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 02-05-2004, 01:22 AM   #61
asa67_stang
CF Enthusiast
 
asa67_stang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: the eighth circle of hell in Maryland
Posts: 240
actually, considering past performance, 300 is a damn good number
besides, this is the entry level V8 (and only for the first year)

tell me, how would you, in your infinite wisdom that surpasses all those engineers at Ford, get more power and have it behave nicely?

BTW - which 1.3L is this you speak of
__________________
I love going fast.... it's the crashing and burning that sucks

i wish i knew now what i will know in thirty years, that would be nice...

the 'net has warped my fragile little mind
asa67_stang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2004, 02:37 AM   #62
vwhobo
CF's Anal Orifice
 
vwhobo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Redneck Hell
Posts: 8,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying_Dane
as you have probably noticed i am not the biggest american car fan, and i say not bad, its better than the last one, maybe! BUT 300 horse power from a 4.6, i mean come on ford, you can surely do better than that, mazda can get 228 from a 1.3, and in these days which we are made to save petrol and the ozone...
I don't really care to start defending a Mustang, but... You can't directly compare these two engines as far as power versus displacement. Why? Because it's that good old apples and oranges thing again. First, you're comparing a rotary to a reciprocating engine. Second, the Mustang will run all day on the shittiest gasoline you can find where the RX-8 requires 95 octane (where do you buy that in the states?). Last but not least, while the Wankel puts out substantial horsepower for it's size, it is absolutely lacking in torque, which is what makes a car fun to drive on the street. The Mustang engine develops more torque at idle than the RX-8 does at it's torque peak. The Mustang's STARTER MOTOR puts out almost as much torque as the RX-8 engine.

So... The next time you want to compare something, make it a reasonable comparison. By the way, screw saving petrol and the ozone.
__________________
Thanks for the pic, jedimario.

"Everybody believes in something and everybody, by virtue of the fact that they believe in something, use that something to support their own existence."
Frank Vincent Zappa, 1940-1993

vwhobo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2004, 03:19 AM   #63
BavarianWheels
Supreme Demagogue
 
BavarianWheels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: So. Cal.
Posts: 3,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by vwhobo
By the way, screw saving petrol and the ozone.

Hear-here...
__________________

Bav's Favorite Track Vehicle
Posts Deleted for Use of Profanity = 2
BavarianWheels is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2004, 06:15 PM   #64
Flying_Dane
CF Newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by vwhobo
I don't really care to start defending a Mustang, but... You can't directly compare these two engines as far as power versus displacement. Why? Because it's that good old apples and oranges thing again. First, you're comparing a rotary to a reciprocating engine. Second, the Mustang will run all day on the shittiest gasoline you can find where the RX-8 requires 95 octane (where do you buy that in the states?). Last but not least, while the Wankel puts out substantial horsepower for it's size, it is absolutely lacking in torque, which is what makes a car fun to drive on the street. The Mustang engine develops more torque at idle than the RX-8 does at it's torque peak. The Mustang's STARTER MOTOR puts out almost as much torque as the RX-8 engine.

So... The next time you want to compare something, make it a reasonable comparison. By the way, screw saving petrol and the ozone.

true true, i didnt actually think of that when i posted, meh. but i still reckon that 300 horse power from a 4.6 is a bit shabby. you cant get 95 octane in the states?
Flying_Dane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2004, 06:18 PM   #65
asa67_stang
CF Enthusiast
 
asa67_stang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: the eighth circle of hell in Maryland
Posts: 240
randomly you might find 93, highest you'll most likely find is 91
and even that is iffy everywhere

300 for a 4.6L, do you remember what the highest HP level for the 5.0L was?

manufacturers normally lie about their stated HP, they have since they've started making vehicles, they always will
look at the potential of it
if 300 was the total possible HP ever, that would be crappy, that's just the number the factory deemed would be acceptable for the people buying it
__________________
I love going fast.... it's the crashing and burning that sucks

i wish i knew now what i will know in thirty years, that would be nice...

the 'net has warped my fragile little mind

Last edited by asa67_stang : 02-05-2004 at 06:21 PM.
asa67_stang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2004, 06:46 PM   #66
vwhobo
CF's Anal Orifice
 
vwhobo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Redneck Hell
Posts: 8,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying_Dane
true true, i didnt actually think of that when i posted, meh. but i still reckon that 300 horse power from a 4.6 is a bit shabby. you cant get 95 octane in the states?
Then it might be time to give you the posters mantra. Repeat after me;

THINK, TYPE, POST.
__________________
Thanks for the pic, jedimario.

"Everybody believes in something and everybody, by virtue of the fact that they believe in something, use that something to support their own existence."
Frank Vincent Zappa, 1940-1993

vwhobo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2004, 08:51 PM   #67
Flying_Dane
CF Newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 20
...i need to buy a brain...
Flying_Dane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2004, 09:04 PM   #68
Car Guy
CF Enthusiast
 
Car Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portland OR
Posts: 199
Cool

Ford is making a lot of their cars look like like they did in the 60's and 70's 1st it was the Thunderbird. I do like the 2005 Mustang the engine is very nice the only thing I dont like is how the rear looks on it. Also the 2003-04 Mach 1 is very impressive as well.

The Mach 1 has a 4.6L 32 Valve V8 Engine with 305hp


Also has anyone seen the new GT?



The GT has a DOHC, 4 valves per cylinder, supercharged V-8 with 500hp
Car Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2004, 10:54 PM   #69
Flying_Dane
CF Newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 20
yeah i like the GT, the mach1 is teh win too, but the mustang isnt really a car i would consider buying...
Flying_Dane 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 02:20 PM.

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