Just saw my first 2015 Mustang....OH NO!

Status
Not open for further replies.
dsg03gt said:
By far the best looking Mustang Ford has produced. Shame the new owner is using the coin car wash but it happens everyday.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Do you mean in the "modern era":confused:

Sent from my SPH-M930 using Tapatalk 2
 
Oh ok, just some people talk newer and older. For me its the 65' GT350, white w/ blue stripes:cool:

Sent from my SPH-M930 using Tapatalk 2
 
Klasse Act said:
"Murica" lives in this thread:rolleyes:

I'm pretty sure not only do CAFE standards come into play here but the fact that the Euro market gets the turbo model only factors in....

Then there's insurance, ...

You do know there's 400-500 hp 2.3L Ecoboosted Stangs around already, right....

...hmm, kinda funny how my 406 s/b powered 78' Caprice would beat BB's all the time,...


...when I had my 87' GN too and here's what I'd say....

... the GT-R, 3.8L
Click to expand...

Well aware of the "Global Marketplace" that we all live in these days. I know that surely comes into play, especially as the engine "platforms" are much more of a 'global' thing these days than they EVER used to be.

Insurance isn't necessarily less for a turbo 4 than a V6. Back when Mazda started offering turbos on the RX-7 (around 1990) we almost bought one. The operative word being "almost". :rolleyes: That was when I owned my towing business, and ran across one that was an undamaged recovered theft vehicle. The car was flawless, leather, heavily option loaded. So I called my insurance agent to get a quote, (we had a brand new 4Dr Accord LX at the time) and was told that their "rates" stopped at $2600 a year and didn't go high enough yet to cover the "turbo", and that it would be considerably higher. OMG was it higher! Quote came in at over $3200 more than three times what we were paying. We didn't end up buying the car for just that reason. (And we didn't have any tickets, owned our home, were married for over 13 years, and had a 2 year old.)

Fast forward; Today a vehicle offering a 275HP 2.2L turbo or a 272HP 3.7L V6 and the V6 will be cheaper. Now if it's a 1.5L "T" and they are puffing it just to get it moving and it STILL can't keep up with a V6 (if that model even offers a V6) that's a different situation all together. :xyxthumbs:

Oh yes, I know all to well that guys/and girls for that matter will 'tweak' their 2.3L to get the absolute maximum out of it. That goes EXACTLY to the point I was making however, in that that engine has the durability of snow cones on pavement. :D Were I wanting to have a reliable monster torque/horsepower beast I'd look into the Ford V8 "scorpion" powerstroke upside down diesel engine or the GM 4.5L Duramax that Ford pulled the design cues from. :dblthumb2:
(Although GM scrapped the plans to produce the power plant AFTER Ford copied it.)
6a00d83451b3c669e20120a58c8219970c-800wi



Note that the exhaust is where the intake ports should be! Then the intake is pulled through the valve covers to the BOTTOMS of the heads. That with 4 valves per cylinder and a TON of horsepower for a 6.7L. It really is a beautiful design!:dblthumb2:
First Look: Ford's new 6.7 Powerstroke


But for that 406, that's still cubic inches. Same thing with a 427, that's still a small block. :D I'd rather have the small block all things being equal.


Now that Buick GNX was, (and still is) something very special for it's time. Turned into quite the collector vehicle too! :props: Even then though that was only 245HP from those 462 Cubic Inches, (276HP from the very limited GNX). That's twice what the 'non' turbo did though. Neither was exactly earth moving. Buuuuuutttt.... that was the mid-80's and NOTHING was earth moving, which is what made the 276HP GNX such a special power plant.


Annnnndddd that brings us to the 'modern era' of high revving, high performance V6's of today. As you said, "the GTR".

I have one of those VQ engines and they are schweettttt, to say the least. Putting twin 'screws' on one and you can have rock solid 550HP (at the wheels) all day long. Yet even that package will pale in comparison to a 5.7L small block putting out a normally aspirated 550HP. :hotrod2:
 
Redfireshaker06 said:
Not this time. Went with Deep Impact Blue
Click to expand...

My buddy ordered his 15' GT in that color, looks stunning and he's already asked me what he should do to the paint once he gets it. I wished I lived down there but that's another story:rolleyes:

Sent from my SPH-M930 using Tapatalk 2
 
A few of the local dealers have these sitting on their lots right now. Saw a black one I loved, and just yesterday at another dealer there was a yellow one sitting on the corner that looked pretty sweet. I was considering upgrading my mustang next year, until the wife decided we needed a new Suburban more and we got one last week.
 
cardaddy said:
Preaching to the choir here for SURE! :rolleyes:

The real problem is much deeper however than just offering a "turbo" here and there. In an effort to maintain CAFE standards manufacturers are offering smaller and smaller power plants, AND.... in an effort to try and keep the (American) motoring public buying said vehicles they are slapping a turbo on woefully anemic power plants. :rolleyes:

Back when my daughter was in high school she was given an loaner while here GTP was in the shop. That loaner was a SAAB 9.3 that was rated at 255HP (or might have been the one with 280), really didn't matter though. Problem is/was that unless you kept it revved up to redline it darned near couldn't get out of it's own way! Her car was a 3.9L V6 rated at 240HP and it'd stomp the living crap outta' that SLOB... er SAAB.

She got out the owners manual and it had inside, ever so proudly.... "Welcome to European driving!"

She was like: "So in Europe you have cars you HAVE to drive wide open, buy gas by the Liter, and they STILL won't get out of their own way." :laughing:

The underlying part that really gets me though is that you have smaller, under powered, over worked engines trying their very best to propel 3700 pound vehicles, huffing and puffing from the time you crank it up. Or in the case of pickups these days, lugging 4700 pound vehicles down the road knowing all the while that the power plant IS the weakest link in the grand scheme of things.

Imagine towing a 4000 pound travel trailer with the frontal area of an expressway billboard with a 3.7L turbo in your crew cab? :eek:

One of the oldest things known to man when it comes to engines and power (initially coined in drag racing); There is no substitute for cubic inches!:dblthumb2:

Yeah yeah... I know that a lighter, more powerful engine gives you better F/R weight distribution, but we're not talking about race cars here. Buyer in the last decade have been keeping vehicles longer than ever, that's well documented. Perhaps the auto manufacturers have caught on :dunno: and decided they'll start selling vehicles where the engines wear out long before the rust prevention does. Which of course forces you to get rid of that hunk-o-junk just after the 36,000 powertrain warranty expires. :laughing:

I'll take that 5.3L/5.7L 'Merican' V8 any day thank you. :props:
Click to expand...


I'm going to have to disagree with some points of your post. Displacement is an easy way to make reliable long term power, but displacement alone doesn't determine whether or not an engine is powerful, robust, or more efficient.

For example, let's take a step back to the 80s and 90s. The power output out of your average domestic V8 sports car (Fbodys or Fox Body Mustangs being a good example) was embarrassingly low. Crappy engineering with bad flowing heads and power sapping emissions equipment.

Today, a Kia Rio will smoke an old TBI 305 or 350 powered Firebird from the mid to late 90s and early 90s. Ditto for the Mustang.

"BUT THEY WERE 'MURIKA STRONG! "

Ever try to make 500hp for a long time on a stock 302 bottom end? They usually split down the lifter valley.

But a similar vintage four cylinder engine with only 122 cubic inches has been known to live extended periods of time making over 480hp on stock internals.

So displacement and more cylinders doesn't always equate to strength. Ask an old Ford guy if he needed a reliable engine to keep in his work truck, and give him a choice between a 302 and the 300 straight six, and see which one he picks.

As far as turbochargers, I do think that their added complexity makes for more expensive and frequent repairs as the vehicle gets older, so I am against that. But in terms of the current Mustang, I'm not against the 4 banger. I think it's pretty cool, and reminds me of the old SVOs (which were way better than the regular Foxes back then, IMO).
 
I'll be the goer against the grain and be smiling the whole time. A couple thousand into my car and I can beat out a GT in a straight line never mind the corners. And wait the snow came around no worries here gl with that stang.

To each his own it is a beautiful car. And I'm sure many will love them to death.
 
These last couple posts show that hot rodding is still alive and well, doesn't matter if its boosted 2.0L AWD sedans or 5.0L pony cars, Murica vs. Import, old vs. new, doesn't matter. "On demand" power is awesome, just cruzin' and you don't need all those cubes all the time, well, here's where the turbo shines:thumbup:

Sent from my SPH-M930 using Tapatalk 2
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top