Should the Mustang Have Gone This Route

[NickF1011]

I think this demonstrates a problem with the Mustang. People clearly do not respect the V6 model as anything but a disposable "chick" car. Even if the upcoming 3.7's performance is outstanding it will probably be overshadowed by its big brother V8 models. Even from you original post, it sounds like you aren't considering the V6 Mustang to be a serious competitor to the Genesis. But once it has 300+hp and suspension setup with more edge, won't it be pretty much be at least an equal? However, I think it will still have an image problem. I think Ford needs to develop the V6 cars image so that people that are buying cars like the Genesis, or Nissan Z-Car, or WXR/Evos, could seriously consider a V6 'Stang as its performance should be comparable. No matter what people here think of these other cars, the people buying them are not saying to themselves, "What I'm looking for is a pussy car." They need to know that the V6 isn't a pussy car for chicks. I don't think too much really needs to be changed to the car (that is if the 2011 upgrades are what they say they will be), just peoples perception.

 

Well, with the available powerplants in the Mustang, Ford has never had to bother marketing the V6 models, especially since currently, as in the past, Ford is offering up an optional V8 for the same price as many of its V6 competitors. People shop more on price than they do on engine cylinder configuration.

[Deanh]

you beat me to it by a minute! lol. At least im not the only one that thinks that isnt a bad place to start. I expect it to be heavier than those models though, yet not gain weight from where we are now. (and hopefully lose a touch). Also 400hp put that body style into the 12s with the Terminators.

 

 

 

now playing

 

Bad Religion - The Defense

had an 88 5.0 police interceptor coupe....awesome car, tweeked 300hp didnt hurt either...get back to THAT size and weight and i would be exstatic.........now playing........Safety Dance ( only song on I-pod )

[silvrsvt]

99-04 mustang GT:

External dimensions: length (inches): 183.2, width (inches): 73.1, wheelbase (inches): 101.3

Weights: curb weight (lbs) 3,273

 

This was smaller than both of the above. Get back to these deminsions with 400 HP and you have a winner!

 

The SN95's where ergonomic nightmares...they didn't fit me in them any better then my 86 Escort GT.

 

Another issue is the SN95 had crappy chassis stiffness....there is a huge difference between say 2004 GT convertible vs a 2005+ GT Convertible..the 05 convertible feels just like the coupe.

 

I just think the whole size thing of the current Mustang is overstated...its NOT that much bigger then the current car. Yeah it weighs more, but then again its not a wet noodle....

[silvrsvt]

had an 88 5.0 police interceptor coupe....awesome car, tweeked 300hp didnt hurt either...get back to THAT size and weight and i would be exstatic.........now playing........Safety Dance ( only song on I-pod )

 

oh you want Focus sized Mustang huh?

[RichardJensen]

Agnes: I want everything in one bag.

Bag Boy 2: Yes, ma'am.

Agnes: But I don't want the bag to be heavy.

Bag Boy 2: I don't think that's possible.

Agnes: What are you, the Possible Police? Just do it.

[Versa-Tech]

Even with more power, the 3.7L V6 Mustang will still be the "pussy" of the lineup. It's the "chick" version. Just the way it is.

I disagree. The D37 has a lot of potential for motorsports applications. If I had the choice between a lightweight V6 platform or a standard v8 with the same power potential... I would definitely take the lighter car. I have no loyalty to engine architectures and techy acronyms. Whatever is fastest down the corkscrew is the car that I will buy... PERIOD.

 

Speaking of which... anyone heard anything on the 4.4L Diesel? It would make an outstanding engine for endurance racing!

[Deanh]

oh you want Focus sized Mustang huh?

nah...just 3000lb dripping wet with 400....eeeeeeeeek! dont ya love wishful left field absurd thinking?

[Deanh]

oh you want Focus sized Mustang huh?

Ka....NOW were talkin...hahahahaha!

[TomServo92]

Ahhhhhh.....this is such a nice break from the UAW pig pen.....

[goinbroke2]

I remember the notch back fox bodies were considered chick cars and the hatchbacks were the real mustangs...until you could get the gt drivetrain in a lighter notch body. Once "mr dirt" came out then lx notch with gt drivetrain WAS the thing to have. Today, hatches are still "GT" and notches are still considered second fiddle, even if they're not.

 

bottom line, mustang must have a v-8. period. With a run of HOW many years..I think it's a proven formula.

 

Remember the SVO? Everything I said about the hatch/notch was the same for them too. you could have the fastest/hottest looking corner carver out there...pop the hood and people went WOW a 4 cyl..cool....should have a v8!

 

Remember the turbo t-bird? Watched one do pretty good at a gymkana event against porsches etc and the only comment? "I think a v8 would be better in something this big instead of a turbo 4cyl". Even after I said the 4cyl had 205hp or whatever it was at the time and the 302 had like 175hp, "yeah but the torque". This was from guys running porsches and other little sporty cars, even they looked down their nose at a car with a factory hopped up 4cyl compared to the optional base v8.

 

And ferrari and all them? YUCH! HATE the sound. I built a 351C for a guys pulling truck. Had a custom flat crank in it. Sounded like a hornets nest on fire at 7000rpm. I detest the screech from engines and prefer the growl of two cyl firing 90deg apart. Ever hear nascar motors or an engine with an x pipe? Buddy of mine Bruce Riley runs a SuperStock 71 chevelle ss with the alum head 454. Leaves the line at 8500rpm, shifts at 9000 and goes through the lights around 9200. From the time he comes up on the converter the hair stands up on the back of my neck. It just F^&*ing SCREECHES! Sounds like a damn turbine or something. (runs 1.20 under the index though hehehe)

[Deanh]

I remember the notch back fox bodies were considered chick cars and the hatchbacks were the real mustangs...until you could get the gt drivetrain in a lighter notch body. Once "mr dirt" came out then lx notch with gt drivetrain WAS the thing to have. Today, hatches are still "GT" and notches are still considered second fiddle, even if they're not.

 

bottom line, mustang must have a v-8. period. With a run of HOW many years..I think it's a proven formula.

 

Remember the SVO? Everything I said about the hatch/notch was the same for them too. you could have the fastest/hottest looking corner carver out there...pop the hood and people went WOW a 4 cyl..cool....should have a v8!

 

Remember the turbo t-bird? Watched one do pretty good at a gymkana event against porsches etc and the only comment? "I think a v8 would be better in something this big instead of a turbo 4cyl". Even after I said the 4cyl had 205hp or whatever it was at the time and the 302 had like 175hp, "yeah but the torque". This was from guys running porsches and other little sporty cars, even they looked down their nose at a car with a factory hopped up 4cyl compared to the optional base v8.

 

And ferrari and all them? YUCH! HATE the sound. I built a 351C for a guys pulling truck. Had a custom flat crank in it. Sounded like a hornets nest on fire at 7000rpm. I detest the screech from engines and prefer the growl of two cyl firing 90deg apart. Ever hear nascar motors or an engine with an x pipe? Buddy of mine Bruce Riley runs a SuperStock 71 chevelle ss with the alum head 454. Leaves the line at 8500rpm, shifts at 9000 and goes through the lights around 9200. From the time he comes up on the converter the hair stands up on the back of my neck. It just F^&*ing SCREECHES! Sounds like a damn turbine or something. (runs 1.20 under the index though hehehe)

as much as I love the American V8 sound, I adore the sound of tearing silk, amazing the different stuccato from different sides of the pond.........

[RichardJensen]

I built a 351C for a guys pulling truck. Had a custom flat crank in it.

That's the coolest thing I'll read all day.

[NickF1011]

I disagree. The D37 has a lot of potential for motorsports applications. If I had the choice between a lightweight V6 platform or a standard v8 with the same power potential... I would definitely take the lighter car. I have no loyalty to engine architectures and techy acronyms. Whatever is fastest down the corkscrew is the car that I will buy... PERIOD.

 

Speaking of which... anyone heard anything on the 4.4L Diesel? It would make an outstanding engine for endurance racing!

 

What exactly would be the weight difference between the D37 and the new 5.0? I'm guessing somewhere in the range of 50-60 lbs at the most? Is that worth the trade-off in power for slightly (almost unnoticable) better weight distribution?

[chiefstang]

Mustang GT weight: 3533

Genesis weight: 3439

 

GT length x width x WB:188.1 x 73.9 x 107.1

Genesis length x width x WB: 182.3 x 73.4 x 111

 

For an extra 100lbs & 6" you get a car that actually looks like something.

 

Seems like a reasonable tradeoff to me.

 

----

 

BTW: -My- theory is that Jeep should make the Wrangler more like the Honda Element. Why cater to those few freaks that actually use a Wrangler for what it's intended? Make a Wrangler we can all enjoy!!

 

Thank you, Richard.

 

PS, the Genesis Coupe is a good car and if Mustang was just a little shorter, a little lighter and a little more nimble like the Genesis, it would be a better car. IMO Especially with a 400 hp V8.

 

 

As to your first question: "Should Ford have made the Mustang into a Hyundai?", just go get a new blade and run a warm bath... Really.

 

On top of already being shown that there is a marginal weight difference at most, it should also be noted that the Mustang is a full second faster in the quarter mile. You didn't know that, and you probibly don't realize how large of a gap that second is. It should also be noted that the Mustang stops in a shorter distance than even the "Track" Genesis with it's Brembo brakes. And guess what:

 

The Mustang also puts up better slalom and skidpad numbers, so quit talking about the Genesis being so nimble. The Mustang GT is also priced within about a thousand dollars or so of the Genesis. With the looks, power and "nimbler" handling, I'll take the 'Stang over the overhyped Tiburon every time.

 

Oh, and before you come on to a FORD forum and bitch the posters here (Who DO know the numbers these cars actually put down, btw) think about what you think you know, and what you actually know.

 

Not that I'm against the Mustang being more powerful and lighter, mind you. I'm just against uninformed people trying to make a point, and being a dick about it.

 

If I just kept you from buying a Ford, so be it.

Edited November 6, 2009 by chiefstang

[chiefstang]

What exactly would be the weight difference between the D37 and the new 5.0? I'm guessing somewhere in the range of 50-60 lbs at the most? Is that worth the trade-off in power for slightly (almost unnoticable) better weight distribution?

 

We're also getting in the habit of talking about the peak #'s on these engines. Just because the D37 has 300ish hp, it doesn't mean it's gonna have anywhere near the midrange of the V8.

 

Turbos help with the torque, but I'll take mine "instant on".

 

That's why the 300 hp Genesis gets doored by the Mustang's 315... It ain't the 15.

[NickF1011]

We're also getting in the habit of talking about the peak #'s on these engines. Just because the D37 has 300ish hp, it doesn't mean it's gonna have anywhere near the midrange of the V8.

 

Turbos help with the torque, but I'll take mine "instant on".

 

That's why the 300 hp Genesis gets doored by the Mustang's 315... It ain't the 15.

 

Very valid point. :yup:

[RichardJensen]

By all accounts that turbo has as flat a torque curve as you could hope for.

[BlackHorse]

Thank you, Richard.

 

 

 

 

On top of already being shown that there is a marginal weight difference at most, it should also be noted that the Mustang is a full second faster in the quarter mile. You didn't know that, and you probibly don't realize how large of a gap that second is. It should also be noted that the Mustang stops in a shorter distance than even the "Track" Genesis with it's Brembo brakes. And guess what:

 

The Mustang also puts up better slalom and skidpad numbers, so quit talking about the Genesis being so nimble. The Mustang GT is also priced within about a thousand dollars or so of the Genesis. With the looks, power and "nimbler" handling, I'll take the 'Stang over the overhyped Tiburon every time.

 

Oh, and before you come on to a FORD forum and bitch the posters here (Who DO know the numbers these cars actually put down, btw) think about what you think you know, and what you actually know.

 

Not that I'm against the Mustang being more powerful and lighter, mind you. I'm just against uninformed people trying to make a point, and being a dick about it.

 

If I just kept you from buying a Ford, so be it.

 

Nah, you didn't keep me from buying a Ford bro. You're just another self impressed prima donna who is easily swayed by times posted in a magazine somewhere. I'm not trying to compare a Mustang GT to a Genesis second for second. I don't cyber race. It was just a question, that's it. Maybe if you had actually read and understood what I was actually driving at you wouldn't be soe "uninformed." lol

[RichardJensen]

You're just another self impressed prima donna

right back atcha.

Edited November 6, 2009 by RichardJensen

[Edstock]

now playing........Safety Dance ( only song on I-pod )

Ah, Men Without Hats . . . great band

 

I adore the sound of tearing silk

Me too, but I have found some women don't.

[Sixt9coug]

I remember the notch back fox bodies were considered chick cars and the hatchbacks were the real mustangs...until you could get the gt drivetrain in a lighter notch body. Once "mr dirt" came out then lx notch with gt drivetrain WAS the thing to have. Today, hatches are still "GT" and notches are still considered second fiddle, even if they're not.

 

 

Second fiddle? I beg to differ. Ive been looking for a 5.0L Notch over the last few months, and GTs and Hatch's are a dime a dozen. Find a clean 5.0L notch and you are looking at spending at least $4500. The last one i really lusted after the guy was asking $6900 for it. Out of my price range. But oooooooh it was sexy. Black on black, 116K miles... 5spd 5.0L and beautiful.... sigh....

 

Now playing -

 

My belly rumbling because im gonna go to lunch.

Edited November 6, 2009 by Sixt9coug

[Deanh]

Ah, Men Without Hats . . . great band

 

 

Me too, but I have found some women don't.

shhhh, wait till they sleep...oh, thats just wrong....lol...may as well insert Nun joke as well.....

[chiefstang]

Nah, you didn't keep me from buying a Ford bro. You're just another self impressed prima donna who is easily swayed by times posted in a magazine somewhere. I'm not trying to compare a Mustang GT to a Genesis second for second. I don't cyber race. It was just a question, that's it. Maybe if you had actually read and understood what I was actually driving at you wouldn't be soe "uninformed." lol

 

Actually, as a prima donna I regularly go to the track, and have had my way with a few Genesis coupes. How about you, bro? My car runs identical times to the new Mustang, so a "cyber racer", I am not.

 

Not knowing, and asking doesn't upset me. Calling everybody out here when they show you the facts, and saying that we keep you from wanting a Ford does.

 

You dug your own hole, now sit in it and shut up.

[chiefstang]

By all accounts that turbo has as flat a torque curve as you could hope for.

 

 

True. Modern turbos generate great mid-range, and turbo-lag is almost non-existent, but it's still there.

 

I enjoy bouncing my passenger's heads off the headrest at will! :happy feet:

[chiefstang]

right back atcha.