Is Ford Running on Empty?

Apples to oranges. How about a Barracuda with an old hemi? ;)

mike hunt

Compare the torque ;)

mike hunt

Thanks for proving my point, about the importance of torque to HP! A 2007 GT is only running a 1,900 RPMs at 70 MPH. 2,200 at 80 MPH The Toyota needs to be at nearly 3000 RPMs to attain 70 MPH At 3,000 the Mustang would be doing 105.

My 2007 will be in by early August, bring your title and your Toyota. I could use a car for one of my grand daughters ;)

mike hunt

I had a 68 Barracuda Formula S wiht a 383 in it. DAMNED fast car,, in fact, so fast that it scared me (at age 21) so bad I was afraid to let off on the accellerator. Problem was the front end only hit the ground every couple of hundred feet above 130 MPH. Thank heavens there weren't many Michigan State Police on the Seeney Stretch in the UP back then LOL

BTW, that WAS the fastest car in the UP till some SUMBITCH brough a hemicuda across the bridge LOL

Fun but not as much fun as my Mustang :)

Same difference. The Dodge has about 75 more torque and it still isn't enough because of the extreme weight. I was really surprised to see that it weighed so much. That is a little more than the weight of the huge Chevy Impalas from the early 70's.

Mike,

I don't know why you think it's apples to oranges.

Anyways, the old hemi 'Cudas were heavy cars -- 3800+ pounds. (The '68-'70 Chargers were lighter, if only by a bit.) So they had about the same amount of body mass to move as the new Hemi does.

Patrick

I can only assume you never owned one of those car if that is what you believe LOL

mike hunt

Obviously he never drove one. There is a hell of a difference between 350 cid, and 426 cid.

Ahh those were the days,Chrysler's 426 hemi's, Ford's 429 cobra jet ala 1970 Torino, and Chevy's '63 409 cid, and the later 427 cid engines, and last but not least, the '70 Buick StageI with the 455 cid, 510 ft pounds of torque, at 2,600 rpm.

Whitelightning

LMAO, Where are you getting the shit? IN WHICH GEAR??? The only way the

2007 V-6 Camry spins 3000 RPM at 70 miles per hour is if you leave it in 3rd and don't use the top two gears. The last (190 HP) Toyota I drove idled along at 75 MPH in overdrive at 1800 RPM...

LOL Ah, you are confusing torque curves with gear ratios, you better check your math... Speed is a result of crank RPM and transmission/final gear ratio, not the engines torque curve. Torque may effect how quickly you get to that speed, but has absolutely nothing to do with the engine RPM and final drive speed...

You can go 70 MPH with many cars with well under half the torque and horsepower, and the RPM is dictated by gear ratio, NOT Torque curve.

Even if torque did play a roll ( if we were talking about a whole lot less power, running out of torque could come into play) in the RPM-in and the resulting final RPM-out travel speed equation, rather than gear ratio, my posting of the Mustangs and Toyotas numbers would have still done absolutely nothing toward "proving your point"... Doh.

I did prove that you were talking out your ass when you quiped off "A V6 Mustang will blow the doors off a Camry with EITHER engine LOL". That is just not true.

LMFAO I don't have one, but I would rent one just to show you the error of your ways...

Actually given the price of a 3.5 V6 Camry you really need to compare it to the Mustang GT!

Your beloved 2007 Camry has an MSRP of $24,300 while the Mustang V6 list for only $19,100! MSRP on a Mustang GT is $25,100 (some places actually sell them for that... LOL). So for an extra $800 you can get a 300HP Mustang GT! LOL!

Also your Camry is only available in an automatic... I'm guessing it s a smooth, slow shifting automatic at that... While the Mustang is avaible in a manual so it will have less power loss.. (Have you seen that new commerical for the car where you don't even feel it shift? What's up with that??? LOL!)

On the subject of torque... You feel torque and talk about horsepower... Torque wins races! Both cars have about the same torque but the Mustang V6 makes peak earlier... Now I'm very familar with the torque curves on the Mustang but not on the Camry. I can tell you the torque curve on the Mustang V6 is really good. Torque comes on early and stays nice and flat. I will have to see if I can find a Camry dynosheet... But I doubt will be as good as the Mustang's. The 4.0L is a torquey little motor! 2 stock automatics would probably be a close race... but I think a stock manual Mustang is going to beat the Camry...

But then again the Camry is $5000 more than the Mustang V6! For $5000 you can add F/I to the Mustang and have some serious FUN! LOL! (and please don't whine to me about voiding my warranty... LOL)

And of course... dont' forget the "gawk" factor! I have never owned a car that gets "gawked" at as much and my 05 Stang... There will always be cars out there that are FASTER than The Mistress, but not many that are better looking! LOL!

My Names Nobody wrote:

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

Ya right. See what happens when you tramp on the throttle, in each, at those speeds, particularly on a steep grade. ;)

mike hunt

I've driven both the new Camry V6 and the Mustang V6 both within a couple of weeks of each other both automatics and although this is highly subjective, there is no comparison between the two.

The Mustang in any gear just seems to pull with a lot of torque. Ride along behind a slow roller going 40 in a 55 zone and nail the throttle and the Mustang just takes off, instantly, and passes the slow roller like he's standing still.

Take off normal speed, then once rolling at about 20mph give it some gas but don't floor it and the Mustang will pull all the way up until either you get a ticket or your nerve gives out. And you can feel it pulling.

I've driven a lot of cars and very few, with automatics and standard V6 motors have been able to give the feeling of a linear torque curve.

The Camry, while a pleasant car to drive gives no such indication. Take off from a stop and the rear end squats down like it's getting ready to drop a load!

Passing on the highway works well enough but it always feels, at least to me, that the motor is winding up and letting loose rather than a constant linear pull.

The transmission is a slushbox with that old GM hydromatic slip smoothly into gear feel except when mashing the pedal at highway speeds and then it winds up and goes.

The two cars are meant for completely different markets and each addresses that market segment very well.

BTW the transmission you don't feel shift is called the CVT transmission. Not sure if Toyota has it, but the Ford Freestyle does.

It will drive you CRAZY, trust me.......

Like I said, this is my opinion and highly subjective. The specs may totally disagree with my findings and that's fine but all I can say is that if you want a sports car with a lot of bang for the buck, and one hell of a blast to drive, the Mustang or maybe the new Pontiac Solstice/Sky are the best game in town.

If you want a boring, overpriced sponge on wheels, the Camry is a good choice.

Obviously many people prefer the latter

AND THAT is what's wrong with America these days !

I love the Freestyle CVT. It is my second car with a CVT (actually it is my Mother's car, but I've driven it more than her). My first CVT was in a Saturn and although it gave superior performance to the 5 speed manual, it had , problems - especially when abused by a 16 year old. Last week I drove the Freestyle to Baltimore (310 mile one way trip up I-95). I was extremely pleased with the performance. The fuel economy was good (not as good as a Sable on a similar trip, but still good - around 25 mpg mostly going 75+ mpg). I hardly noticed the way the transmission performed at all. Very smooth at all times. Lots of passenger and luggage room. Great A/C. My only complaint was the standard radio - wish it would play MP3s.

Ed

"John S." wrote

No offense, but if it was about torque, then we'd all drive John Deere tractors. It's not all about torque. The John Deere 6135 produces 600hp at

2100rpm and 1881 lb/ft of torque at a piddling 1600 rpm. 1/4 mile speed??? 60 seconds??

There are no 'shift' to feel, only changing drive ratio cones. When starting out or climbing a grade, with a vehicle equipped with a CVT, one needs to floor the throttle to get to the lowest gear to do the job, then let up when you get to the speed you want to attain.. Otherwise you are starting, or climbing, in the higher ratios of the tranny, and in the wrong part of the torque curve

mike hunt

The best definition is HP gets one speed, Torque get one going quickly and what keep you going on the grades. Your chose is speed versus quick, even a

4cy can go 100 MPH, it takes torque at the right speed to go quickly and keep up to the speed limit on the long grades. That is why the 500 does so well with only 203 HP, the CVT keeps the tranny on the top of the torque curve and 203 is enough HP to go over 100 MPH if you wish.

mike hunt

no offense taken... but... I didn't say it was ALL about torque... I think people just get hung up on HP without looking at the torque numbers... For a 1/4 mile Torque is a very important factor...

To each his own :) I drove the 2006 Freestyle and while I liked the SUV I didn't like the CVT at all. I thought it seemed to be lugging down the engine. IOW it made the car feel slow. I agree that it was very smooth though and looking at the tach I couldn't feel any changes other than the sluggishness. Maybe the engine just needs more power? I don't really know.

The reason I said it drove me crazy is because I like to know where I am as far as gear/torque/rpm etc because once you learn the car you can get the most performance out of it. With the CVT, there it's just *there* and that's it. Kinda felt weird to me.