Discussion in 'Auto News' started by R1600Turbo, Apr 16, 2012.
Steering? Leans? You must drive some terribly awful cars. 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.
The 5.0 has been around since 1968. It just wasn't called the 5.0 until the 4.9L 300ci I6 came about and increased in popularity since that 6 cylinder had just about the same liter size as the 302 (it was 2 cubic inches smaller). It's the same thing from 1982 to 1996 (it was eventually phased out in 2001, and really they still make them in crate from the factory). That is when the name "5.0" became popular. Up until that point it was just called a 302. My friend has a 1975 King Cobra II Mustang that has the orginal 302 in it. From then it went fuel injected in the mid-'80s. Other than that and loss of horsepower(it had the most horsepower in 1969, rated at 315hp). Wikipedia is decent for background information and sums this up pretty nicely:
As I said, the 5.0 has been around since 1968 and is still produced today (by crate), despite being phased out for the 4.6 Modular in 2001. The same applies for the 351W (5.8L).
Yeah I know, I usually end up making a point that numbers that are put out are generally the same. Stock for stock, anyways.
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.)
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).
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.
That will never happen.
It was only an idea, but I'm sure Ford would likely refuse to drop the Mustang name.
I agree with R16. Dropping the Mustang name will never happen. The Mustang and Ford's trucks are what made Ford famous.
I think the Model T might have both of those beat out in terms of making Ford famous.
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).
That's more like it. That's kinda what I had in mind when I did my own crummy photoshop a few pages back.
That would look awesome.
Needs some more edges here and there to be honest, less sportscar-ish. Not bad though and still looks like some sort of Mustang.
That looks pretty good. I like it.
So did I.
I bet you do that a lot.
Those blue renders looks great. It still looks like a mustang.
That's workable. Make it look like an actual car and I think we've got a winner.
Maybe it will be something that will have to grow on me but I'm not feeling it.
I agree, what a horrible looking car. It manages, to my eyes, to look anonymous and ugly at the same time.
That is going to take some getting used to. I still don't like how fat the ass end is though. Not real big on it though.
This. Without looking like a tedious, stale, retro pastiche.
The blue renderings look great. I'll bet it would even look better with some Shelby badges and stickers on it.
If they toned it done slightly (not a whole lot), evened out the tailights and made them slightly skinnier with thicker front headlights, I think I'd be ok.
I'll be honest - I wasn't sure at all how long they could keep the retro thing going, and the blue render doesn't look half bad to me. Granted, Fords look good in blue. See av.
They're just renderings, chances are the production Mustang will looks a bit different. I'm just happy they are giving it IRS, a smaller overall shape and possible offering a turbocharged I4.
And red. Blue and Red Ford's are fantastic.
Chances are you are right.