@CanadaCraig: My reference point is the original Viper. Remember 1992, when 400 horsepower was the wildest thing anyone could imagine? Sure, there was the F40, the Countach, the 959, the Aston Martin Zagato, Cobras, the ZL1 Corvette and all of the classic muscle (overrated with SAE gross, underrated for insurance.) But the Viper is the first I remember as the baddest thing around, the one that made it stick.
Anyone doubting the Mustang could "run even" with an M3 on a road course needs to tune in to a Koni Challenge Series race for a strong dose of reality. The Mustangs are saddled with intake restrictors yet still manage to take the M3's lunch money with annoying regularity.
@bradleysoken: You can always have it bored out to a 5.0 along with the usual mods to keep it competitive. Or there's always the turbo/supercharger route, tho you can't get much past 400HP without beefing up your engine's guts.
Allright, I admit that I often miss the point around here, but...
Why not an ecoboost 4 (or 5), at say...275 HP, that has all the handling goodies and the 6 speed, but is several hundred lbs lighter?
Slap it together, and undercut the 4-cyl genesis. You'd steal sales from all kinds of competitors, and probably broaden the mustang's appeal into new markets.
@Feds: From a technical standpoint it might make sense but from an marketing and purely emotional standpoint I just can't see Americans going for a 4-cyl Mustang or Camaro. The sound/feel would just seem wrong. Aside from the cool Mustang SVO (which never really took off), the 4cyl pony cars from the 80s are generally regarded as sort of an inside joke.
First thought was that a 400HP GT is getting dangerously close to making the GT500 superfluous... unless you want to light 'em up in any gear, 400 ponies should suffice for a hooning good time.
Then they upped the ante by throwing down the aluminum block for the Shelby, that ought to help its road manners... but will it be enough to justify the premium? It certainly can't hurt.
As for the GT v. M3 comparo: Unnecessary, price points win the battle between these two at the showroom far more often than skewed head-to-head track results.
i'm calling shennanigans. while these numbers seem reasonable and are (based on everything everyone else in the world has said) likely to be close to correct, i have a hard time trusting forum "sources", particularly those from brad barnett's website. also, where is the 365 hp number for the RWD ecoboost coming from? i thought the rumors of the ecoboost RWD F-150 were pegging it around 390-400 hp. that doesn't make the engine make any more sense as a business case, but it makes this insider sound a bit like a kid making stuff up. the track time info was reported by car and driver, so that isn't any "insider" info either.
still, i'm waiting for those 300+ hp V6's to hit rental lots. "hell yes i'd like the insurance."
@Turbineguy: i know it comes from the SHO, that's why it seems contrived to me. the SHO uses a different engine layout and different transmission since it powers the front wheels (unless they slip, then the rears can be engaged, blah blah blah). all the rumors and "insider" info about the ecoboost f-150 (which has a drivetrain layout very much like a mustang) have put power at or near 400 hp. it just makes more sense that the numbers for an ecoboosted mustang would be closer to those of an ecoboosted f-150, rather than the exact same as in the SHO, which has very different drivetrain limitations. Plus, the sales pitch to the ecoboost is same power as a V-8 with better mileage. the rumored new f-150 will apparently have a V-8 with power numbers very close to the ecoboost 6, yet the 6 will be offered as a premium engine since it achieves significantly better mileage. couldn't they do the same with the mustang?
it's not beyond ford to cancel a product for no good reason, but that rationale just doesn't make sense to me. in the end i just don't trust "sources" from most forums, especially when their information isn't new.
Cue the "purists" who will now complain about how any car in 2011 can still have a live axle. By all accounts, Ford has made the solid axle work pretty well on the Mustang, and the 2011 engine improvements only help seal the deal on the car. I remember an article by the late LJK Setright where he described the engineering philosophies of different car-producing countries. The US, according to him, comes up with solutions that may seem a little simple or even primitive at first glance, but often end up working as well or better than the more sophisticated counterparts from elsewhere.
As for "lack of panache", that's an elusive quality, isn't it? Could the lighter weight, nicer interior, and the ability to actually see out of the car (and easily set your elbow on the doorsill) as opposed to the GM and Mopar counterparts be more than enough non-ephemeral compensation?
@tonyola: Agreed, the Live Axle works, is predictable and reliable. It has been used for so long that it is now part of what makes the Mustang a Mustang. Much like the leaf springs in a corvette.
Seems that if they went independent you would just have another Camaro/challenger to drive....
Direct injection and variable valves are long overdue however.
"No immediate plans for EcoBoost V6 Mustang due to small horsepower gap between EcoBoost and 5.0L V8 (365 vs 400)"
How long are they going to keep continuing this argument? Jeez! Enough already! Of course there was no RS here (apart from the price reasons blah blah) because it's too close in performance to a mustang. God forbid we get any good things!
If you really think the gap is close then make the damn gap bigger. By improving the Mustang. Not by fucking choking other options or products.
@Formerlythegreatestdriver: You apparently never heard the mantra, beaten by Ford into every greenhorn clay model that ever sees the light of production:
"Thou shalt not be faster than the fastest Mustang".
(How the GT ever made it through, is one of life's great mysteries)
@Goingincirclez: Why can't they make into 3 trim levels? Like one with a base V6, an Ecoboost V6 (GT), a V8 (the GT-R), a blown V8 (GT-RS) or something? A la Subaru Impreza: Base, WRX, STi.
@Formerlythegreatestdriver: Oops, I meant "Ford GT" (the supercar) above. But yeah, I agree with you on a more comprehensive overall lineup, because "Flavor of the Month" special editions don't count. And to that end, I rather like what you came up with there. Except I would throw in an "LX" sleeper package somewhere.
So are we getting even more mustang "special editions" after the boss like maybe the HOSS, a V6 with the "snack pack", bigger cupholders, anti skid twinkie holder on the dash, and a tilt away wheel like on old an thunderbird for easier entry?
This would go well for the sweatpants wearing, barrel butt white trash I see ruining mustangs all to often.
@royeraf3: Compared to the uptight Porsche pilots I see in next-door Westport CT? You know, those oh-so-trendy folks that only dress out of the J Crew catalog wearing bermuda shorts with leather loafers sans socks? Maybe a different socioeconomic layer, but just as ridiculous IMO...
@Turbineguy: yeah just like them, nothing like someone buying a carbon fiber whatever for their non trackable porsche and then adding a 200 pound gembala like body kit to improve its "performance".
Yes I am a porsche owner and yes I have modified my cars I bought rubber floormats for my driver, and ripped the inards from my 944 track car, and I like Levis and shirts from Kohls. I meant no offense to mustang owners just those who I should see on cops.
@royeraf3: I always love seeing people play with stereotypes without getting mean and accusatory. If there weren't any truth behind the generalizations, they wouldn't exist. I drive a stang AND I wear leather loafers sans socks. No shorts though; short pants are for kids.
eggwich is the man on the silver mountain promoted this comment
Tiberiuswise is all ate up with sarcasm was starred
Tiberiuswise is all ate up with sarcasm was unstarred
@Tiberiuswise: That song could've been written yesterday or in 1525. Timeless.
And as funny as it sounds, there probably is a market for the Snack Pack, though they probably need to leave it to the aftermarket, as the taunting and mockery would be extreme. A paper towel dispenser would be nice, too.
I'm a wheel, I'm a wheel
I can roll, I can feel
And you can't stop me turning!
09/03/09
ONLY 400 HP
Just how spoiled rotten have 'we' become?
09/03/09
09/03/09
09/03/09
REALLY??? I am expecting a new special edition next week.
09/03/09
Which one, you ask?
All of them, I answer.
09/03/09
09/03/09
09/03/09
Unless all you're going for is bragging rights and that silly HP/L stuff.
09/03/09
Why not an ecoboost 4 (or 5), at say...275 HP, that has all the handling goodies and the 6 speed, but is several hundred lbs lighter?
Slap it together, and undercut the 4-cyl genesis. You'd steal sales from all kinds of competitors, and probably broaden the mustang's appeal into new markets.
09/03/09
09/03/09
09/03/09
Then they upped the ante by throwing down the aluminum block for the Shelby, that ought to help its road manners... but will it be enough to justify the premium? It certainly can't hurt.
As for the GT v. M3 comparo: Unnecessary, price points win the battle between these two at the showroom far more often than skewed head-to-head track results.
09/03/09
09/03/09
09/03/09
Please don't feed the troll!
09/03/09
still, i'm waiting for those 300+ hp V6's to hit rental lots. "hell yes i'd like the insurance."
09/03/09
09/03/09
it's not beyond ford to cancel a product for no good reason, but that rationale just doesn't make sense to me. in the end i just don't trust "sources" from most forums, especially when their information isn't new.
09/03/09
As for "lack of panache", that's an elusive quality, isn't it? Could the lighter weight, nicer interior, and the ability to actually see out of the car (and easily set your elbow on the doorsill) as opposed to the GM and Mopar counterparts be more than enough non-ephemeral compensation?
09/03/09
Seems that if they went independent you would just have another Camaro/challenger to drive....
Direct injection and variable valves are long overdue however.
09/03/09
09/03/09
09/03/09
How long are they going to keep continuing this argument? Jeez! Enough already! Of course there was no RS here (apart from the price reasons blah blah) because it's too close in performance to a mustang. God forbid we get any good things!
If you really think the gap is close then make the damn gap bigger. By improving the Mustang. Not by fucking choking other options or products.
09/03/09
"Thou shalt not be faster than the fastest Mustang".
(How the GT ever made it through, is one of life's great mysteries)
09/03/09
09/03/09
09/03/09
This would go well for the sweatpants wearing, barrel butt white trash I see ruining mustangs all to often.
09/03/09
09/03/09
Yes I am a porsche owner and yes I have modified my cars I bought rubber floormats for my driver, and ripped the inards from my 944 track car, and I like Levis and shirts from Kohls. I meant no offense to mustang owners just those who I should see on cops.
09/03/09
"Snack Pack"=awesome.
09/03/09
a) RJD approves of your man on the Silver Mountain.
b) Snack pack must accomodate Super Big Gulp.
09/03/09
@Tiberiuswise: That song could've been written yesterday or in 1525. Timeless.
And as funny as it sounds, there probably is a market for the Snack Pack, though they probably need to leave it to the aftermarket, as the taunting and mockery would be extreme. A paper towel dispenser would be nice, too.
I'm a wheel, I'm a wheel
I can roll, I can feel
And you can't stop me turning!
09/03/09
But let's be honest, no damn "track pack" Mustang GT kept up with a M3 around any kind of track. At least, both drivers being equal it would not.
09/03/09
09/03/09
@stoke has a JDM front wing:
Yes... if not, there's a multitude of places where you can order them, so either way you're covered.