- Jul 21, 2005
- 12,042
- 4
- 81
Motortrend's take on the 2010 Mustang styling
- Thread starter Q
- Start date
TehMac
Diamond Member
- Aug 18, 2006
- 9,976
- 3
- 71
Personally, I love the new 2010, I don't think the video showed it off too well though. The profile seemed a bit "off," if that's the correct word.
I do hope they put a 5.0L in there sometime. Please....
I am more interested in the 2010 Shelby Cobra though.
EDIT: At this point, I think all three are about equal. The Mustang might have an edge because it's lighter, but if I recall, the 4.6L produces 315bhp in the 2010, and considering Edmonds already tested a Bullitt versus a Dodge Challenger 5 speed Automatic, the Challenger still won even with its auto gearbox and weight.
The Camaro probably weighs the same as the Challenger though, maybe a bit lighter.
The Challenger will probably get squashed as soon as the Mustang and Camaro get new engines, which won't be for a while. Might not be for a looooong time if the Big Three can't get the unions to piss off and/or monies from the gov.
I do hope they put a 5.0L in there sometime. Please....
I am more interested in the 2010 Shelby Cobra though.
EDIT: At this point, I think all three are about equal. The Mustang might have an edge because it's lighter, but if I recall, the 4.6L produces 315bhp in the 2010, and considering Edmonds already tested a Bullitt versus a Dodge Challenger 5 speed Automatic, the Challenger still won even with its auto gearbox and weight.
The Camaro probably weighs the same as the Challenger though, maybe a bit lighter.
The Challenger will probably get squashed as soon as the Mustang and Camaro get new engines, which won't be for a while. Might not be for a looooong time if the Big Three can't get the unions to piss off and/or monies from the gov.
Why won't they give it independent rear suspension?
A fellow I know has one of the few early-2000s Mustangs with IRS, and says it handles much better than a regular Mustang.
Mustang fans claim that it makes no difference, and just adds a lot of weight. However, I've read many reviews suggesting that it should've been given a more modern setup.
Further edit:
ZOMG EDIT FAIL
Naah. Cobras are for fat old men. Roush is where it's at.
The Challenger is quite a few thousand dollars more expensive, and you have to get a top-spec version to get a proper manual gearbox.
The Camaro, on the other hand, is a very different sort of car - it has independent rear suspension and the only gearboxes sold are 6-speed manuals and automatics. While the car is more expensive across the range, the base model (300HP OHC 24v V6) has a MUCH better engine than the el-cheapo Mustang, while the V8 version features an LS2 V8 producing over 400 horsepower - quite a lot more than the estimated <350 expected from the new Mustang GT.
My personal suspicion is that GM has managed to drop the price of their very nice V8 engines by producing them in huge numbers. Almost all GM performance cars, from the upcoming Camaro to the CTS to the Corvette to the Pontiac G8 all use very similar engines, and many of the smaller V8s use modified versions of it. While the LSx V8 isn't terribly efficient or modern, it does produce huge power from an engine that is both light and relatively cheap - and it's hard to argue with that.
A fellow I know has one of the few early-2000s Mustangs with IRS, and says it handles much better than a regular Mustang.
Mustang fans claim that it makes no difference, and just adds a lot of weight. However, I've read many reviews suggesting that it should've been given a more modern setup.
Further edit:
ZOMG EDIT FAIL
Naah. Cobras are for fat old men. Roush is where it's at.
The Challenger is quite a few thousand dollars more expensive, and you have to get a top-spec version to get a proper manual gearbox.
The Camaro, on the other hand, is a very different sort of car - it has independent rear suspension and the only gearboxes sold are 6-speed manuals and automatics. While the car is more expensive across the range, the base model (300HP OHC 24v V6) has a MUCH better engine than the el-cheapo Mustang, while the V8 version features an LS2 V8 producing over 400 horsepower - quite a lot more than the estimated <350 expected from the new Mustang GT.
My personal suspicion is that GM has managed to drop the price of their very nice V8 engines by producing them in huge numbers. Almost all GM performance cars, from the upcoming Camaro to the CTS to the Corvette to the Pontiac G8 all use very similar engines, and many of the smaller V8s use modified versions of it. While the LSx V8 isn't terribly efficient or modern, it does produce huge power from an engine that is both light and relatively cheap - and it's hard to argue with that.
TehMac
Diamond Member
- Aug 18, 2006
- 9,976
- 3
- 71
I dunno, I have a 1999, and I remember going 33 around a corner, wasn't checking my speed, luckily I had a stick shift and good tires, so I was able to correct, but even so, very startling, to say the least.
In terms of handling, I would argue it doesn't matter. Not for a Mustang. What's the point? Are you going to take it out on the track? I probably won't, no real point unless I am waving my car-penis around and need to show off or something.
I hate to be a party pooper about it, but thats my two cents. Two me makes no difference. Not for a Mustang anyway.
The whole point of a fast car is so that you can have loads of fun driving over twisty back-roads. A really good one (like my mad neighbor's Miata...which he still currently drives despite an 8" snowfall) will let you enjoy yourself darting around traffic islands in residential neighborhoods
A solid axle is very poor at dealing with twisty roads, and is really only suited to carrying huge weights or full-bore launches on a drag strip. There are ways to deal with some of the problems, but these generally are either very expensive, very uncomfortable, or require a very light vehicle.
Throckmorton
Lifer
- Aug 23, 2007
- 16,829
- 3
- 0
I still don't understand why the Mustang has a solid axle. The platform is the same as the Lincoln LS, IIRC, and they converted it to solid axle...
Solid axles are:
A. Cheap
B. VERY VERY VERY good for drag racing.
C. Slightly lighter than independent rear suspension setups.
D. Easy to make very strong (for drag racing.)
BlackTigers
Diamond Member
- Jan 15, 2006
- 4,491
- 2
- 71
Originally posted by: Cheesehead
Naah. Cobras are for fat old men. Roush is where it's at.
I'm almost positive that the Cobras had more done to them than the Roush and other versions did....
Originally posted by: BlackTigers
Originally posted by: Cheesehead
Naah. Cobras are for fat old men. Roush is where it's at.
I'm almost positive that the Cobras had more done to them than the Roush and other versions did....
Both the Roush and the Cobra have superchargers, though the one on the Roush mustang is smaller. However, the Roush mustang has a better suspension, better brakes, and a limited-slip differential. The Cobra does not.
Screw the 5.0l v8 I want to see the 412hp 3.5l ecotech twin turbo in the mustang. All the people ranting about IRS wouldn't buy a mustang if it had one anyway. It would be nice if it had one but its not that big of a deal that it doesn't.
<--- miata driver that use to have a mustang.
<--- miata driver that use to have a mustang.
If they can manage 415 real horsepower out of the engine without making it stupendously expensive, I'll be pleasantly surprised. There's also the gloomy spectre of turbo lag, which generally can only be solved by throwing massive amounts of money at the problem in the form of variable-geometry or sequential turbocharging. (Perhaps a hybrid system like VW's with a small supercharger and a big turbo is in order?)
On the other hand, GM will cheerfully send an LS2 in a box to anyone who asks politely and pays the cash. And there's always the option of the supercharged LS9....
EDIT:
Durr. The EcoBoost V6 is intended to compete with the Camaro SS, and as such, can cost quite a bit. That said..low lag is not cheap, and unless the engine's performance is seriously competitive with the LS2, nobody will buy one anyway (Anyone the original turbo mustang from the 80s?)
VW's solution is twincharging
the rx7 and supra had seuqneundil agtuebos
EDIT: shit, i was sure you had that wrong
haha
the rx7 and supra had seuqneundil agtuebos
EDIT: shit, i was sure you had that wrong
haha
LTC8K6
Lifer
- Mar 10, 2004
- 28,520
- 1,575
- 126
zerocool84
Lifer
- Nov 11, 2004
- 36,041
- 472
- 126
I own two old turbo charged cars and turbo lag really isn't a big deal. This is on little 4 bangers too. A 3.5l v6 will have decent torque by itself to make up for any lag it does have.
"The low inertia turbochargers and direct injection also contribute to eliminating that bugaboo of old-time turbo engines, the lag between pressing the accelerator and getting actual forward motion."
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2...direct-injection-engi/
Hopefully that goal of 500k ecoboost engines a year cuts the cost down. Does look like they are limiting the power to 340hp in the mustang if they bother to put one in it. When the engine was still called Twinforce it made 412hp. Haven't seen anwhere what kind of price range it would be offered at. Only that it would be offered along side the v8 cars.
"The low inertia turbochargers and direct injection also contribute to eliminating that bugaboo of old-time turbo engines, the lag between pressing the accelerator and getting actual forward motion."
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2...direct-injection-engi/
Hopefully that goal of 500k ecoboost engines a year cuts the cost down. Does look like they are limiting the power to 340hp in the mustang if they bother to put one in it. When the engine was still called Twinforce it made 412hp. Haven't seen anwhere what kind of price range it would be offered at. Only that it would be offered along side the v8 cars.
The thing "limiting the power" is likely the little metal bits that make up your engine. Increasing the boost means that you need much stronger pistons, connecting rods, etc. etc. etc.
I suppose the question is how much cheaper the 340HP Mustang is than the 402HP Camaro. And how much it weighs, too - Ford currently uses iron blocks for all of their forced-induction engines.
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 34
- 91
How many of the current-generation Mustangs have you driven? I had no trouble whatsoever keeping up with a Porsche Boxster through twisty mountain roads in my '06 GT.
I've seen a lot of people who have never driven an '05 or later GT bash it for having a live axle. As for people who have driven one, haven't seen any complaints. The only time you can tell it's a live axle is when you hit a large (and I mean large) bump in the middle of a corner. If that happens there is a very tiny twitch. It's simply not as though you're sliding all over the road and can't go around corners because it's a live axle.
ZV
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,389
- 8,547
- 126
the front suspension is from a focus, actually.
the chassis tunnel configuration is about all it shares with the lincoln LS, iirc.
i think the biggest factor in ford's 340 hp limit on that engine in the lincoln mks is fuel consumption. i would not be surprised to find it at 390+ for a special edition mustang
TehMac
Diamond Member
- Aug 18, 2006
- 9,976
- 3
- 71
Originally posted by: Cheesehead
Naah. Cobras are for fat old men. Roush is where it's at.
I used to think the same as you, but I disagree. If people see a Roush they'll just think "oh its a mustang," whereas a Cobra is "Fuck, it's a Cobra!"
So I dunno if you should base your purchasing decisions off of mentality like that, but the Cobra certainly makes up with great styling and pedigree.
PricklyPete
Lifer
- Sep 17, 2002
- 14,582
- 162
- 106
I couldn't disagree with this statement more. While it may use some technologies that I would label "tried and true", it's really hard to find an engine with so much power, such good packaging, and is anymore efficient.
I do agree with you that as an engine...it is hard to argue with it's abilities.
With regard to efficiency: It easily gets the same gas mileage as most if not all 400+ engines. I realize it has a big bore...but who cares what the displacement is...the actual consumption is ultimately more important.
With regard to moerdnization: While the engine layout is old news, GM has put a lot of technology in those old legs making it quite a modern engine in my opinion. Just because it isn't DOHC doesn't make it obsolete.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 19K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter