cam) and modern 360 FI heads. The stock air cleaner system designed for the original ~130 hp 318 ain't going to support the CFM needed for 250+ hp. (Meaning, all those are bolt-on parts, some of which have little effect - or no effect - by themselves (CAI); = not all bolt-on parts are created equal.)
Here's the Dodge Demon I owned. Note the stock air cleaner assembly. D'oh - stock engine!
(http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/1458/demonengine.png) (http://img340.imageshack.us/i/demonengine.png/)
Quote from: GoCougs on February 21, 2011, 01:04:16 PM
~130 hp 318
O yea, there is nothing that can be done short of re-engineering the entire engine to get anything more than the incredibly aggressive tune Mopar sent that 318 out with.............
Everything in the induction and exhaust system was optimal, as were the cam profile & compression....
130HP out of 318 cubic inches... it's a miracle these things lasted any appreciable distance w/o needing a laboratory rebuild.....
There is no way MOPAR engineers would have let that engine leave the factory without squeezing every possible horsepower out of it first. Modifying it was such a waste of money. Poor Cougs. He learned the hard way.
Quote from: Cobra93 on February 21, 2011, 01:13:15 PM
You do realize that the CAI flows considerably more than the stock airbox, right? And that the tune is required to add the extra fuel needed, right? Extra fuel & air = more horsepower. It worked then. It works now.
Sure it less restrictive but that is wasted capacity
if the engine isn't flowing more air . Engine air flow is a function of displacement, RPM and volumetric efficiency of the engine. Also, for further research, do some Googling on air restricter plates used in racing, and what it truly takes to restrict an engine.
Step back and listen to yourself. Honestly, truthfully, candidly, listen to yourself. Do you honestly believe Ford (now) or Mopar (then) left all this horsepower (and by definition lower MPG) on the table simply because they botched an air filter design, or because they were concerned with noise or some such?
Quote from: Cobra93 on February 21, 2011, 01:16:12 PM
D'oh! Room for improvement. You're really not this stupid are you?
On the entire engine? Sure. It was entirely stock. But by adding only an open-element air filter? LOL.
And weren't you the one a while back that insisted a lighter drive shaft resulted in more rear-wheel HP simply because the chassis dyno tells you so?
Quote from: GoCougs on February 21, 2011, 01:44:18 PM
On the entire engine? Sure. It was entirely stock. But by adding only an open-element air filter? LOL.
Try to grasp the concept that the CAI is allowing more CFM through the engine. The stock airbox and inlet tube
is a restriction. Had you simply upgraded your Dodge truck from a 2 barrel and stock intake to a 4 barrel and the Performer intake, you would realize a noticeable gain. Not as much as with the cam included but a gain nonetheless. In my case, the throttle body is not the restriction.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 21, 2011, 01:44:18 PM
And weren't you the one a while back that insisted a lighter drive shaft resulted in more rear-wheel HP simply because the chassis dyno tells you so?
Nope, that wasn't me.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on February 21, 2011, 01:30:33 PM
O yea, there is nothing that can be done short of re-engineering the entire engine to get anything more than the incredibly aggressive tune Mopar sent that 318 out with.............
Everything in the induction and exhaust system was optimal, as were the cam profile & compression....
130HP out of 318 cubic inches... it's a miracle these things lasted any appreciable distance w/o needing a laboratory rebuild.....
Sure, at that time, that was about as optimal as that engine would get given the constraints. Putting an open-element air filter (akin to a modern CAI) would do nothing and a custom advance curve'd distributor to run on premium (akin to a modern tune) would add very little - LOL, certainly not 10%.
You guys are simply rain dancing. Sure if you're modifying the engine's ability to pump air (cams, heads, etc.) and operation of the engine a higher capacity air filter system and tune would be required. But as standalone entities on a stock engine? Nah.
MM&FF compared different CAI kits with and without tuners in 2006 on the 4.6L Mustang GT. The best being the WMS kit with tuner. They skipped the dyno entirely and just ran the 1/4 mile instead. The car was a stock 2006 Mustang GT with an automatic to take the driver out of the equation.
Stock = 13.858 @ 97.28 mph (Density Altitude = 1,435 ft)
WMS CAI and SCT Tune = 13.694 @ 98.48 mph (Density Altitude = 2,366 ft)
With almost 1000 ft. increase in Density Altitude and warmer air temps (first run in the morning, WMS run in the afternoon), the 1/4 mile time dropped by almost 2/10ths of a second.
Quote from: Cobra93 on February 21, 2011, 01:54:02 PM
Try to grasp the concept that the CAI is allowing more CFM through the engine. The stock airbox and inlet tube is a restriction. Had you simply upgraded your Dodge truck from a 2 barrel and stock intake to a 4 barrel and the Performer intake, you would realize a noticeable gain. Not as much as with the cam included but a gain nonetheless. In my case, the throttle body is not the restriction.
And YOU try to grasp why Ford would botch the design. How easy would it for Ford to design a less restrictive CAI sans the fancy looking materials? LOL - easy as pie (zero extra work and zero extra cost). Your assertion fails philosophically before it fails technically.
And your analogy is false. Again, only upgrading the carb and manifold does not increase air flow. It only increases the CAPACITY for air flow. Without either/or upgraded heads or cam putting a 4bbl on an 2bb stock engine will result in virtually zero increase in power and give you nothing but a boggy POS.
Quote
Nope, that wasn't me.
Meh, it was someone here. I think it was SVT666. It was a classic example of the many ways chassis dynos suck for small % comparisons.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 21, 2011, 02:07:57 PM
And your analogy is false. Again, only upgrading the carb and manifold does not increase air flow.
You don't think an intake manifold's design or parameters have anything to do with power output or pumping losses?
I suppose systems like Porsche's Varioram and other multi stage intake manifolds were all just made for fun........
Quote from: Cobra93 on February 21, 2011, 02:51:46 PM
I don't know how to get this through to you. Multiple same day dyno tests show more power. The cars go faster. If you can't equate that with more power, then I'm through trying to teach you. :huh:
Again, your measurement tools are poor. Using drag racing to measure a tenth or two or a chassis dyno to pick up 5-10% is simply rain dancing; thus it is I who are teaching YOU.
If and until someone shows me Ford's explanation OR a proper (standalone engine) dyno test, you'll never convince me. Engineering fundamentals and basic business sense are not rewritten by poor measurement tools and advertising.
I
Hey Cobra. Didn't you know that the fact the car ran the 1/4 mile faster with a CAI and a tune than it did stock is not proof of anything? Cougs wins again.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on February 21, 2011, 03:10:47 PM
You don't think an intake manifold's design or parameters have anything to do with power output or pumping losses?
I suppose systems like Porsche's Varioram and other multi stage intake manifolds were all just made for fun........
That's okay sporty, I don't mind being the rock upon which you break yourself.
In that specific example Cobra93 gave, no, adding a 4bbl carb + manifold to a stock 2bbl engine will result in virtually zero power increase. Those elements can restrict air flow certainly but they don't magically cram more air into the engine.
As to variable intake manifolds, think that might be used in conjunction with VVT/L technology? (Answer: yes.) Effectively what you're getting is different intake manifolds to match different cams.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 21, 2011, 03:28:56 PM
Okay. I really don't know why I inexplicably love the Camaro so much. Perhaps it's related to my severe penile inadequacy. I only know that if I ever achieve the level of personal success that will afford me the ability to buy one, I'll get the V6 version. I'm simply not man enough to handle the V8.
We understand, Cougs. I think everyone on the forum has pretty much figured that out by now.
Quote from: Cobra93 on February 21, 2011, 03:59:39 PM
Sorry Cougs, you have nothing to teach me. You've clearly proven that you know nothing about engines and even less about performance. Now go have fun in the rarefied performance atmosphere of Grandma's Accord.
Ha, ha. You walked in to a wall of self-pwage asserting a 4bbl swap on a stock 2bbl motor will give appreciably more power - pretty much anyone whose played around with old-school Detroit iron knows not to do that.
It's funny this phenomenon of guys who can build 'em, drive 'em, or buy 'em, have this entitlement that this is automatic license to the knowledge of how things actually work. That you three continually attack rather than talk facts, data or knowledge, is implicit membership into this dubious club.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 21, 2011, 09:34:54 PM
Ha, ha. You walked in to a wall of self-pwage asserting a 4bbl swap on a stock 2bbl motor will give appreciably more power - pretty much anyone whose played around with old-school Detroit iron knows not to do that.
It's funny this phenomenon of guys who can build 'em, drive 'em, or buy 'em, have this entitlement that this is automatic license to the knowledge of how things actually work. That you three continually attack rather than talk facts, data or knowledge, is implicit membership into this dubious club.
Actually, I think I've posted facts, data, and actual knowledge....unlike you. You have done nothing but say, "You're wrong because I say so".
Quote from: SVT666 on February 21, 2011, 10:12:30 PM
Actually, I think I've posted facts, data, and actual knowledge....unlike you. You have done nothing but say, "You're wrong because I say so".
Actually, you've posted is mostly some experience and regurgitation of sales bites. For example, the assertion a 4" pipe flows 4x more than a 2" pipe for compressible fluid flow (i.e., atmo air) is simply not true. Just think about it. It's also not relevant.
And again, Ford spent hundreds of millions $$$ to develop the 5.0, but they leave a bunch HP on the table and lose some MPG because they somehow botch the cheapo plastic CAI? Forget the technical discussion, attack the philosophical premise; I don't see how you can rationalize it.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 21, 2011, 03:41:24 PM
That's okay sporty, I don't mind being the rock upon which you break yourself.
In that specific example Cobra93 gave, no, adding a 4bbl carb + manifold to a stock 2bbl engine will result in virtually zero power increase. Those elements can restrict air flow certainly but they don't magically cram more air into the engine.
Well maybe in the specific example that might not be the case, but the assertion that
Quote from: GoCougs on February 21, 2011, 12:19:30 AM
The assertion that a CAI adds power to a stock motor is insanity.
is insanity, given the abundance of unbiased evidence that shows otherwise. The idea that stock intakes, which are compromised greatly to minimize noise, are the ideal intake designs for making power, is ridiculous. Not to mention you contradicted yourself hilariously when citing the CAI on the Mustang Bullitt or w/e as a source of the added power over the standard Mustang. So I'm not even sure what your point is.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 21, 2011, 03:41:24 PM
As to variable intake manifolds, think that might be used in conjunction with VVT/L technology? (Answer: yes.) Effectively what you're getting is different intake manifolds to match different cams.
There are plenty of engines w/no VVT/L technology that benefitted greatly from 2 or more stage intake manifolds. Some notable examples:
- Toyota's 4AGE (long before VVT/L even existed)
- Air cooled Porsche engines (Varioram)
- Yamaha SHO V6 & V8
- Nissan VQ30DEK (VIM being the main factor for the 30HP jump over the DE as proved by various builds and unbiased dynos)
- Various non VTEC B, F, H & J series Honda engines
The list goes on and on. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_length_intake_manifold)
Bottom line being, engine peripherals (from the intake filter to the muffler) have measurable impacts on power output, and OEM manufacturers have to make compromises on said peripherals for cost, noise, emissions, fuel economy and other factors that work counter to producing the most power possible- even for the Coyote 5.0- that leaves room for the aftermarket to shift the bias towards power, noise & response for those willing to pay for it. This should be a below rudimentary concept to grasp for an engineer so close to the design processes behind the kinds of parts that go into powertrains, and someone who considers himself a car enthusiast....
Quote from: Cobra93 on February 22, 2011, 08:50:55 AM
:wtf: You're hilarious. I've been in the engine business since you were in diapers. For a living, I've designed, built and dynoed engine combinations for everything from street rods to sprint cars. I was the top engine salesman at one of the preeminent race engine builders in the country. I've been selling engines in my own business for over ten years now. I've forgotten more about engines than you ever knew. What, exactly, are your credentials? For the life of me, I can't understand why you can't grasp the concept that an intake or exhaust restriction will limit output. Do you not remember the '99 Cobra exhaust issue? Your position seems to be that the OEM could never leave room for improvement over the stock combination. This has always been false and most likely always will be. As SVT666 said, you've produced nothing to support your position.
If you've got all this knowledge and experience why do you attack? Such a thing greatly detracts from any point you try to make. And I still don't know how to place the 4bbl upgrade assertion - anyone with your knowledge knows that would result in little if any power increase on something like a stock 2bbl 318 and would result in a boggy POS.
Sure those elements will restrict flow and result in a loss of power and RPM, IF they are designed for such a thing. Exhaust has caveats for needed restriction (primarily noise) but then again an infinitely free flowing exhaust is bad too - you need some measure of back pressure for a street driven car (i.e., a car driven at anything less than WOT) to maintain low-end torque. CAI not so much.
Again, show me an engine dyno graph and Ford's reasoning for purposefully restricting the CAI in such a manner, and I'll reverse my position. Until then, I remain utterly unconvinced.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 22, 2011, 11:28:38 AM
Exhaust has caveats for needed restriction (primarily noise) but then again an infinitely free flowing exhaust is bad too - you need some measure of back pressure for a street driven car (i.e., a car driven at anything less than WOT) to maintain low-end torque. CAI not so much.
Again, show me an engine dyno graph and Ford's reasoning for purposefully restricting the CAI in such a manner, and I'll reverse my position. Until then, I remain utterly unconvinced.
:wtf:
This post is classic Cougs. I think this might be the new signature.
Classic elements.
- Citing the exhaust backpressure
myth, long proven false over and over again
- Making a claim, (http://www.carspin.net/forums/index.php?topic=20861.msg1474096#msg1474096) and then placing the burden of proof on people who called him out on its ridiculousness
- The incredible specificity of the requirements of the truth- basically only accepting a notarized letter from Bill Ford himself explaining why he purposely sabotaged the Mustang intake design, despite all the evidence and sound reasoning explaining why an OEM intake might not be the most efficient design for max power
Lord help you if you are this obtuse in real life; I hope you are just having fun trolling as this is hard to believe.
Even if a Ford engineer came on here and posted the reasoning, you would tell him he is wrong.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on February 22, 2011, 11:17:41 AM
Well maybe in the specific example that might not be the case, but the assertion that
is insanity, given the abundance of unbiased evidence that shows otherwise. The idea that stock intakes, which are compromised greatly to minimize noise, are the ideal intake designs for making power, is ridiculous. Not to mention you contradicted yourself hilariously when citing the CAI on the Mustang Bullitt or w/e as a source of the added power over the standard Mustang. So I'm not even sure what your point is.
There are plenty of engines w/no VVT/L technology that benefitted greatly from 2 or more stage intake manifolds. Some notable examples:
- Toyota's 4AGE (long before VVT/L even existed)
- Air cooled Porsche engines (Varioram)
- Yamaha SHO V6 & V8
- Nissan VQ30DEK (VIM being the main factor for the 30HP jump over the DE as proved by various builds and unbiased dynos)
- Various non VTEC B, F, H & J series Honda engines
The list goes on and on. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_length_intake_manifold)
Bottom line being, engine peripherals (from the intake filter to the muffler) have measurable impacts on power output, and OEM manufacturers have to make compromises on said peripherals for cost, noise, emissions, fuel economy and other factors that work counter to producing the most power possible- even for the Coyote 5.0- that leaves room for the aftermarket to shift the bias towards power, noise & response for those willing to pay for it. This should be a below rudimentary concept to grasp for an engineer so close to the design processes behind the kinds of parts that go into powertrains, and someone who considers himself a car enthusiast....
I quoted the CAI on the Bullitt because that is what Ford said they did to the car. :huh: The power bump via the GT came from the tune to run on premium and the louder exhaust.
Sure there were variable intake, but all those engines were peaky and not nearly as tractable as (VVT/L) high RPM engines of today. Plus, those mostly had to do with velocity + mixing and not absolute flow.
This continued assertion that Ford is leaving room for its aftermarket by purposefully hamstringing the 5.0 by botching the CAI is absolutely ludicrous.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 22, 2011, 11:45:22 AM
This continued assertion that Ford is leaving room for its aftermarket by purposefully hamstringing the 5.0 by botching the CAI is absolutely ludicrous.
I don't think anyone asserted that that was the primary driver or even a conscious factor of the design. But because of all the regulatory compromises Ford had to make when they designed the intake, in the context of absolute power/flow/response, there were definitely improvements to be made that the aftermarket has capitalized on. Same with the ECU tune, exhaust, cams and every other power making part of the car.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on February 22, 2011, 11:38:44 AM
:wtf:
This post is classic Cougs. I think this might be the new signature.
Classic elements.
- Citing the exhaust backpressure myth, long proven false over and over again
- Making a claim, (http://www.carspin.net/forums/index.php?topic=20861.msg1474096#msg1474096) and then placing the burden of proof on people who called him out on its ridiculousness
- The incredible specificity of the requirements of the truth- basically only accepting a notarized letter from Bill Ford himself explaining why he purposely sabotaged the Mustang intake design, despite all the evidence and sound reasoning explaining why an OEM intake might not be the most efficient design for max power
Lord help you if you are this obtuse in real life; I hope you are just having fun trolling as this is hard to believe.
Nah, that you continually attack shows that you know the inherent weakness of your position (in your case, an almost complete dearth of hands-on experience).
Try driving a car with an open header(s). Low-end power is greatly diminished. You NEED some measure of back pressue to properly scavenge exhaust to maintain streetability.
The burden of proof falls solely on the claimant. I challenged both the measurement method and the rationalization. I also provide and avenue for recompense - a proper validation (engine dyno test) and specific reasoning from Ford (not your "sound" reasoning).
Quote from: GoCougs on February 22, 2011, 12:12:19 PM
Nah, that you continually attack shows that you know the inherent weakness of your position (in your case, an almost complete dearth of hands-on experience).
Try driving a car with an open header(s). Low-end power is greatly diminished. You NEED some measure of back pressue to properly scavenge exhaust to maintain streetability.
The burden of proof falls solely on the claimant. I challenged both the measurement method and the rationalization. I also provide and avenue for recompense - a proper validation (engine dyno test) and specific reasoning from Ford (not your "sound" reasoning).
I'm seriously holding back laughter now.
In one keystroke, this guy cites the butt dyno as valid, and then says a chassis dyno is invalid. :wtf:
And I definitely have more "real world experience" building cars than you do; especially modern cars. I'd love to see your automotive resume. It appears all you've done is change an air filter. Here's an anecdote. When I changed the exhaust on my Maxima (as I did on nearly every car I owned if it didn't already come with a non-stock exhaust), I went with 2.5" crush bent piping from the collector back. My butt dyno (since you've accepted them as valid proof of power gains/losses) indicated a very noticeable gain in low end torque, due entirely to the lowered back pressure of the high flowing exhaust. Point being, yes, going to the extreme of no exhaust at all will be a detriment to drivability (if not for the fumes alone), but back pressure in and of itself is not a net plus (as you never fail to remind us when turbochargers are discussed), nor is there any linearity between it and low end torque.
It has nothing to do with a "butt dyno." The engine effectively runs flat if not just about stalls at lower RPM if you run just a straight header. Google myriad information about it, and if you ever get a chance, as I have, try it. Then you'll realize I am 100% correct. But beyond that it seems you guys are more interested in attacking and insulting. Meh, no offense but I'm confident in my knowledge and experience to be better than this.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 22, 2011, 06:53:13 PM
It has nothing to do with a "butt dyno." The engine effectively runs flat if not just about stalls at lower RPM if you run just a straight header. Google myriad information about it, and if you ever get a chance, as I have, try it. Then you'll realize I am 100% correct. But beyond that it seems you guys are more interested in attacking and insulting. Meh, no offense but I'm confident in my knowledge and experience to be better than this.
No, you're an arrogant fool who doesn't think he has to back up his POV but everyone else has to. I trust Cobra93 over you any day of the week. Engines are his business. That's what he does. I believe 1/4 mile times from the same car, same day, different mods over you. I believe back to back dyno results over you.
Sporty, the fact you just called exhaust back pressure a myth completely blew any sort of credibility you had. Come on, there's no way you truly believe that.
Quote from: MrH on February 22, 2011, 11:06:53 PM
Sporty, the fact you just called exhaust back pressure a myth completely blew any sort of credibility you had. Come on, there's no way you truly believe that.
He didn't call it a myth:
"I went with 2.5" crush bent piping from the collector back. My butt dyno (since you've accepted them as valid proof of power gains/losses) indicated a very noticeable gain in low end torque, due entirely to the lowered back pressure of the high flowing exhaust.
Point being, yes, going to the extreme of no exhaust at all will be a detriment to drivability..."
Quote from: sportyaccordy on February 22, 2011, 11:38:44 AM
:wtf:
This post is classic Cougs. I think this might be the new signature.
Classic elements.
- Citing the exhaust backpressure myth, long proven false over and over again
- Making a claim, (http://www.carspin.net/forums/index.php?topic=20861.msg1474096#msg1474096) and then placing the burden of proof on people who called him out on its ridiculousness
- The incredible specificity of the requirements of the truth- basically only accepting a notarized letter from Bill Ford himself explaining why he purposely sabotaged the Mustang intake design, despite all the evidence and sound reasoning explaining why an OEM intake might not be the most efficient design for max power
Lord help you if you are this obtuse in real life; I hope you are just having fun trolling as this is hard to believe.
Oh. Didn't read that far back.
He seems to have contradicted himself, indeed.
This is why I gave up on technical debates that go over my head a long, long time ago. Now if anyone wants to discuss piezo injectors, I'd be down for that. :lol:
Man Cougs doesn't go down without a fight.
Quote from: Mustangfan2003 on February 22, 2011, 11:40:39 PM
Man Cougs doesn't go down without a fight.
No, and he will claim victory even after being defeated.
Quote from: SVT666 on February 22, 2011, 11:45:43 PM
No, and he will claim victory even after being defeated.
Sorta like Psilos. I'd like to see those two meet sometime.
Quote from: Mustangfan2003 on February 22, 2011, 11:40:39 PM
Man Cougs doesn't go down without a fight.
It's the stuff of the Intertubes.
But seriously, I'm correct here. There's no way an automaker is killing a bunch of hp and MPG because of a botched air filter system.
I've never seen any viable technical explanation whatsoever, and actually see a lot of incredibly wrong things said.
I'm just speaking in broad terms here, but manufacturers very rarely go all-out with performance. There are always improvements to be made, whether they are just too costly to be included in the stock car, they aren't as reliable, worse NVH, or whatever other reason. Just like my dad's Camaro is pretty powerful (over 400 hp), yet could easily be upgraded to get more power. But he won't do that, as those upgrades sacrifice reliability and every day drivability. (it's not driven every day, but it's nice to know it could be if needed)
Quote from: GoCougs on February 26, 2011, 12:04:06 PM
It's the stuff of the Intertubes.
But seriously, I'm correct here. There's no way an automaker is killing a bunch of hp and MPG because of a botched air filter system.
I've never seen any viable technical explanation whatsoever, and actually see a lot of incredibly wrong things said.
Increasing the horsepower lowers the fuel economy. More power needs more fuel.
Quote from: SVT666 on February 26, 2011, 12:47:04 PM
Increasing the horsepower lowers the fuel economy. More power needs more fuel.
Not necessarily. Yea at full load it will consume proportionately more fuel. But a freer flowing induction system = more efficient combustion = better gas mileage under part load. Like I said in the other thread, the real benefit of the intakes isn't their max flow being increased, it's the fact that at a given flow the pressure drop across the intake is lowered, meaning less energy is lost in pulling the air from outside. That's gonna lead to better gas mileage for sure.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 26, 2011, 12:04:06 PM
It's the stuff of the Intertubes.
But seriously, I'm correct here. There's no way an automaker is killing a bunch of hp and MPG because of a botched air filter system.
I've never seen any viable technical explanation whatsoever, and actually see a lot of incredibly wrong things said.
As was said a thousand times, Ford had to make concessions in power for cost, emissions, and noise. The design wasn't "botched", it was designed to meet many regulatory considerations that all might not have ended up in maximum power. Aftermarket intakes are designed with a priority of power & flow over noise and cost. Not a difficult concept for literally everyone else here but you to grasp.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on February 26, 2011, 02:04:17 PM
As was said a thousand times, Ford had to make concessions in power for cost, emissions, and noise. The design wasn't "botched", it was designed to meet many regulatory considerations that all might not have ended up in maximum power. Aftermarket intakes are designed with a priority of power & flow over noise and cost. Not a difficult concept for literally everyone else here but you to grasp.
Wow do you
ever have a big task of specifically explaining the cost, emissions and noise advantage vs. the loss of 40 hp and a bit of MPG.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 27, 2011, 01:23:07 PM
Wow do you ever have a big task of specifically explaining the cost, emissions and noise advantage vs. the loss of 40 hp and a bit of MPG.
Believe what you want Cougs. Apparently hard evidence & simple logic aren't good enough.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on February 27, 2011, 01:29:14 PM
Believe what you want Cougs. Apparently hard evidence & simple logic aren't good enough.
Like I've said, the onus is on the persona making the claim (that would be you). Most of this discussion has been falsehood and myth.
No one has provided a scintilla of "hard evidence" or "simple logic" of how the stock Mustang air box's alleged 40 hp loss gives any material gain in cost, emissions or noise.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 27, 2011, 02:13:08 PM
Like I've said, the onus is on the persona making the claim (that would be you).
Wrong, as usual.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 20, 2011, 03:15:56 PM
Look nice but almost 40 hp (10%) from only a CAI? Sorry, I don't buy that at all.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 27, 2011, 02:13:08 PM
Most of this discussion has been falsehood and myth.
From your end.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 27, 2011, 02:13:08 PM
No one has provided a scintilla of "hard evidence" or "simple logic" of how the stock Mustang air box's alleged 40 hp loss gives any material gain in cost, emissions or noise.
Cobra presented a chassis dyno graph. You have used butt dynos to prove your points, so chassis dynos are also legit evidence.
You made a claim, never validated it, and have been wrong in nearly everything you've said since.
Like I said sporty, at the end of the day, you and no one else can validate the assertion the cost, emissions and noise advantage is traded for the loss of 40 hp and a bit of MPG. The more you dance around being called to task the more you validate my truthiness.
OK
:wtf:
At most I can give 1-2 hp, at which point it's neither measurable nor a detriment to performance or MPG.
The Boss 302 might be a better car than the GT500.
I don't like the looks of the Boss 302 at all. Looks like a cheap aftermarket hack job. The GT500 looks far better I think.
The original Boss cars didn't look any more snazzy than the then-GT equivalent (Mach 1 probably).
I think you can get the graphics removed as a factory delete option. I don't like the stickers, either.
Yea the Boss def looks cheap. I don't get the Mustang's goofy sticker packages, it's 2011.
Sounds like an excellent car though. Curious to see what it does (if they can get one) for LL2011(12?)
Yeah, not crazy about the graphics either. Apparently it's faster around Ford's proving grounds than the GT500.
Someone page Wimmer because the Mustang is a Consumer Reports top pick
http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/28/autos/consumer_reports_ford_mustang/
Also, according to Autoblog, some of the exhaust tubes on the Boss are restricted because of noise, etc.
Opening it up would make it hella louder and possibly give it some more power (think Laguna Seca model). That was simply done to make sure it's noise compliant everywhere.
LMAO!!!
I can't really take sides on this....
- I would proudly unveil the bs flag for a CAI like the one posted making an additional 40hp. There are always small gains to be made from a better flowing intake as the factory setup makes compromises for sound. Now I'm not saying the graphs were falsified, but rather i'd venture to guess the air/fuel ratio was altered from the setup and the engine ran a bit leaner and thus produce a nice power bump. However, fuel trims will build from the ecu seeing an error in expected afr and the extra power bump will be gone after a few drive cycles. Aftermarket intake on RX8s were notorious for this. Swap intake and you make a load of power. Check back a week later and its almost all gone.
I'm especially skeptical of the charts because its almost a constant gain throughout the rev range. A decrease in intake restriction will be proportional to flow - so little to no gains down low and most gains higher in the rev range. Resonance tuning can also Target a specific rev range for added benefit.
For the record, that is a hideous setup for a maf based car unless it has a nice bell mouth hiding under the filter. You need a nice long section of pipe before the maf sensor to get a decent flow number through it.
- CAI generally do zilch for real world fuel economy. Real world fuel economy is the result of mostly part throttle operation - which means the throttle itself is restricting airflow continuously to control the amount of airflow needed.
- In most cases exhaust backpressure is not a myth. In most cases there is overlap between when the intake and exhaust valves open/close which can be tuned over a specific rpm band to improve exhaust scavenging. Think of the length of exhaust headers as a string on a guitar - it can be tuned to a specific length so it resonates with a certain frequency. In a header, the length can be varied so the exhaust pulses resonant in a way that it helps draw the exhaust gases out of the cylinder. Long and more restrictive headers have lower resonance frequencies so they produce better low end power. Shorter or less restrictive headers will increase power higher in the rev range. Combine this tuning with specific amounts of valve overlap and you can further enhance the efficiency of filling the cylinder with air on the intake stroke.
Interestingly the RX8 is a complete exception to the rule as there is no port overlap between the intake and exhaust - so power only increases as you remove exhaust parts.
February 2011 sales figures:
Camaro: 6,245
Mustang: 3,697
Challenger: 3,227
Camaro convertible officially released today.
EXACTLY. I've ALWAYS bleated on about the shens of the dyno chassis speed/torque curve showing a consistent scalar quantity of torque increase independent of RPM based upon restriction-decreasing mods. Really, gaining ~30-35 lb-ft throughout the entire curve? Sorry, not happening.
Google the myriad engine dyno test of headers or w/e, and one will plainly see that anything "restricted" related usually only affects the upper end of the RPM range, and then only a fairly narrow RPM range (at least for headers).
Nice concise, but thorough explanations r0tor. But most of this board doesn't understand that, or have any desire to learn anyways. It's pointless to even argue.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on February 28, 2011, 12:49:20 PM
Yea the Boss def looks cheap. I don't get the Mustang's goofy sticker packages, it's 2011.
Sounds like an excellent car though. Curious to see what it does (if they can get one) for LL2011(12?)
I've always liked the graphics on the 1970 Boss...
(http://media.motortopia.com/files/10039/vehicle/477c04a98c19a/tn_423x423_Red_1970_Boss_302_097.jpg)
better than the 1969.
(http://btx3.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/1969_ford_boss_302_mustang.jpg)
They seem to have gone with the '69 graphics for the 2012...
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2011/02/05-ford-mustang-boss-302.jpg)
Maybe they'll have the '70 style graphics next year. Anyways, I don't see that it 'looks cheap' for what it is.
Quote from: r0tor on February 28, 2011, 06:28:35 PM
- In most cases exhaust backpressure is not a myth. In most cases there is overlap between when the intake and exhaust valves open/close which can be tuned over a specific rpm band to improve exhaust scavenging. Think of the length of exhaust headers as a string on a guitar - it can be tuned to a specific length so it resonates with a certain frequency. In a header, the length can be varied so the exhaust pulses resonant in a way that it helps draw the exhaust gases out of the cylinder. Long and more restrictive headers have lower resonance frequencies so they produce better low end power. Shorter or less restrictive headers will increase power higher in the rev range. Combine this tuning with specific amounts of valve overlap and you can further enhance the efficiency of filling the cylinder with air on the intake stroke.
Just to clarify - for my better understanding - are you saying that backpressure is not a myth in the sense that it can aid (low end) torque or, backpressure is not a myth in that it does exist - in stock or badly designed manifolds - and inhibits proper scavenging?
This is the CNN article linked by Mustangfan2003, displayed here so it won't be lost when CNN archives it (as many websites do, and often charge for printing articles from their no-longer-accessible-online archives):
Ford Mustang wins in Consumer Reports Top Picks
The Ford Mustang, including both V6 and V8-powered versions, was Consumer Reports' "Top Pick" in the Sporty Car catergory, only the second American car ever to earn that title.
By Peter Valdes-Dapena, senior writer
February 28, 2011: 2:39 PM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Consumer Reports annual list of Top Picks for new cars has one particularly surprising winner (no it isn't :hammerhead:) , the Ford Mustang.
Not that the Mustang isn't a good car -- it's been a hit with car critics -- it's just not the type of car normally associated with the not-for-profit consumer advice magazine, famous for its focus on no-nonsense practicality
This is only the second time an American Car has won in the Sporty car category. The last time was when the Ford Focus SVT won in 2004. The magazine has been rating cars since the 1950s but has only been compiling "Top Picks" lists since 1997.
"Ford has really developed the Mustang into a good well-rounded sports car now," said Rik Paul, Consumer Reports' autos editor.
In the past, the Mustang has been famous for its straight-line acceleration, which is still strong, but now it also handles well in the curves and can stop quickly and surely.
With back seats and decent trunk space, it's also a pretty practical choice, said Paul, calling the Mustang "a reasonable daily driver."
The Mustang is offered with a choice of two new engines for the 2011 model year, a 412-horsepower 5.0-liter V8 or a 305 horsepower 3.7-liter V6. Ford also changed both the manual and automatic transmissions for 2011 and made some changes to improve the car's steering and suspension.
Fuel economy -- again, not an American traditional muscle car strong point -- was also a factor in the scoring, said Paul
The Mustang's V6 engine gets 24 miles per gallon in overall driving in Consumer Reports testing when paired with a six-speed manual transmission and it still offers exciting performance, according to the magazine. (The EPA rates the V6 Mustang at 23 mpg overall, and 31 mpg on the highway.)
The V8-equipped Mustang GT gets points for its snarling exhaust sound as well as its "scorching acceleration :wub:," the magazine said.
The magazine did criticize the Mustang for its hard-to-get-into back seats :lol: and the trunk's small opening.
American cars have generally had a tough time breaking into the top ranks with Consumer Reports car testers.
This year, the Mustang was one of only two American models to top any of of the Consumer Reports' 10 categories. The other winner was a pick-up truck. American automakers face relatively little foreign competition in that category.
Other categories included "Small car," won by the Hyundai Elantra, "Family Sedan," where the Nissan Altima was the winner, and "Green Car," won by the Toyota Prius.
Last year, the Sporty car segment was won by the Volkswagen GTI, a performance version of the Volkswagen Golf.
Even though most "Top Picks" weren't American cars, Paul suggested shoppers should look at the overall Consumer Reports' rankings because overall American cars rank well.
Quote from: FoMoJo on March 01, 2011, 02:12:12 PM
I've always liked the graphics on the 1970 Boss...
(http://media.motortopia.com/files/10039/vehicle/477c04a98c19a/tn_423x423_Red_1970_Boss_302_097.jpg)
better than the 1969.
(http://btx3.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/1969_ford_boss_302_mustang.jpg)
They seem to have gone with the '69 graphics for the 2012...
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2011/02/05-ford-mustang-boss-302.jpg)
Maybe they'll have the '70 style graphics next year. Anyways, I don't see that it 'looks cheap' for what it is.
Oh! That would explain where FPV's new stickers came from:
(http://liveimages.carsales.com.au/dealer/carpoint/94228873.jpg)
(http://liveimages.carsales.com.au/dealer/carpoint/94228876.jpg)
2013 Shelby GT500 to get 620 HP???
by Drew Johnson
The Shelby GT500 already boasts an impressive 550 horsepower, but Ford isn?t interested in just matching the ZL1?s output. As a result, a new engine is said to be on tap for 2013, generating in excess of 600 horsepower.
According to Car and Driver, Ford will increase the size of the GT500?s motor from 5.4L to 5.8L for the 2013 model year. That displacement increase will also be accompanied by a supercharger swap ? with Ford ditching the current Eaton unit for the same TVS unit found under the hood of the ZL1 ? resulting in a horsepower rating as high as 620.
Given that added power, the GT500?s 0-60 run could dip into the 3 second range, with a 12 second flat ? mile sprint. Flat out the GT500 should be traveling in excess of 190mph.
A few body tweaks are also expected for 2013, but Ford still has plenty of time to work out those design changes. The revised Shelby GT500 is expected to hit the market until late 2013.
A production Mustang with over 600 hp and a sub 4 0-60 and a 190+ mph top speed is mind blowing.
Quote from: thecarnut on March 16, 2011, 09:46:32 AM
A production Mustang with over 600 hp and a sub 4 0-60 and a 190+ mph top speed is mind blowing.
Motor Trend ran the Boss 302 to 60 mph in 3.97 seconds. That's mostly down to the R compound tires though. It would never achieve that on the same tires the GT comes with.
I figure they would do something with the GT500 with the Boss around now.
This seems pretty pointless. The GT500 already can't get its 540hp to the ground, imagine the mess an extra 80-100 hp would cause.
If they want to keep using the Shelby name, it's about time to turn it into a real supercar.
Quote from: Xer0 on March 16, 2011, 12:37:08 PM
This seems pretty pointless. The GT500 already can't get its 540hp to the ground, imagine the mess an extra 80-100 hp would cause.
Ford is going to have to get their heads out of their asses and put some 315s on the back of the GT500. They always stick too narrow of a tire on the Mustang. Even the GT needs a 275.
Quote from: Xer0 on March 16, 2011, 12:37:08 PM
This seems pretty pointless. The GT500 already can't get its 540hp to the ground, imagine the mess an extra 80-100 hp would cause.
True, the S197 chassis has issues handling 550 hp. 2013 however will be an all-new Mustang (or is supposed to be) with presumably the ability to handle the extra power.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 01, 2011, 01:03:43 PM
February 2011 sales figures:
Camaro: 6,245
Mustang: 3,697
Challenger: 3,227
Camaro convertible officially released today.
March 2011 Sales
Mustang: 8,557
Camaro: 8,964
Challenger:3,989
Intersting trends, the Mopar seems fairly constant.
(http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee290/enator1079/prod-1.png)
http://blogs.insideline.com/straightline/2011/04/2011-ford-mustang-gt-50-production-example-less-powerful.html
Apparently production Mustangs aren't as powerful or as fast as the original magazine test cars, a difference of up to 25hp in certain parts of the curve. Which explains why the first tests with the Mustang GT showed alot of 110+ traps while later tests had slower traps (slower than the Chevy Camaro despite better power to weight ratio).
I kind of wonder if the early media car wasn't a pre-pro running a slightly different tune in the ECU. It's possible that Ford retuned the ECU for emissions (or some other reason) at the last minute between the pre-pro cars and the production cars. Or they intentionally ran a hotter tune in their initial press car (though I'd expect the second press fleet car to have similar tuning, and it apparently didn't based on the tested performance). Wouldn't be the first time a company offered a ringer.
I offer my commentary, which mostly splits on the issue. I really don't know what to think:
1.) Chassis dynos suck absolute balls. On a 412 hp SAE net motor w/MT expect at best a 12% loss and 3% accuracy for a range of 351 rwhp to 373 rwhp. Thus both test numbers (395, 380) are bogus. I should SO be their technical editor.
2.) I think it widely known that something was fishy on the first round of tests. Some tests had the GT breaking into the 12s but many tests had the GT at 13.0 - 13.2 sec in the 1/4 mile just as Edmunds has confirmed here with known production examples. Virtually ALL tests had the Camaro SS at 12.9 - 13.1 sec.
3.) Not much can be done to eek out power out of modern a N/A motor with a tune - certainly not taking a car from 13.2 to a 12.8 in the 1/4 mile, and Ford already has adaptive ECU tuning (402 hp on regular, 412 hp on premium).
4.) To give mags materially faster cars Ford would have to give them a materially modified cars; Ford is/was undoubtedly on the run with the sales success of the Camaro but I doubt they'd be so desperate to actually give non-production cars out for tests.
5.) No mention in any GT test I've ever read said anything about lack of traction or problems hooking up, which nullifies to some extent driver-to-driver and test track variation.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 05, 2011, 08:08:22 PM
I offer my commentary, which mostly splits on the issue. I really don't know what to think:
1.) Chassis dynos suck absolute balls. On a 412 hp SAE net motor w/MT expect at best a 12% loss and 3% accuracy for a range of 351 rwhp to 373 rwhp. Thus both test numbers (395, 380) are bogus. I should SO be their technical editor.
Absolutely right...well, except for the last part.
Quote2.) I think it widely known that something was fishy on the first round of tests. Some tests had the GT breaking into the 12s but many tests had the GT at 13.0 - 13.2 sec in the 1/4 mile just as Edmunds has confirmed here with known production examples. Virtually ALL tests had the Camaro SS at 12.9 - 13.1 sec.
Again, you are so full of shit. There is exactly two tests that showed the Mustang slower than 12.9, while the vast majority listed 12.7 - 12.8. Troll.
Quote3.) Not much can be done to eek out power out of modern a N/A motor with a tune - certainly not taking a car from 13.2 to a 12.8 in the 1/4 mile, and Ford already has adaptive ECU tuning (402 hp on regular, 412 hp on premium).
You could probably get a 10th, but nothing more.
Quote4.) To give mags materially faster cars Ford would have to give them a materially modified cars; Ford is/was undoubtedly on the run with the sales success of the Camaro but I doubt they'd be so desperate to actually give non-production cars out for tests.
I agree...though I do find it funny that the SS has gotten quicker than it was when it was first released. I remember the mags all getting 4.7 - 4.8 to 60 mph and 13.1 - 13.2 in the 1/4 mile, while the SS that the mags tested when the 5.0L Mustang was released starting hitting 4.6 to 60 mph and 12.9 in the 1/4 mile. Seems fishy too.......
Quote5.) No mention in any GT test I've ever read said anything about lack of traction or problems hooking up, which nullifies to some extent driver-to-driver and test track variation.
Not entirely. Getting the perfect launch is not easy and hitting the shifts just right are key. That's why guys who take their cars to the drags on a Friday night are generally at least half a second slower than magazine tests. They don't really do anything wrong, but they certainly don't do it right.
I want to point something out: When the Camaro vastly outperformed the Mustang, the Mustang outside the Camaro. When the Mustang now vastly outperforms the Camaro, the Camaro outsells it.
The F body has always had shitty sight lines and whatnot. It's always been more about style than anything else.
I think what this all comes down to is people who want a pony car largely buy on style over substance, even though the Camaro ain't a pushover.
That's one thing that makes me laugh about this thread: You guys speak about these cars like they're underperforming pieces of rubbish. None of them -- including the Challenger and Genesis -- are what I'd call slouches.
Teuts:
As shown in a number of tests since the Mustang GT was release for production it's only an equivalent performer to the SS; in Edmunds' test of multiple GTs, the two virtually tying on C&D's lightening lap, and the V6 Camaro slightly outperformed the Mustang V6 in a recent M/T et al.
Some may feel comfort in implicitly blaming a live rear axle and/or tires for inconsistent launching but I don't think that is fair or logical. As it stands logic says Ford doled out ringers for testing early on but I'm having a tough time imagining Ford would be so so desperate.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 06, 2011, 08:50:47 AM
Teuts:
As shown in a number of tests since the Mustang GT was release for production it's only an equivalent performer to the SS; in Edmunds' test of multiple GTs, the two virtually tying on C&D's lightening lap, and the V6 Camaro slightly outperformed the Mustang V6 in a recent M/T et al.
No, the Mustang quite easily outperforms the Camaro. The V6 Mustang in that M/T comparo you mentioned was outfitted with the tallest gears available and absolutely none of the performance options available, which is why that Mustang was a full second slower to 60mph than any other 2011 V6 Mustang tested.
QuoteSome may feel comfort in implicitly blaming a live rear axle and/or tires for inconsistent launching but I don't think that is fair or logical.
You're the only one that ever mentions the live axle, but Ford does have a tendency to undertire thee Mustang which makes launching it somewhat difficult. Not so much for the GT, but moreso on the GT500.
QuoteAs it stands logic says Ford doled out ringers for testing early on but I'm having a tough time imagining Ford would be so so desperate.
I love how you imply Ford gave the media ringers and then say, "but I don't believe it". You could be a politician.
[/quote]
Quote from: GoCougs on April 05, 2011, 08:08:22 PM
3.) Not much can be done to eek out power out of modern a N/A motor with a tune - certainly not taking a car from 13.2 to a 12.8 in the 1/4 mile, and Ford already has adaptive ECU tuning (402 hp on regular, 412 hp on premium).
Quote from: SVT666 on April 05, 2011, 09:31:27 PM
You could probably get a 10th, but nothing more.
Just a comment on this in regards to cam phasing. With the flexibility available in the ability to individually control the phasing on each of the 4 cams and given that the factory tuning would be less likely to be set to full race mode, I would guess that, with a bit more agressive tuning, it may be possible to eke out a bit more power than we might expect. Just a guess :huh:.
There's pretty much nothing a tune can do to affect phasing. Typically such phasing systems are mecho-hydraulic, so no amount of tuning will have an affect. Also, phasing helps but cams can only be phased so much before it actually hurts performance
Quote from: GoCougs on April 06, 2011, 10:09:25 AM
There's pretty much nothing a tune can do to affect phasing. Typically such phasing systems are mecho-hydraulic, so no amount of tuning will have an affect. Also, phasing helps but cams can only be phased so much before it actually hurts performance
Ford's system uses electronically controlled solenoid valves to meter the oil flow into the phasing mechanism (and I suspect these days, many other manufacturers' systems are similar), meaning that the ECU can and does control the phasing of the cams. It doesn't strictly rely on the oil pressure of the motor (which rises and falls with RPM) to alter the phasing like early cam phasing systems.
Sure, my point was cam phasing is a function of RPM and to a lesser extent engine load. There is no way to "tune" this relationship. Only by adjusting cam lift and/or duration can anything be done with the cams to increase performance.
Quote from: MX793 on April 06, 2011, 02:29:10 PM
Ford's system uses electronically controlled solenoid valves to meter the oil flow into the phasing mechanism (and I suspect these days, many other manufacturers' systems are similar), meaning that the ECU can and does control the phasing of the cams. It doesn't strictly rely on the oil pressure of the motor (which rises and falls with RPM) to alter the phasing like early cam phasing systems.
Regarding the Mustang, that version is used on the V6 whereas, on the V8, it uses what it calls 'camshaft torque energy actuation' assisted by pressurized oil rather than solenoids. It's supposed to provide for more precise timing of camshaft events.
Gentlemen, pardon my absence recently, currently, and likely in the future. The Nethead here has been on a performance enhancing buildup of his own--on the Nethead here hisself.
I've been a regular at a school of medicine fitness center for going on three years, 3-5 evenings/week unless I ain't in lovely Beaver County. I've upped the level of tune, having added a personal trainer (at company expense for the first twelve weeks, no less!)--she's as tough as she is hot and she is mucho hot. Thank God I had already been hitting the iron for 2.5 years before this opportunity fell into my lap via a company lottery for three dozen employees out of the hundreds seeking the chance to get serious physical training on the company expense account.
To meet the requirements of the program, extensive off-the-job work-outs are mandatory--gym privileges are part of the package but the WifeDude and I already have all that in our home equipment and at the school of medicine fitness center (however, the gym privileges have added an Olympics-sized swimming pool).
I needed to add some work-outs to be on top of this--I led our team to victory in Team Challenge 1, but I ain't sittin' on my laurels! Just fifty feet or so outside our operations center here is a 134-step 5-story stairwell--well-lit, with windows, potted plants, and prints of paintings in frames (and the stairs themselves are all vinyl-coated for traction, of all damned things!). The Nethead here ain't known as Luke Stairwalker for nothin', as I had been doin' an eleven-story stairwell three times in thirteen minutes taking two steps at a stride on all three circuits for over two years. Now, I do the 134-step stairwell for my entire sixty-minute lunchtime--and can complete 24 times up and 24 times down in under 58 minutes. Currently, it takes me sixty minutes and eight seconds to complete 25 full circuits, but I'm improving weekly. 24 full circuits is 3,216 steps up and 3,216 steps down, and 25 full circuits adds another 134 up and another 134 down.
Fitness done well takes time, and it has impacted my CarSPIN participation dramatically. I am not dead--I just smell that way. I'll check by as time permits, but time ain't permittin' very much. I expect that to continue, so carry on! Roger Wilco, Over and Out...
Some of you have probably already seen this today, but it seemed this was the appropriate thread for it:
http://jalopnik.com/#!5792482/faulty-chinese+built-transmissions-plague-new-ford-mustang
Apparently there are concerns and potentially serious problems with the manual transmissions.
The forum jalopnik mentions has some pretty detailed posts regarding what the owners are experiencing, and involvement from Ford Customer Service as well. Ford seems to be trying to address this, but the widespread nature of the low gear issues and apparently some going so far as locking up or having certain gears completely fail to engage implies they may have a component/supplier problem.
Quote from: thewizard16 on April 15, 2011, 03:28:40 PM
Some of you have probably already seen this today, but it seemed this was the appropriate thread for it:
http://jalopnik.com/#!5792482/faulty-chinese+built-transmissions-plague-new-ford-mustang
Apparently there are concerns and potentially serious problems with the manual transmissions.
The forum jalopnik mentions has some pretty detailed posts regarding what the owners are experiencing, and involvement from Ford Customer Service as well. Ford seems to be trying to address this, but the widespread nature of the low gear issues and apparently some going so far as locking up or having certain gears completely fail to engage implies they may have a component/supplier problem.
Interestingly, I was just looking into this issue earlier today as I've noticed mine is prone to high effort and grinding when going from 1st to 2nd, particularly when temperatures are cold. I noticed it a little bit last year, but chalked it up to my just not being all that familiar with the car yet because it was fairly intermittent and then I put the car away for the season in the late fall before temperatures really got cold. I brought it out again the first weekend of spring and we've had some wintery cold mornings where it has been consistently difficult to shift from 1st to 2nd (although shifting from 3rd to 2nd has never been a problem) and I'll even experience a bit of notchiness/grinding upshifting into 3rd every once in a while. It was particularly bad this morning, although it wasn't the coldest morning I've driven the car in, which prompted me to do some internet digging to see if others were having an issue. Turns out they are.
Ford issued a TSB the middle of last month that calls for a change in transmission fluid to whatever they are using in their DSG gearboxes. Some people claim this completely resolved the issue, but I have to wonder if it will simply act as a bandaid that will only temporarily solve the problem. I'll be calling my dealer either tomorrow or early next week to see if I can get this addressed, or at the very least have the problem/complaint on record.
Reason #1 for not buying the first model year of a new transmission or engine.
I had the exact same issue when the idiots at the locate lube shop put in 80W-90 rather than the factory-specified 75W-90. Change to the correct fluid completely fixed the issue. But using fluid as band aid? Probably not a good long term solution.
FWIW, the gearbox is co-designed by Getrag and a Chinese manufacturer; the latter of which also makes it. Ford sure must have been mega desperate to save a few $$$ to not use the tried-n-true Tremec 6-sp. WOW I would not be happy.
If I was buying a new one I guess I'd be buying a late 2011 model or a 2012.
Quote from: SVT666 on April 15, 2011, 07:35:54 PM
Reason #1 for not buying the first model year of a new transmission or engine.
The MT82 actually isn't new. I believe it was first used in the Ford Transit van back in '04 and Land Rover started using it in '07 for the Defender. And while the Coyote motor is new, the Cyclone is a few years old with the 3.5L having been around since '07 and the 3.7 since '08.
I've read where some dealers changed the fluid and it fixed the problem. So could it be something that simple?
Quote from: Mustangfan2003 on April 15, 2011, 08:54:34 PM
I've read where some dealers changed the fluid and it fixed the problem. So could it be something that simple?
According to the TSB, the rough/difficult shifting is due to the trans fluid viscosity being too high for colder temps (<45F). They recommend changing to a thinner fluid which is also used in Ford's DSG gearboxes. However, it seems a number of owners who live in warm climates are experiencing grinding and rough shifting issues even when it's 80 degrees out, so I'm a little suspicious that there might be more to this than just the fluid viscosity.
What I'm reading in the thread at allfordmustangs.com has me seriously spooked. At the moment, the symptoms are just a little irritating and nowhere near as bad as what some others are reporting, but I fear things may get worse with time and I too will be unable to engage certain gears at all. I had planned on keeping this car for a long time and was looking forward to autocrossing it this season. Looking like AutoX will be out of the question as I don't want to risk damaging a potentially weak tranny now that I've got symptoms. I'll be contacting my dealership and following this issue closely. Unless I'm satisfied that Ford has come up with a solid, permanent solution to this, and I don't know if a fluid change is really going to cut it, I'll likely be getting rid of this car before the warranty is up.
They should've just kept using the Tremec transmissions like they've kept using for years. I believe the GT500 transmission is built by Tremec still.
The getrag unit is at least 25-30 lbs lighter than the tremec.
The mexican made t-56 and 6060 tremecs also are known to have problems especially the camaro' unit.
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/07/13/breaking-early-camaro-ss-manual-transmission-failures-reported/
http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125127
Seems nobody can make a good manual transmission anymore.
Plenty of companies make a great M/T - including Tremec - it's a pretty easy thing to get right.
Happy 47th birthday
http://jalopnik.com/#!5792526/ford-introduces-the-mustang-to-america
Quote from: GoCougs on April 16, 2011, 10:55:08 AM
Plenty of companies make a great M/T - including Tremec - it's a pretty easy thing to get right.
It should be easy to get right, but as I posted Tremec has also had problems with the T-45, T-56 and the 6060.
Getrag is a well established trans company making units for BMW, toyota, Ford, porsche and ferrari among others. Hardly a fly by night company delivering low-scale transmissions.
I suspect the decision had to do with keeping weight down.
I drove by a Ford dealer last night and I saw a fully loaded GT for about 38k but they had a 2011 left on the lot with that had about everything, even Brembos, and it was marked down to $32k. Why must I still be in college?
A) the tremec may be strong, but it absolutely blows in shifter feel and has problems with synchro engagement on quick gear changes
B) My rx8 also has issues with cold temps and the.first shift or two in the morning. It's all from Tue oil viscocity. Nothing to be concerned about - just double clutch the first couple shifts
My car too feels a little harder to shift in temps below freezing until the car has warmed up.
Quote from: Mustangfan2003 on April 18, 2011, 10:52:14 AM
My car too feels a little harder to shift in temps below freezing until the car has warmed up.
Stiff shifting when temperatures are below freezing is normal and to be expected. Reluctant/clunky gearshifts when it's cool but above freezing doesn't seem right to me. Although the past few days mine has been pretty good.
Quote from: Nethead on April 15, 2011, 09:41:30 AM
Gentlemen, pardon my absence recently, currently, and likely in the future. The Nethead here has been on a performance enhancing buildup of his own--on the Nethead here hisself.
I've been a regular at a school of medicine fitness center for going on three years, 3-5 evenings/week unless I ain't in lovely Beaver County. I've upped the level of tune, having added a personal trainer (at company expense for the first twelve weeks, no less!)--she's as tough as she is hot and she is mucho hot. Thank God I had already been hitting the iron for 2.5 years before this opportunity fell into my lap via a company lottery for three dozen employees out of the hundreds seeking the chance to get serious physical training on the company expense account.
To meet the requirements of the program, extensive off-the-job work-outs are mandatory--gym privileges are part of the package but the WifeDude and I already have all that in our home equipment and at the school of medicine fitness center (however, the gym privileges have added an Olympics-sized swimming pool).
I needed to add some work-outs to be on top of this--I led our team to victory in Team Challenge 1, but I ain't sittin' on my laurels! Just fifty feet or so outside our operations center here is a 134-step 5-story stairwell--well-lit, with windows, potted plants, and prints of paintings in frames (and the stairs themselves are all vinyl-coated for traction, of all damned things!). The Nethead here ain't known as Luke Stairwalker for nothin', as I had been doin' an eleven-story stairwell three times in thirteen minutes taking two steps at a stride on all three circuits for over two years. Now, I do the 134-step stairwell for my entire sixty-minute lunchtime--and can complete 24 times up and 24 times down in under 58 minutes. Currently, it takes me sixty minutes and eight seconds to complete 25 full circuits, but I'm improving weekly. 24 full circuits is 3,216 steps up and 3,216 steps down, and 25 full circuits adds another 134 up and another 134 down.
Fitness done well takes time, and it has impacted my CarSPIN participation dramatically. I am not dead--I just smell that way. I'll check by as time permits, but time ain't permittin' very much. I expect that to continue, so carry on! Roger Wilco, Over and Out...
On Wednesday I broke the 25-full-circuits-barrier bigtime--doin' 25 ups-&-downs in 57 minutes, 40 seconds (fade in with the "Rocky" theme song here :rockon:). 3,350 steps up plus 3,350 steps back down :praise:. Do not try this at home--I am a professional...
Watch out for the brakes breaking on you.
http://blogs.motortrend.com/boss-mustang-failed-brake-test-14593.html
Quote from: 565 on April 25, 2011, 04:54:28 PM
Watch out for the brakes breaking on you.
http://blogs.motortrend.com/boss-mustang-failed-brake-test-14593.html
The reaction by Ford was swift. I want a Boss in a bad bad way.
If anyone is in the market for a loaded GT they might as well pay a little more for the Boss.
Quote from: Mustangfan2003 on April 25, 2011, 08:21:10 PM
If anyone is in the market for a loaded GT they might as well pay a little more for the Boss.
Well, it's not going for sticker for one.
Quote from: SVT666 on April 25, 2011, 08:21:55 PM
Well, it's not going for sticker for one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXw6znXPfy4
Well maybe not now. For myself I'd love to see the prices settle down in a year or so.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=20861.msg1506491#msg1506491 date=1303784604
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXw6znXPfy4
It's the fastest Mustang ever made and it's barely more expensive than the GT. It's going to sell for well over sticker for a while. The GT500, which wasn't even properly executed, was going for as much as $100,000 at some dealerships, whereas the best and fastest Mustang ever built is going for about $10K over sticker. Don't forget, this is a Mustang that can beat an M3 Competition and an Audi R8 around Laguna Seca. It's still a good deal if you ask me.
Quote from: Mustangfan2003 on April 25, 2011, 08:24:05 PM
Well maybe not now. For myself I'd love to see the prices settle down in a year or so.
When I'm ready in a couple years, I'm going to try and find a Boss or a GT500. They'll probably be selling for about the same money.
My Accent is the fastest Accent ever made, and I paid under sticker for it.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on April 25, 2011, 08:39:42 PM
My Accent is the fastest Accent ever made, and I paid under sticker for it.
:lol:
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on April 25, 2011, 08:39:42 PM
My Accent is the fastest Accent ever made, and I paid under sticker for it.
Isn't the next Accent coming with 130 hp?
Quote from: the Teuton on April 25, 2011, 09:24:54 PM
Isn't the next Accent coming with 130 hp?
It's not here, yet.
I talked to a guy at the all Mustang show last month with a 2011 GT500, that I rode in btw, and I asked him if he wished he waited for the new Boss. He said no since the Boss didn't come with all the luxury stuff like leather, gps and such. Either way I had a blast riding in his car.
Quote from: SVT666 on April 25, 2011, 08:36:36 PM
It's the fastest Mustang ever made and it's barely more expensive than the GT. It's going to sell for well over sticker for a while. The GT500, which wasn't even properly executed, was going for as much as $100,000 at some dealerships, whereas the best and fastest Mustang ever built is going for about $10K over sticker. Don't forget, this is a Mustang that can beat an M3 Competition and an Audi R8 around Laguna Seca. It's still a good deal if you ask me.
And all those speculators for the GT500 were all shafted when it turned out the GT500 was selling easily well under sticker not long after. If history has proven anything, it's that to never ever pay over sticker for a Ford special edition, because it's not going to be very special to begin with, and even if production is limited, Ford is just going to make an even "specialer" edition right after yours sells out that makes your special edition next to worthless.
The Boss might be marked up for a little while, but pretty soon they will be discounted just like every other Mustang.
Quote from: 565 on April 26, 2011, 10:13:29 AM
And all those speculators for the GT500 were all shafted when it turned out the GT500 was selling easily well under sticker not long after. If history has proven anything, it's that to never ever pay over sticker for a Ford special edition, because it's not going to be very special to begin with, and even if production is limited, Ford is just going to make an even "specialer" edition right after yours sells out that makes your special edition next to worthless.
The Boss might be marked up for a little while, but pretty soon they will be discounted just like every other Mustang.
GT500s sold for over sticker for 3 years. The new GT500 is a pretty great car and the Boss 302 is extremely special.
Quote from: 565 on April 26, 2011, 10:13:29 AM
And all those speculators for the GT500 were all shafted when it turned out the GT500 was selling easily well under sticker not long after. If history has proven anything, it's that to never ever pay over sticker for a Ford special edition, because it's not going to be very special to begin with, and even if production is limited, Ford is just going to make an even "specialer" edition right after yours sells out that makes your special edition next to worthless.
The Boss might be marked up for a little while, but pretty soon they will be discounted just like every other Mustang.
If history has proved anything, it has proved that a Mustang with a Shelby or Boss badge is worth a small fortune if you're willing to maintain it and wait a couple of dozen years.
Quote from: FoMoJo on April 26, 2011, 10:33:11 AM
If history has proved anything, it has proved that a Mustang with a Shelby or Boss badge is worth a small fortune if you're willing to maintain it and wait a couple of dozen years.
That may have something to do with Barrett-Jackson being a bunch of exploitative scam artists, too.
Quote from: SVT666 on April 26, 2011, 10:22:19 AM
GT500s sold for over sticker for 3 years. The new GT500 is a pretty great car and the Boss 302 is extremely special.
GT500's were optimistically listed for over sticker at certain dealers for a long time just like there some dealers that still list Z06's over sticker.
However you could buy GT500s at sticker not long after.
http://www.fordgtforum.com/forums/showthread.php?7054-Is-any-dealer-selling-GT-500-s-at-sticker
Quote from: FoMoJo on April 26, 2011, 10:33:11 AM
If history has proved anything, it has proved that a Mustang with a Shelby or Boss badge is worth a small fortune if you're willing to maintain it and wait a couple of dozen years.
Actually most of those late 1960s to 1970s limited edition muscle cars (limited edition vettes, camaros, challengers and chargers) are worth alot of money because they represented something of a anomaly of a last hurrah of muscle cars before the oil crisis neutered them all. It has nothing to do with the Shelby and Boss badge. If it was, then you'd expect other money maker names like "Z06" or Hertz to instantly imbue these cars with more value (and they don't).
Ford tried plently of limited/special edition Mustangs afterwards, usually touted as the newest and best and most special, and few of them (if any) are worth anything at all over their original price.
Thinking that this new Boss will be collectable like the old Boss is quite as delusional as thinking the new Z06 is going to be collectible as the original C2 Z06 package cars.
Quote from: 565 on April 26, 2011, 10:47:34 AM
Actually most of those late 1960s to 1970s limited edition muscle cars (limited edition vettes, camaros, challengers and chargers) are worth alot of money because they represented something of a anomaly of a last hurrah of muscle cars before the oil crisis neutered them all. It has nothing to do with the Shelby and Boss badge. If it was, then you'd expect other money maker names like "Z06" or Hertz to instantly imbue these cars with more value (and they don't).
Ford tried plently of limited/special edition Mustangs afterwards, usually touted as the newest and best and most special, and few of them (if any) are worth anything at all over their original price.
Thinking that this new Boss will be collectable like the old Boss is quite as delusional as thinking the new Z06 is going to be collectible as the original C2 Z06 package cars.
It really depends more on how many are built and if there is any racing pedigree. None of the mass production manufacturers has built anything in the last 4 or 5 decades that is particularly noteworthy.
I think of Fords many Mustangs as constantly tweaking a solid idea. Unless it's hand-build in a Las Vegas Shelby factory and signed by the man himself, I don't see any of these modern Mustangs being worth anything with the exception of the Cobra R.
Nah, you can buy GT500s at sticker all day long after the first few months from its introduction. Same will be with this Boss too. They may be popular and good but at the end of the day they're still just rapidly depreciating durable goods like any other car, not Rembrandts.
And 565 has it 100% right; it was time frame and history not badging. There were plenty of "Boss" and "Shelby" cars and other notable name plates such as "Z-28" to "Z06" to "R/T" from the '70s on onward, yet they're all worth squat.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 26, 2011, 12:39:09 PM
Nah, you can buy GT500s at sticker all day long after the first few months from its introduction. Same will be with this Boss too. They may be popular and good but at the end of the day they're still just rapidly depreciating durable goods like any other car, not Rembrandts.
Really? The first year sold out in a matter of months. The second year sold out very quickly too. It was only the third year that the GT500s were selling for MSRP.
QuoteAnd 565 has it 100% right; it was time frame and history not badging. There were plenty of "Boss" and "Shelby" cars and other notable name plates such as "Z-28" to "Z06" to "R/T" from the '70s on onward, yet they're all worth squat.
That's because they were all shitty cars. The new Z06 is quite a car and it will be worth something in the future if you never drive it.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 26, 2011, 12:39:09 PM
Nah, you can buy GT500s at sticker all day long after the first few months from its introduction. Same will be with this Boss too. They may be popular and good but at the end of the day they're still just rapidly depreciating durable goods like any other car, not Rembrandts.
And 565 has it 100% right; it was time frame and history not badging. There were plenty of "Boss" and "Shelby" cars and other notable name plates such as "Z-28" to "Z06" to "R/T" from the '70s on onward, yet they're all worth squat.
It's rare to find a original series Shelby Mustang that sells for less than $100k. Same with the Boss. The original Boss 302 was produced in '69 and '70 only with limited production; less than 2,000 '69s and less than 8,000 '70s. There were even fewer Boss 429s, about 800 altogether. A Boss 429 in good condition sells for about $500K.
The new Boss is expected to be produced for only 2012 and 2013 model years with 4,000 made each year; including the 302R and Laguna Seca models. If they stick to this limit MSRP will be a starting point for those lucky enough to get one.
Quote from: FoMoJo on April 26, 2011, 03:04:08 PM
It's rare to find a original series Shelby Mustang that sells for less than $100k. Same with the Boss. The original Boss 302 was produced in '69 and '70 only with limited production; less than 2,000 '69s and less than 8,000 '70s. There were even fewer Boss 429s, about 800 altogether. A Boss 429 in good condition sells for about $500K.
The new Boss is expected to be produced for only 2012 and 2013 model years with 4,000 made each year; including the 302R and Laguna Seca models. If they stick to this limit MSRP will be a starting point for those lucky enough to get one.
The '69 ZL-1 Camaro fetches far higher prices than any Boss or Shelby Mustang yet the 2012 Camaro ZR1 ain't going to be nothing about nothing when it comes to holding value and collectibility save for government (again) ruining the auto industry in the near future.
There was a time when a number of the classic muscle and pony cars that are coveted today weren't worth much at all. They really didn't start gaining value until they were decades old and there were fewer and fewer of them in decent shape. If any of these new special editions are to be worth anything, it won't be anytime in the next 10 or even 15 years. 30 years from now, I think some of them might be worth something.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 26, 2011, 07:53:51 PM
The '69 ZL-1 Camaro fetches far higher prices than any Boss or Shelby Mustang yet the 2012 Camaro ZR1 ain't going to be nothing about nothing when it comes to holding value and collectibility save for government (again) ruining the auto industry in the near future.
There were also only something like 60 of the original ZL-1s made, and they were all COPO. Between them, the Baldwin Motion, and Yenko cars, they carried such storied histories (and now carry such high prices) because it was more or less GM saying on the outside that it didn't put its big block engines into its little cars, yet it did for these cars. What's more, the ZL-1 engine (which also found its way into a handful of Corvettes) was an all-aluminum motor designed to be used only for NASCAR and other racing series. It was never meant to get on the road, but through the COPO loophole, it did.
GM hasn't done anything that batshit crazy since giving a few Grand Nationals to McLaren-ASC and the largely unknown SLP Firehawks that made some 400+ hp with a factory warranty when the Corvette was only making 330.
Quote from: the Teuton on April 26, 2011, 08:11:44 PM
GM hasn't done anything that batshit crazy since giving a few Grand Nationals to McLaren-ASC and the largely unknown SLP Firehawks that made some 400+ hp with a factory warranty when the Corvette was only making 330.
Have you forgotten about the Turbo Trans Ams back in '89? The Equally crazy Typhoon/Syclone of the early 90s? The C4 ZR1 was also a beast in it day.
Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on April 26, 2011, 09:43:16 PM
Have you forgotten about the Turbo Trans Ams back in '89? The Equally crazy Typhoon/Syclone of the early 90s? The C4 ZR1 was also a beast in it day.
Yeah, but are any of those going to be worth high five-figures, if not six-figures, someday? No, they were production cars.
I might give you one for the Marlboro Syclone since they only made 7 of them and they were all t-tops. But they were all regular production cars for the most part even though they were all pretty limited production.
None of the COPO cars were that common.
Quote from: the Teuton on April 26, 2011, 10:06:22 PM
Yeah, but are any of those going to be worth high five-figures, if not six-figures, someday? No, they were production cars.
I might give you one for the Marlboro Syclone since they only made 7 of them and they were all t-tops. But they were all regular production cars for the most part even though they were all pretty limited production.
None of the COPO cars were that common.
The problem with those cars wasn't that they were "production cars", it's that they were pieces of shit. The Syclone and Typhoon were based on the S-10 and Jimmy which were giant pieces of shit...even in their day when pieces of shit were pretty common.
Quote from: SVT666 on April 26, 2011, 10:46:58 PM
The problem with those cars wasn't that they were "production cars", it's that they were pieces of shit. The Syclone and Typhoon were based on the S-10 and Jimmy which were giant pieces of shit...even in their day when pieces of shit were pretty common.
Was the '69 Camaro really much better?
Quote from: SVT666 on April 26, 2011, 10:46:58 PM
The problem with those cars wasn't that they were "production cars", it's that they were pieces of shit. The Syclone and Typhoon were based on the S-10 and Jimmy which were giant pieces of shit...even in their day when pieces of shit were pretty common.
Syclone Sonoma!? :wub:
Quote from: the Teuton on April 26, 2011, 11:14:37 PM
Was the '69 Camaro really much better?
The '69 Camaro was considered a really good car. The S-10 and Jimmy were considered shitty even when shitty was normal. In other words, they were even shittier than the shitty cars of the day.
Quote from: the Teuton on April 26, 2011, 11:14:37 PM
Was the '69 Camaro really much better?
More desirable? Infinitely more so. Better? Not a chance. Safety, handling, braking, quality, reliability? All pretty bad relative to a vehicle made in the early '90s.
The Syclone and Typhoon were better performance cars than anything Ford and Dodge were making save the Viper.
Quote from: the Teuton on April 26, 2011, 08:11:44 PM
There were also only something like 60 of the original ZL-1s made, and they were all COPO. Between them, the Baldwin Motion, and Yenko cars, they carried such storied histories (and now carry such high prices) because it was more or less GM saying on the outside that it didn't put its big block engines into its little cars, yet it did for these cars. What's more, the ZL-1 engine (which also found its way into a handful of Corvettes) was an all-aluminum motor designed to be used only for NASCAR and other racing series. It was never meant to get on the road, but through the COPO loophole, it did.
GM hasn't done anything that batshit crazy since giving a few Grand Nationals to McLaren-ASC and the largely unknown SLP Firehawks that made some 400+ hp with a factory warranty when the Corvette was only making 330.
All true, but nonetheless, it's one of the most valuable cars of the era second to probably only the 'vert Hemi Cuda.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 27, 2011, 12:56:32 PM
The Syclone and Typhoon were better performance cars than anything Ford and Dodge were making save the Viper.
I remember The Syclone being faster through the quarter mile than a Ferarri. So the Viper may have been toast too but don't quote me on it!
Quote from: MX793 on April 26, 2011, 07:59:35 PM
There was a time when a number of the classic muscle and pony cars that are coveted today weren't worth much at all. They really didn't start gaining value until they were decades old and there were fewer and fewer of them in decent shape.
A point tat really bears repeating. I remember in the early '70s when even an original Ford GT40 could be had in race ready trim for about double what a then-new Torino GT cost.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 26, 2011, 07:53:51 PM
The '69 ZL-1 Camaro fetches far higher prices than any Boss or Shelby Mustang yet the 2012 Camaro ZR1 ain't going to be nothing about nothing when it comes to holding value and collectibility save for government (again) ruining the auto industry in the near future.
Considering the production runs it's kind of an apples to oranges comparison. Kind of like saying a Tiffany lamp is worth more than a mass produced lamp that looks and performs about the same. Meaningless comparison.
Quote from: ChrisV on April 28, 2011, 10:08:46 AM
A point tat really bears repeating. I remember in the early '70s when even an original Ford GT40 could be had in race ready trim for about double what a then-new Torino GT cost.
How true. Go get some Road and Track magazines from say 69-73 and check the Marketplace section at the back. You'll cry and then wish for a time machine and a small bag of money.
Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on April 27, 2011, 05:24:58 PM
I remember The Syclone being faster through the quarter mile than a Ferarri. So the Viper may have been toast too but don't quote me on it!
Yeah, I can't see how people can complain given what else was being made in the early '90s. LOL, look at Ford at that time period.
Quote from: EtypeJohn on April 28, 2011, 10:52:03 AM
Considering the production runs it's kind of an apples to oranges comparison. Kind of like saying a Tiffany lamp is worth more than a mass produced lamp that looks and performs about the same. Meaningless comparison.
Not really; it was a car produced by Chevrolet. Depending on the Shelby, even some of them weren't actually made by Ford. But my point is that the 1969 ZL-1 Camaro is some mega expensive vehicle means zilch on how collectible the upcoming ZR1 Camaro will be in the distant future. Same with the Boss.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 26, 2011, 07:53:51 PM
The '69 ZL-1 Camaro fetches far higher prices than any Boss or Shelby Mustang yet the 2012 Camaro ZR1 ain't going to be nothing about nothing when it comes to holding value and collectibility save for government (again) ruining the auto industry in the near future.
2007 RM Auction, Scottsdale: Hemi 'Cuda convertible brings $2.2 MIL (http://www.autoblog.com/2007/01/20/2007-rm-auction-scottsdale-hemi-cuda-convertible-brings-2-2/)
Barrett-Jackson Lot: 1325 - 1969 FORD MUSTANG BOSS 429 FASTBACK $605,000.00 (http://www.barrett-jackson.com/application/onlinesubmission/lotdetails.aspx?ln=1325&aid=221&pop=0)
Barrett-Jackson Lot: 1277.1 - 1969 CHEVROLET CAMARO ZL-1 COPO COUPE $319,000.00 (http://www.barrett-jackson.com/application/onlinesubmission/lotdetails.aspx?ln=1277.1&aid=283&pop=0)
There are many other examples but I believe that these are some of the record prices for these vehicles at auction. The Hemi Cuda is pretty astounding but with only 11 built it is super rare. What can be said about the Camaros of that era is that they are the most popular among the restomod crowd. Numbers matching Yenkos and COPOs restored to stock condition go for good prices but are blown away by Boss 429s and Hemi Cudas.
Nah, ZL1 Camaro has sold for $800k+ many many times and is otherwise second only to the Hemi 'Cuda and maybe the L-88 Corvette in value. Plus, another aspect to its value is that the ZL1 was a much better performing vehicle than most, including any Mustang or the Hemi 'Cuda. Plus I already mentioned that the Hemi 'Cuda was top Detriot value dog from the muscle/pony car era.
Show proof Cougs.
Cougsy, I hate to say it, but you're wrong on that one.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/photos-ak-sf2p/v45/23/13/14228342/n14228342_31369725_3122.jpg)
I knew there was a reason I took pictures of these things.
BTW, I take RM's auctions with less grains of salt than B-J's. B-J is a lot more publicized and therefore people get into huge bidding wars because no one wants to be a loser on national TV.
Also, rumor has it they bid on their own cars at times, too.
Also, just so I can brag a little bit:
One:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/photos-ak-sf2p/v45/23/13/14228342/n14228342_31369724_2648.jpg)
Two.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/photos-ak-sf2p/v45/23/13/14228342/n14228342_31369732_6386.jpg)
And a Baldwin-Motion Camaro for good measure.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/photos-ak-ash1/v132/23/13/14228342/n14228342_34327549_4968.jpg)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/photos-ak-sf2p/v132/23/13/14228342/n14228342_34327874_4177.jpg)
...just because I can. The ZL-1 show car and Baldwin-Motion are owned by the same guy. He also owns a Yenko Camaro, a Yenko Stinger Corvair, and I think one of the few ZL-1 Corvettes out there.
They made a Yenko Corvair? That would sure piss Ralph Nader off.
Quote from: Mustangfan2003 on April 29, 2011, 05:01:42 PM
They made a Yenko Corvair? That would sure piss Ralph Nader off.
Yes. In fact, the Yenko Stinger (Corvair) was the first/original Yenko tuner car.
Quote from: the Teuton on April 29, 2011, 11:45:46 AM
Cougsy, I hate to say it, but you're wrong on that one.
Nah...
1969 ZL-1 Camaro sold at $840,000 at a Mecum's auction. (http://www.colinsclassicauto.com/detail.php?car=166)
The $319,000 price appears to be because that was equipped with (an undesirable) A/T.
For reference, this is basically the FXX of Yenko Stingers -- a stage 3. It's pretty badass.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/photos-ak-ash1/v45/23/13/14228342/n14228342_31369867_4283.jpg)
Quote from: GoCougs on April 29, 2011, 07:52:37 PM
Nah...
1969 ZL-1 Camaro sold at $840,000 at a Mecum's auction. (http://www.colinsclassicauto.com/detail.php?car=166)
The $319,000 price appears to be because that was equipped with (an undesirable) A/T.
Didn't know about that sale. Only a handful (5 or 6) of them have their original engines.
I didn't know about this one either...
1967 Shelby GT500 Convertible Sold for $825,000 - Only 1967 Shelby GT500 convertible ever built; custom ordered by Carroll Shelby as engineering test car (http://www.sportscardigest.com/original-spring-classic-auction-results-%E2%80%93-mecum-auction/)
Performance wise, nothing to speak of, but super rare. As for the Boss 429s, their value is on the rise; especially the first 50 '69s.
2013 Shelby GT500 will be using a twin turbo 5.0L V8.
Quote from: SVT666 on June 09, 2011, 09:39:37 AM
2013 Shelby GT500 will be using a twin turbo 5.0L V8.
beautiful, lighter 5.0 with TT, presumably high compression/DI and better mileage.
any link?
Quote from: SVT666 on June 09, 2011, 09:39:37 AM
2013 Shelby GT500 will be using a twin turbo 5.0L V8.
The speculation is coming from spy shots alleging an air-to-air intercooler(s) in the grill. If true such a thing does point to turbo charging as such intercooling doesn't jive with a direct-engine mount supercharger. I don't think it can be said it's an air-to-air intercooler though.
Until I see something official from Ford I call shens. Retooling to this extent a low-volume version of the Mustang in its last year of production seems like a lost cause. Plus, I'm just not seeing the 5.0L as a warrantable 600 hp+ motor.
Interesting convertible comparison test in the latest Road and Track. Turns out the Mustang GT is a better car than the Camaro SS once all the test numbers are in. The results were close, but the porky Camaro wound up the Bride's Maid.
Quote from: SVT666 on June 09, 2011, 09:39:37 AM
2013 Shelby GT500 will be using a twin turbo 5.0L V8.
Woah son.... :mask:
Yeah I'm not really believing it right now either. I think its definitely a Turbo Mustang, maybe a step under the Boss when it comes to track worthyness which might explain the GT500 chassis with SVTpp.
Shut up about this "twin-turbo" nonsense. It's ECOBOOST. It's environmentally friendly! :rage:
Quote from: 68_427 on June 09, 2011, 01:09:53 PM
Yeah I'm not really believing it right now either. I think its definitely a Turbo Mustang, maybe a step under the Boss when it comes to track worthyness which might explain the GT500 chassis with SVTpp.
A step under the Boss is the GT.
A good friend just picked up a brand new Mustang GT Premium (pretty much loaded- black leather, HIDs, 19" dark stainless wheels, brembos, color changing lighting and gauges, etc.) 5.0 with the 6 speed manual and 3.73 axle ratio in that dark metallic blue color. It's very nice, and I'm just a little bit jealous.
Umm... Superchargers use intercoolers just likes turbos do
Quote from: r0tor on June 10, 2011, 08:52:59 AM
Umm... Superchargers use intercoolers just likes turbos do
Direct engine-mounted superchargers do not/cannot use air-to-air intercoolers...
With Ford going with turbos on everything else, why not the GT500?
Ford has all but explicitly told the press that the next GT500 will NOT be turbocharged. They're sticking with a supercharger.
That said, who says the mule in the pictures is a test mule for the GT500? Ford may well be testing a turbocharged motor for a different trim of Mustang (perhaps a turbo-4 to slot beneath the V6?)
Quote from: GoCougs on June 10, 2011, 09:53:46 AM
Direct engine-mounted superchargers do not/cannot use air-to-air intercoolers...
What the fuck is a direct engine mounted supercharger?
I can easily find twin screw superchargers with air to air intercoolers...
Quote from: MX793 on June 10, 2011, 07:06:35 PM
Ford has all but explicitly told the press that the next GT500 will NOT be turbocharged. They're sticking with a supercharger.
That said, who says the mule in the pictures is a test mule for the GT500? Ford may well be testing a turbocharged motor for a different trim of Mustang (perhaps a turbo-4 to slot beneath the V6?)
Or it could be for a different car all together.
edit: Eh, nevermind. That's probably unlikely since it's a GT500 mule. If it was just a regular mustang it could be more of a possibility.
Quote from: r0tor on June 10, 2011, 07:13:19 PM
What the fuck is a direct engine mounted supercharger?
I can easily find twin screw superchargers with air to air intercoolers...
A blower bolted straight to the intake manifold, as many roots and lysholm superchargers are. A front-mounted, air-to-air intercooler isn't exactly practical. It's something I'd expect more on a centrifugal blower setup or, if a twin screw, one that doesn't mount the blower on the top of the engine.
Wrong:
Quote from: r0tor on June 10, 2011, 07:13:19 PM
What the fuck is a direct engine mounted supercharger?
I can easily find twin screw superchargers with air to air intercoolers...
Right:
Quote from: MX793 on June 10, 2011, 07:24:46 PM
A blower bolted straight to the intake manifold, as many roots and lysholm superchargers are. A front-mounted, air-to-air intercooler isn't exactly practical. It's something I'd expect more on a centrifugal blower setup or, if a twin screw, one that doesn't mount the blower on the top of the engine.
On such direct engine-mount superchargers the path of compressed air is straight from the high pressure side into the intake port. There is literally no path of compressed air to reroute.
Here's the pic that apparently generated the gossip:
"We might be wrong but it looks like this Shelby GT500 is carrying a rather discreet intercooler setup behind the front bumper bar. This means the engine is either turbocharged or supercharged. It?s more likely to be turbocharged however, as Ford?s usual screw-type supercharger is unable to use an air-to-air intercooler system like what is seen on this test mule."
(http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/1167/shelbygt5007625x418.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/543/shelbygt5007625x418.jpg/)
Yeah, you are wrong. First that doesn't look like an air-to-air intercooler, and other supercharged cars, including the Cobra, Lightening, CTS-V, and ZR1 use either a Roots or lysholm direct engine-mount S/C with liquid-to-air cooling. At most this is a liquid-to-air intercooler.
Twin screw with air to air intercoolers... -shrug-
http://www.performancedesign.com.au/rx8_supercharger_kit.html
Quote from: r0tor on June 10, 2011, 08:31:21 PM
Twin screw with air to air intercoolers... -shrug-
http://www.performancedesign.com.au/rx8_supercharger_kit.html
No one said you couldn't use an air-to-air cooler with a twin screw. Only that you can't use one when you mount the compressor output directly to the intake manifold/throttlebody. A Wankel's intake isn't at the top-center of the engine like it is on a V motor, so you can mount the blower to the top of the motor and then plumb air from the blower output through a charge cooler and into the intake. You could use one on a V motor too, but the packaging gets a little funky/ugly, since you'd need to mount the blower off to the side to leave a path to plumb air from the cooler to the intake manifold/throttlebody. In which case, a centrifugal compressor often makes more sense. Pairing twin screws with air-to-air intercoolers really works best, from a packaging standpoint, with motors that have their intake manifolds on the side of the engine, like inline motors and Wankels.
I'm guessing you wouldn't get as much of an advantage with a twin screw by intercooling the air before it hits the compressor?
Quote from: R-inge on June 10, 2011, 09:38:39 PM
I'm guessing you wouldn't get as much of an advantage with a twin screw by intercooling the air before it hits the compressor?
Cooling the air before it gets compressed isn't intercooling (intercooling means you're cooling air between compressions, so you compress, you cool, and then you compress some more). And running air that's already at ambient through a heat exchanger which is also at ambient won't cool the air, so the effect would just be to restrict your incoming airflow.
Ah, that makes perfect sense. Thanks.
The lower half of the intake manifold (where that supercharger plumbs into) sits just like the manifold of a v block car. That particulate supercharger has a custom exit off the back end of the supercharger so the air can be plumbed into an air to air intercooler. There is a different twin screw supercharger maker for the rx8 that uses a water to air intercooler and the setup looks just like the shelby mustang setup.
An air to air intercooler is better for track cars as it suffers less from heatsoak after a prolonged track session... Which was the reason the kit I posted has the additional costs involved to use an air to air setup.
Uh, no.
Video of the two mystery GT500s at the Ring:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoy73vGwQWg&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoy73vGwQWg&feature=player_embedded)
I don't hear the typical supercharger whine you get from the GT500, so it could very well be twin turbo. My god, the exhaust gives me goosebumps.
Quote from: SVT666 on June 14, 2011, 01:31:16 PM
Video of the two mystery GT500s at the Ring:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoy73vGwQWg&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoy73vGwQWg&feature=player_embedded)
I don't hear the typical supercharger whine you get from the GT500, so it could very well be twin turbo. My god, the exhaust gives me goosebumps.
The 5.0 is set up for boost, with the supraesque oil squirters to cool the pistons and lube the wrist pins. IMO it was designed from the beginning to be boosted.
It does sound beautiful, clearly no SC sound.
Doesn't sound like a turbo either; exhaust rumble even in a hi-po V8 is greatly smoothed even with a mild turbo. Substantial pressure and you'll plainly hear the turbo whistle. (Check youtube for examples.)
The GT500 used the cheaper and less effective Roots/Eaton supercharger. These are the superchargers that have the characteristic whine. The Ford GT however used the Lysholm supercharger. These are far quieter and little to no whine. (Again, check youtube for examples.)
My guess is 5.4L w/Lysholm supercharger.
It will be interesting to see how the supercharged Coyote differs from the Australian-spec Miami.
Quote
The Miami engine features some critical differences with the Coyote V8, namely unique camshaft profiles, Miami-specific pistons and conrods, inconel exhaust valves, special balancing of internal components and, of course, that supercharger.
The Miami?s supercharger is built in Victoria by Harrop, and uses the same Eaton TVS rotors as the Jaguar XF-R and Cadillac CTS-V. The inherent efficiency of the Eaton rotors mean the Miami does not need an intercooler, although one could be used in future high-output variants.
http://www.themotorreport.com.au/50776/2011-fpv-gs-and-gt-details-of-supercharged-miami-v8-revealed (http://www.themotorreport.com.au/50776/2011-fpv-gs-and-gt-details-of-supercharged-miami-v8-revealed)
Wheels May '10 suggests that the upcoming 375kW (503hp) GT-H will 'look different under the bonnet due to a revised inlet manifold and engine cover arrangement. It's designed to house a water-to-air intercooler that cools the inlet charge while keeping the inlet runner length short for good throttle response. The blower has been geared to deliver 0.5bar (7psi)'.
The Miami-engined FPVs have quite a prominent whine, incidentally.
Build-up updates: June 24th, 2011
27 complete circuits (135 stories up and 135 stories down) in 58 minutes, 30 seconds. 3,618 steps up & 3,618 steps back down in 3,510 seconds = 2.06+ steps per second maintained for 58 minutes, 30 seconds. :praise: There were occasional civilians encountered on the stairwell, as there always are. I dropped the water bottle twice--doubtless clear air turbulence at high speed. When the Nethead here can knock 60 seconds off this new time, I'm going for 28... :cheers:
Seriously dude? This has nothing to do with Mustang. Post this in General Talk.
Quote from: EtypeJohn on April 28, 2011, 10:53:35 AM
How true. Go get some Road and Track magazines from say 69-73 and check the Marketplace section at the back. You'll cry and then wish for a time machine and a small bag of money.
My dad had an opportunity to purchase a brand new Corvette for about $1,000 more than the Cutlass he bought in '64.
He bought the Cutlass because; a) He put the rods in the engine on the line while going to MSU for his grad. degree. b) He needed a rear seat.
He often talks about it and gets red-faced. Sure, his car is probably worth $25k now but the same year 'Vette? What, $75k?
It would make me sad, too.
Quote from: SVT666 on June 28, 2011, 02:18:26 PM
Seriously dude? This has nothing to do with Mustang. Post this in General Talk.
SVT666: You're right, SVTdude--but neither do a least a third of all the postings in this thread. But my personal build-up postings are all facts--Zero conjecture, zero speculation, and zero bullshit. Hard to find such undiluted honesty in any thread...
And the build-up is surpassing even my expectations: 28 full circuits (140 stories up & 140 stories back down) in 58 minutes 20 seconds on June 30th--I was pleased with 27 full circuits in mid-June but did 28 with a minute & forty seconds to spare by month's end. I sprinted up the stairs part of that last circuit to be sure I got under 60 minutes (but I draw some satisfaction that I still had sprint left in me after having already done 27 full circuits in record time before I started up for the 28th).
Stairwells are not easy :orly:, but you can't beat the work-out for the price. Even descending 3,752 steps in under thirty minutes is a good work-out--ascending & descending 3,752 steps in under sixty minutes is some serious sweat for a lunch hour :cry:. I don't do it because it's easy. I do it because I can :ohyeah:.
This ain't everybody's way to do lunch, just like a Boss 302 Laguna Seca ain't everybody's way to lap Laguna Seca at 1:39.50--Ford put the basic Mustang GT 5.0 through a work-out routine to get more out of it and the Nethead here is doing the same to, well, the Nethead here. Note the difference between 24 full circuits on April 15th and 28 full circuits with a minute forty to spare on June 30th.
Those of you with absolutely no doubts about the robustness of your heart and circulatory system should give The Stairwell Challenge a shot. It's cheaper than a Mustang GT 5.0, too, even if it ain't as much fun (for the benefit of those who insist that the postings stay on topic :rage:)...
Quote from: hounddog on June 28, 2011, 08:55:31 PM
My dad had an opportunity to purchase a brand new Corvette for about $1,000 more than the Cutlass he bought in '64.
He bought the Cutlass because; a) He put the rods in the engine on the line while going to MSU for his grad. degree. b) He needed a rear seat.
He often talks about it and gets red-faced. Sure, his car is probably worth $25k now but the same year 'Vette? What, $75k?
It would make me sad, too.
My dad could have gotten a Corvette back in the day too. Only like $4k, so he could have afforded it. Sadly, he wouldn't have been able to pay the insurance each month so he had to pass on it.
Quote from: hotrodalex on July 05, 2011, 12:53:33 PM
My dad could have gotten a Corvette back in the day too. Only like $4k, so he could have afforded it. Sadly, he wouldn't have been able to pay the insurance each month so he had to pass on it.
$4K was a good bit of money back then.
Quote from: SVT32V on July 05, 2011, 03:04:04 PM
$4K was a good bit of money back then.
When it was new, yes. But this was the late 70's or early 80's, so it wasn't quite as much (I don't think...)
Quote from: hotrodalex on July 05, 2011, 10:42:37 PM
When it was new, yes. But this was the late 70's or early 80's, so it wasn't quite as much (I don't think...)
That's when my dad bought his Corvette.
I want a Corvette. LOL
When we were having the Burban serviced, we drove one around the block and I liked it! This was a couple years back.
However, there is/was absolutely zero chance of my parents buying a Corvette or any type of sports car. OH WELLSZ.
Quote from: BENZ BOY15 on July 06, 2011, 12:43:02 AM
I want a Corvette. LOL
When we were having the Burban serviced, we drove one around the block and I liked it! This was a couple years back.
However, there is/was absolutely zero chance of my parents buying a Corvette or any type of sports car. OH WELLSZ.
It's like nothing else to look over the fenders and L88 hood of an early C3.