Re: Is Ford Running on Empty?

Page 2 of 2  
Whitelightning wrote:


Next to women, this is the next best thing
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I think you better just give up this whole line of reasoning.
I'll take 400 net horsepower over a 426 any day. Even if the superior performance of new Chryslers is all tires, I'll take it just because of the tires too. And the gas mileage, and the build quality, and the electrical system, and the air conditioning, and the body stiffness, and the handling, and the durability, and the emissions, and the seats, and the radio. Can't think of a thing about the old Hemis that was actually better. I never even liked the styling.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How about this? A new hemi Charger is worth what, about $35-$40K? A '60s vintage Mopar in decent shape with a hemi is worth well over $100k.
Eisboch
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Those of us old enough to remember such stuff recall:
The 426 hemi was built to compete against the Ford and Chevy 427 engines in stock car races of the mid-60s. In order to qualify as a "stock" engine, a minimum of 500 had to be produced and installed in cars available to the public at dealerships. At the time, the Fed limited stock engine horsepower ratings to 425 hp, thus the 425 hp rating of the 426 hemi.
The problem was (or not really a problem) that many people that bought the original hemi from a dealership and put the car on a dyno were surprised and delighted that they actually produced as much as 550 hp as delivered. It also didn't take a lot of money or mods to tune these beasts up to around 600 hp.
BTW .... regarding the weight questions on the new Charger versus the old .... I have a '69 Charger R/T (440 not 426). Weight is 3,636 lbs.
Eisboch
www.eisboch.com/glforsale
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Those things drove poorly, though, you have to admit if you've had the pleasure. 80/20 weight distribution isn't going to be the hot ticket, and they've all bit the dust. The Seville is still around, back to rear drive. I had a couple of Toronado daily drivers for years. Nice car, but drove like a pig.
I agree with the general direction of lymee's post - GM makes too many jellybean-type rental cars. Bad for their image, at least in my mind. Ford makes a lot of them too, to be fair. When the big 3 bought their rental car companies back years ago, I guess you could say there was an image cost to that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 23:30:44 -0400, Joe rearranged some electrons to form:

Ford no longer owns Hertz, but they are providing these:
http://www.caranddriver.com/autoshows/10870/2007-ford-mustang-gt-h-hertz-racer.html
I was in Boston this week, and Hertz had FOUR of them on their lot. I would have rented one, except they wanted $200/day, and I would have had trouble justifying that on my expense report. :-(
--
David M (dmacchiarolo)
http://home.triad.rr.com/redsled
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Imports sell to rental car companies too, they are just not as successful at getting many fleets to buy their vehicles. The Korean do a better job of doing that. The Koreans have a larger share of the fleet courier cars business than the domestics, Europeans or the Japs. ;)
mike hunt

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
What chages are they planning for the mustang?
The mustang GT is a well done piece. Best bang for your buck for sure, if you are looking for good styling, good power, and a good daily drive. I don't know why you would look any further, even if the camaro was still around, it's styling looked like a riced out firebird from 1993, and didn't even perform overly impressively. It would probally still be overpriced even if it was there to compete...
lymee wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 22:27:29 +0000, Picasso wrote:

I don't know. I read somewhere that every body panel is being reworked along with a new V6 motor. Might just be rumour. Might be too many beers while surfing the net :)
Anyone??
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Todays Mustang GT has the 4.6V8 is a better engine than the 302, 300 HP and 345 FP of torque. The limited production Cobra has the engine from the Ford GT with a supercharger and 500 HP and 445 FP of torque from what I've heard. The MSRP for the coupe is 40K, 45K for the convertible but dealers are getting 5K to 10K over MSRP. Every Ford dealer gets one, Presidents Award dealers get two.
mike hunt

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Few. I have a 2007 GT Convertible on order. After two reds a black and another red since '99, I picked a new color, 'Alloy' as dark metallic grey, and added the hood scope. I should have it in two weeks.
mike hunt

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.