View Single Post
Old 04-04-2010, 07:43 AM   #23 (permalink)
nemesis
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: stl
Posts: 139

rusty - '00 ford mustang coupe
90 day: 24.31 mpg (US)

cbr929 - '00 honda cbr929 fast
90 day: 39.54 mpg (US)

Porshe - '06 Kawasaki zx10r
90 day: 47.21 mpg (US)

truck - '96 ford ranger
90 day: 26.51 mpg (US)
Thanks: 5
Thanked 11 Times in 8 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allch Chcar View Post
The Mustang has it's faults. The SRA does hold it back. But the V6 engine has always been outdated. They've been using Iron block Vulcans in the Mustang since 94-96 and the Vulcan was old then. The all aluminum Modular V8 was top stuff for it's time but it topped out a couple years ago. The new motor while it does produce some HP is now sporting a higher HP number than Torque. Most Mustangs have been shipped with torque cams since the concept. If it wasn't for the still new "Muscle Wars" we might see a straight 4 in the new Mustang. An Eco boost would do wonders for the heavy weight and poor MPG. Sure 20's are nice but what about some 30's? The 80's Foxbodies that sold the most were heavier than the current Mustang and the biggest seller was the wimpy 4 cylinder Foxes.

I still don't like the Mustang lineup, I don't believe in this Muscle car stuff. I look at a car for it's merits not just it's HP and Torque. The Mustang's only merit is it's fast, it's RWD, and it's sporty. It's not very aerodynamic at .36 and while the Mustang has had a good OD tranny it's been a balancing act. I looked at getting an old Foxbody but gave up on it when there are much better cars to drive.
Where do you get your info? My 89 mustang with a 4cyl weighted 2800lbs with me in it, my 92 5.0L Lx weighted 3200lbs with me in it, yearly 80's mustangs were even lighter. Now I got this from google 2010 Mustang is in the 3380-3555-pound.
  Reply With Quote