Car Forums  

Go Back   Car Forums > Vehicle Specific > Domestic Cars
FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 07-25-2005, 11:12 PM   #61
72firebird
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 437
*and i said
72firebird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2005, 11:14 PM   #62
72firebird
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 437
and i called you a dick for a good reason. the first time wasnt a good reason it was a mistake on my part. and i changed it. but then you were being a dick so i called you a dick. you jumped at the chance and started talking shit even though you saw i edited it to something that wasnt negative at all. and without even asking or wondering what the reason was you verbaly attacked like a stooge
72firebird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2005, 11:15 PM   #63
car_crazy89
Part Time CFer
 
car_crazy89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,849
Hell, why not put a 351 back in there, displacement isnt everything but some people like to say a bigger nuber. Like what sounds better "i have a nice 1.6L in my car" OR "I have a big 5.0L or 6.6L...." lol, bigger isnt always better but to some it just sounds better.
__________________

"Noone dies a virgin, life screws us all"
car_crazy89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2005, 11:19 PM   #64
72firebird
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by car_crazy89
Hell, why not put a 351 back in there, displacement isnt everything but some people like to say a bigger nuber. Like what sounds better "i have a nice 1.6L in my car" OR "I have a big 5.0L or 6.6L...." lol, bigger isnt always better but to some it just sounds better.

the bigger number doesnt sound better, nor the extra displacement it was just a comment simply based on heritage and meaning. the 4.6 is a great engine and i like it better performance wise than the 5.0 i was just saying itd of been nice to see the 302 back in the mustang espicialy with the retro styling. in the 60s nothing was cooler than a 68 mustang with a 302. just the look and sound was un mistakable. like how manufactures have flagship cars. that was the flagship engine of ford in my opinion. they used it in everything
72firebird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2005, 11:21 PM   #65
car_crazy89
Part Time CFer
 
car_crazy89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,849
I know, i'm not saying thats why you'd want the 5.0 or 4.6, i know its more about heritage and not size. I mean some people would like to say a biggernumber even though it doesnt really mean anything, sorry i didnt explain too well (and dont know how to, so you can ignore my post).
__________________

"Noone dies a virgin, life screws us all"
car_crazy89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2005, 11:23 PM   #66
72firebird
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by car_crazy89
I know, i'm not saying thats why you'd want the 5.0 or 4.6, i know its more about heritage and not size. I mean some people would like to say a biggernumber even though it doesnt really mean anything, sorry i didnt explain too well (and dont know how to, so you can ignore my post).

lol its cool atleast your polite about it. and yea i get what you were saying i was just trying to make it clear where i was coming from as to not get attacked for something stupid like displacement isnt everything like some retard try to do
72firebird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2005, 11:26 PM   #67
72firebird
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 437
and if i were going for displacement i would have said something like "ooo they should have put the 460 or 427-429 cj or scj in the new mustang" which would be nice to see as well but is pretty unrealistic for the mustang
72firebird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2005, 11:45 PM   #68
car_crazy89
Part Time CFer
 
car_crazy89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,849
I myself love bigger displacement engines, even if it doesnt mean there all that fast or better then other smaller engines. Like if its an older car i of course prefer some sort of V8 no matter the size (older as in 25+ years) but thats just me, dont even have a reason why.
__________________

"Noone dies a virgin, life screws us all"
car_crazy89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2005, 03:59 AM   #69
Pythias
CF Extraordinaire
 
Pythias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ohio, U.S.
Posts: 1,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by 72firebird
lol its cool atleast your polite about it. and yea i get what you were saying i was just trying to make it clear where i was coming from as to not get attacked for something stupid like displacement isnt everything like some retard try to do

First off, shut the hell up or act your age, pick one of the two. Second of all you were the one who jumped the gun and called him a dick, so he has EVERY right to call you out on it, to em and most likely everyone else including him I'm sure that looked VERY much like you trying to cover your own mistakes. You should have simply apologized and that been taht, but no you have to be a stubborn hard-ass in some pathetic attempt to prove you are justified in what you are saying, even if your being a dick. As I said either act your age or just shut the hell up, because I'm sure none would miss you.

BTW you didn't clear diddly squat up except that your a dick.
Pythias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2005, 04:25 PM   #70
72firebird
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pythias
First off, shut the hell up or act your age, pick one of the two. Second of all you were the one who jumped the gun and called him a dick, so he has EVERY right to call you out on it, to em and most likely everyone else including him I'm sure that looked VERY much like you trying to cover your own mistakes. You should have simply apologized and that been taht, but no you have to be a stubborn hard-ass in some pathetic attempt to prove you are justified in what you are saying, even if your being a dick. As I said either act your age or just shut the hell up, because I'm sure none would miss you.

BTW you didn't clear diddly squat up except that your a dick.

ill act my age when you and him stop being pussies
72firebird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2005, 04:31 PM   #71
thunderbird1100
CF dB-o-holic
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: LSU Campus
Posts: 3,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
It IS competetive for the market. How many other RWD, 200+ hp V6 coupes are there under 20k?

it's supposed to be about that for hp, so that the car can remain an insurance bargain. But just becaeu it was released at 210 hp (about 5 hp down from teh Fox chassis Mustang GT, BTW) doesn't mean that that's all that can be easily had out of it. That would be like saying that '80s Fox Mustangs are only going to be slow POS because the stock ones only had 225 hp...

The V6 Mustang is about the only 6 cyl RWD coupe on the market, and the only one in anything close to it's price range it doesn't HAVE to be fast, as the GT is supposed to be the fast one. And unless you've driven the new one, understanding it's place in the market, I'd say you need to reserve comments.

I dont consider it competitive. Sorry. Why even bother using the 87-93 Fox chassis V8 Mustang in this argument (Plus it being over a 15 year old car...). Everyone knows it does low-mid 14s in the 1/4 mile quite easily. The new V6 4.0L stang still does it in the painstakingly slow mid 15 second range (I actually saw a 5spd convertible at the track go low 16s three times in one night...). There are 200+ - hp coupes on the market that could spank the new Mustang... Only thing they arent is RWD, rather FWD (but who gives a hoot when those FWD's spank it in every performance test). But still in the magical $20k mark. Matter fact Honda's new Civic Si coupe for '06 will sport 200hp (from an engine literally HALF the size of the 4.0L Ford), an LSD and 6spd tranny. A little person on my shoulder is telling me it will probably run circles around the new 4.0L stang and cost just as much (being under $20k). Why improve the GT 40hp but the V6 only 20hp... just seems silly. Next generation we'll see the GT improved to 350hp and the V6 to 235hp with this trend... I know a lot of people who wont buy V6 models because they're just a little TOO slow stock but they cant up the $ for a GT... lost buyers. They'd most certianly buy it given it had a few more ponies and was more competitive.
__________________
1990 Honda Accord LX Sedan
Mileage Ticker: 232,400 Miles
Stereo Mods: Coming soon...

~Blow your mind~

thunderbird1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2005, 04:34 PM   #72
thunderbird1100
CF dB-o-holic
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: LSU Campus
Posts: 3,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlipKnoT
I dont think Ford would want to start putting import engines into their sports car. They really only do those things with their economy cars like the Escort, and Contour. Putting an engine from Mazda in their Mustang V6 would be like commiting suicide on their part. What Ford SHOULD do is make that 4.0 V6 a 24v.

I wouldnt mind Ford putting 4v heads on the 4.0L. But then again how much power will really come out of it. The Taurus 3.0L DOHC 24v has only 200hp... While the SOHC 24v 3.0L from Honda is making 240hp. Just seems so much easier to ask for some help from the Asian guys for a good strong motor.
__________________
1990 Honda Accord LX Sedan
Mileage Ticker: 232,400 Miles
Stereo Mods: Coming soon...

~Blow your mind~

thunderbird1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2005, 07:34 PM   #73
ChrisV
The Big Meaney
 
ChrisV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 3,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by thunderbird1100
I wouldnt mind Ford putting 4v heads on the 4.0L. But then again how much power will really come out of it. The Taurus 3.0L DOHC 24v has only 200hp... While the SOHC 24v 3.0L from Honda is making 240hp. Just seems so much easier to ask for some help from the Asian guys for a good strong motor.


Umm, the Ford 2.5 liter 24 valve Duratech the Taurus engine is based on made 200 hp in my SVT Contour in stock form. The 200 hp (but more torque) from the 3 liter taurus engine isn't even CLOSE to tapped out. SVT Countour owners are getting 260-300 daily driver hp just using the SVT 2.5 liter parts on the Taurus 3.0 block. Even the same 3 liter Duratech in the Lincoln LS/Jag S type was making 230+ hp in smooth, non performance use. Ford just apparently saw no real need to make more hp from the Taurus version for the "primarily" rental/fleet market that car served.
__________________
I'm not mean. You're just a wuss.



www.midatlantic7s.com
ChrisV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2005, 07:45 PM   #74
ChrisV
The Big Meaney
 
ChrisV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 3,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by thunderbird1100
I dont consider it competitive. Sorry.

So, what in it's price range is a better RWD coupe with similar insurance?


Quote:
Why even bother using the 87-93 Fox chassis V8 Mustang in this argument (Plus it being over a 15 year old car...).

Becaeu of POTENTIAL. the v6 has as much potential than the Fox had (considering it's starting out with a better chassis and similar power)

If one is good, the other can't be bad. THAT'S why it gets brought up.


Quote:
The new V6 4.0L stang still does it in the painstakingly slow mid 15 second range (I actually saw a 5spd convertible at the track go low 16s three times in one night...).

gee, you saw the heavier convertible go slowly? Who'da thunk it?

Painstakingly slow? And yet we can drive around and have huge amounts of fun in a stock RX7 GTU which does the quarter mile in exactly the same time! So how is one a fun sports coupe, and the other "painstakingly slow?" I don't give a flying F*CK what year one or the other is. Fun is fun,and if the same speed is fun in one, it can't be painfully slow in another! What part of that flies right the f*ck over your head????

On top of that, 99% of the driving publick does't do a f8cking drag race launch from every light. if I'm at the front of a line of cars at a light, even in my godawful slow hyundai Accent I can leave them in the dust with part throttle. EVERY time. As much fun as a huge hp level is, on teh street MOST people simply don't need and won't use it! I've driven the V6 and V8 '05 Mustangs. the V6 is more than adequate for everything but racetrack use, at a much lower price and insurance cost.

How many have YOU driven?

And yes, even the V6 can outhandle most FWD sport coupes and any in it's price range (so long as the tires are inflated properly. I will admit that as delivered, the tires are underinflated for better ride). Ford did an outstanding job of engineering the new chassis.
__________________
I'm not mean. You're just a wuss.



www.midatlantic7s.com
ChrisV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2005, 08:29 PM   #75
thunderbird1100
CF dB-o-holic
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: LSU Campus
Posts: 3,260
Struck the main nerve I see. You're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine. You can back yours up as well as I can back mine up. I drove the 05 V6 stang. It was NOT fun. My 1990 Accord is just as fun to drive as it was.

After you said it's the only RWD V6 coupe on the market in one post THEN say tell you another one that beats it that's RWD coupe in the next post is quite asinine. Also, saying it outhandles "most FWD sport coupes" Is another broad saying that probably isnt really that true. According to most places the COUPE GT holds a mid .8g on average between a 200ft/300ft skidpad and around 65-67mph pending whether it's a 600ft or 700ft slalom. Then a V6 coupe stang probably holds around a .8g-.82g and does a 600ft slalom around 62.5-63mph. That's absolutely nothing to write home about handling wise for a RWD sports car. To put that into perspective the SRT-4 holds .9g on a 300ft skidpad while slaloming at close to 67mph on a 600ft slalom. And this is a turbo four door FWD neon. The new Civic Si coupe is rumored to be pulling .9g too with a similar slalom. Not even going to go into the Evolution RS vs. The GT in handling... As the GT cant even come close to touching it in handling nor 1/4 mile.

Some average numbers for FWD sport coupes/hatches (in the $20,000 category)... skidpad - 300ft, slalom - 600ft.

Mazda 3s -
Skidpad ~.9g
Slalom ~ 65mph

Mini Cooper S -
Skidpad ~ .85g
Slalom ~ 66.5mph

Scion tC -
Skidpad ~ .84g
Slalom ~ 62mph

Ford Focus SVT -
Skidpad ~ .87g
Slalom ~ 65.5mph

Toyota Celica GTS -
Skidpad ~ .88g
Slalom ~ 66mph

Honda Civic Si HFP -
Skidpad ~ .88g
Slalom ~ 66.5mph

This is not including cars like the Lancer Ralliart, Sentra SE-R Spec-V, SRT-4 and Mazdaspeed Protege (all in this category but not two door/hatch). As you can ssee numbers speak for themselves. The V6 Mustang doesnt outhandle any FWD sport two door/hatch on the market other than MAYBE the Scion tC...but it's close (not to mention the tC stickers at only $16,500; while most of these sticker close to $20k). You give the tC the factory option of the 18"/19" wheels with meatier tires and I'd go to bet it outhandles the V6 stang for sure. Most of those numbers above bests even the GT in handling.
__________________
1990 Honda Accord LX Sedan
Mileage Ticker: 232,400 Miles
Stereo Mods: Coming soon...

~Blow your mind~

thunderbird1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:26 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2002 - 2011 Car Forums. All rights reserved.