|
||||||
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Apr 25 2012, 11:50 AM
#181
homeforsummer
Bacon-Lettuce-Tomato #11
|
|
|
|
The steering doesn't "lean". Torque steer is pulling steering off-line. And that's not FWD. That's unequal length drive-shafts.AWD is only a solution when going off-road. Otherwise, it's a heavy, useless expense. AWD's only practical advantage over FWD is weight balance... weight balance that you can fix by moving the engine in a FWD back behind the front axle. Otherwise, they act just the same in slippery conditions on tarmac... front tires pull you straight when you're going sideways. AWD versus RWD is more complex. AWD is more stable under acceleration... but RWD has the benefits of being lighter, which makes for better handling and braking, even in slippery conditions. For most consumers, they can get 90% of the benefits of AWD (except for off-road ability) from a RWD car with stability control and an LSD. They can get 95% of the benefits of AWD with a FWD car with an LSD. For the Mustang, AWD would be a bridge too far. How are you going to package it without making the Mustang a porker... or as expensive as... say... a Nissan GT-R? You will sooner see an independent rear suspension on a Mustang than AWD. |
||
|
I was in reference originally to the 5.0L V8 that was offered from 1982 to 1996. The Coyote we currently have is a fantastic design, I don't think any of us will question that here. However, this came out of a decade or so long funk at Ford where they weren't able to do much with their V8 program whatsoever. GM walked all over both Ford and Chrysler for the better part of a decade before each of them decided to get serious about building a proper V8.
That's stepping around the actual issue, however. Wind the clock back to 1994 and compare a Mustang GT to a Camaro Z/28 and you've got a pretty clear picture of what was wrong. Ford had a great-looking car, but it didn't have all the performance to back it up. With the '96 updates, it was much the same story. It wasn't until '03, after the Camaro was dead and gone, that Ford managed to get the mix right. Personal preferences aside, the technical aspects and actual numbers put Ford and GM about dead even. Even as "The GM Guy," I'm happy to say that I'd be more than content with a wide variety of Ford and Chrysler products today, a stark contrast to the very personal feelings my father and grandfather have about each brand. |
|
New York |
Yeah I know, I usually end up making a point that numbers that are put out are generally the same. Stock for stock, anyways. |
||
Hilversum |
300Ci inline 6? That must produce quite some torque. Me likes the sound of that.
(We rarely see inline 6 engines here in the Netherlands in US cars.) |
New York |
It was rated at about the same power as the 302. It was one of the biggest I6's ever built. Depending on the year, torque was anywhere from 260 to 375 ft-lbs (generally 260), power was a bit less, 114-240hp (170hp was the norm). My truck used to have 1. Indestructable lol. They stopped building them in the mid '90s. If you build them, they will easily hold 700+ hp.
The Aussie version made up to 416hp and 417ft-lb with the DOHC version. Heres a pic of that 4.9L (the first is a 170ci, the 300 was just built up from that). ![]()
Last edited by Slashfan; Apr 28 2012 at 1:41 PM.
|
Maine |
Apr 30 2012, 6:53 PM
#187
MedigoFlame
Luxury of 1971
Rather late to this, but here's a small opinion on the new styling. I feel as though yes there are some who love the retro styling, the new generation is moving forward. Personally I find that the new styling is a good idea, but using the Mustang name isn't. With this talk about retro styling and moving forward, I feel as though a better way to solve this would be to drop the name. (Not sure if this was already stated) Dropping the name itself will help the manufactures move forward and not have to deal with concerns about the history of the name.
This gave a bit more insight into the topic. |
Arizona |
Apr 30 2012, 6:54 PM
#188
R1600Turbo
Austin: T-Minus 1 day!
|
|
Maine |
Apr 30 2012, 6:58 PM
#189
MedigoFlame
Luxury of 1971
|
New York |
|
Caledonia, MI |
|
New York |
Well that and the assembly line. But other than that...
Seriously. Walk up to a kid and ask them if they know what a Mustang is. They will more than likely know what it is or know that it's a cool car (at least around here). |
NEW YORK |
*RENDERING*
|
|
|
May 08 2012, 11:23 AM
#194
homeforsummer
Bacon-Lettuce-Tomato #11
That's more like it. That's kinda what I had in mind when I did my own crummy photoshop a few pages back.
|
|
Canton, MI |
May 08 2012, 11:41 AM
#196
Rotary Junkie
Diamond Member
Online Now!
I gagged.
|
Bonn, Germany |
Needs some more edges here and there to be honest, less sportscar-ish. Not bad though and still looks like some sort of Mustang.
|
Bay Area, CA |
That looks pretty good. I like it.
|
|
May 08 2012, 1:17 PM
#199
Blackbird.
W1KED50
|
||
| Thread Tools | |