04-04-2010, 08:37 AM
|
#21 (permalink)
|
EcoModding Apprentice
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: stl
Posts: 139
Thanks: 5
Thanked 11 Times in 8 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrews
tjts,
Got to drive a 04-05 (not sure) Mach 1. It had the shaker hood scope and GT-40 heads AND an IRS. Man what a very sweet ride. Amanzing difference with the IRS.
|
They didn't make mach 1 in 05, only 03-04 ( besides the 60's models), they also didn't have gt40 heads and they were never equipped with an irs. I don't know what you drove, maybe an 04 body with mid 90's 5.0 with gt40 heads, and somebody swapped irs from an 03-04 cobra?? Have you driven a mustang with irs? They're not that great, wheel hop is awesome though.
|
|
|
Today
|
|
|
Other popular topics in this forum...
|
|
|
04-04-2010, 08:40 AM
|
#22 (permalink)
|
EcoModding Apprentice
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Posts: 201
Thanks: 54
Thanked 30 Times in 18 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevyn
The problem/reason I think, that they haven't/don't do that, is because American muscle cars are about pure, unadulterated power from a naturally aspirated engine.
While saying "I have a Mustang with the 3.5L EcoBoost engine" doesn't sound bad, saying "I have a twin-turboed Mustang" makes you sound like a dork; as far as general consensus goes.
I'm not saying it hasn't been done; I'm merely speculating that Ford is trying to cater to the "purists" by keeping the turbos out of the Mustang.
|
You may have a point -- although they're simply wrong. In muscle cars, more power = better, because the trophy for second place is downstairs, in the ladies' room.
|
|
|
04-04-2010, 08:43 AM
|
#23 (permalink)
|
EcoModding Apprentice
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: stl
Posts: 139
Thanks: 5
Thanked 11 Times in 8 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allch Chcar
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 But the V6 engine has always been outdated.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.
|
|
|
04-04-2010, 10:47 AM
|
#24 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toledo, OH
Posts: 500
Thanks: 6
Thanked 34 Times in 27 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nemesis
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.
|
Right, I see a lot of misinformation in this thread. Foxbodies were some of the lightest mustangs made.
Also, a twin turbo mustang dorky? Go to a drag strip on a big event. Most of your fastest race cars are boosted these days.
It also wouldnt be the first time a factory turbo mustang was offered. Most noteworthy the 84-86 SVO, 83-84 GT Turbo and GT350, and the earlier carb turbos. They sure arent dorky these days as the 2.3's perform just as well as the V8's and are bigtime collector cars.
__________________
'05 Outback XT, 19 mpg
BP-turbo 93 Festiva (long gone)
1/4 mile - 12.50@111.5
Best MPG - 36.8
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to bhazard For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-04-2010, 03:06 PM
|
#25 (permalink)
|
Moderate your Moderation.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Troy, Pa.
Posts: 8,919
Pasta - '96 Volkswagen Passat TDi 90 day: 45.22 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,369
Thanked 430 Times in 353 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhazard
Right, I see a lot of misinformation in this thread. Foxbodies were some of the lightest mustangs made.
Also, a twin turbo mustang dorky? Go to a drag strip on a big event. Most of your fastest race cars are boosted these days.
It also wouldnt be the first time a factory turbo mustang was offered. Most noteworthy the 84-86 SVO, 83-84 GT Turbo and GT350, and the earlier carb turbos. They sure arent dorky these days as the 2.3's perform just as well as the V8's and are bigtime collector cars.
|
Seems to me that one of the most popular upgrades for a Fox is the 2.3 turbo coupe motor and a T tranny, beyond that, upgrades to the turbo/intercooler, clutch upgrades, and R/P changes.
__________________
"¿ʞɐǝɹɟ ɐ ǝɹ,noʎ uǝɥʍ 'ʇı ʇ,usı 'ʎlǝuol s,ʇı"
|
|
|
|