All of them? It's possible, I guess. What I do remember was that there was nothing on the road (apart from exotica) stock that could beat the Mustang then. When I got my 93, it was a different story.
-Rich
It seems that Ford started the most recent horsepower wave and now GM, DC and others are riding it to the beach and leaving Ford behind. Kind of ironic.
RichA wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
Ah, I overlooked the '88 disclaimer. Now I'm wondering what the times were for an '88 Corvette.
Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC
now that the camaro is gone/ people have to compare the vette to the mustang. they never were in the same class/niche in the market.
Ford need to do nothing about the vette as per the mustang. perhaps a new model???
"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:
Indeed. I just wish Ford would put a larger displacement engine into their production cars. 281 cubes is just too small IMO.
Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC
Unfortunately they are using an engine that doesn't fit into tight spaces well. The 4.6L engines are too big from valve cover to valve cover and the extra stroke of the 5.4L engines just make it worse. They are getting quite good hp\torque numbers from the newer 3-valve head version of the 4.6L though. The good thing is they can put a blower on the motor and have more torque than you could get out of a N/A stroked
460. :)Personally I would like to see Ford make an $80k-$90k Vette/Viper killer along the lines of the GTR-1 with the N/A V-10. They would sell like hotcakes (relatively speaking), IMHO.
On 27 Jan 2005 13:50:34 GMT, Joe wrote something wonderfully witty:
Oh yeah, no doubt about that. Sure wouldn't get one out of the garage for eating crackers. Even though mine is a C-4 I still love the hell out of that car. I also enjoy the 2001 drop-top Mustang as well. They are like children, ya love them equally, but in different ways.
"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote in news:p8-dnfd snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:
Those motors are physically way too big for their displacement. Now, if you look at a pushrod motor... ;)
Yes, but the obvious argument is that when you do the same thing to the Hemi or LS motors, your power is far beyond what any 4.6 can put out.
That would be very cool, but given Ford's financial situation I doubt they'd consider it anytime soon. It's too late for them to start down that path. IMO Ford should concentrate on the Mustang GT, as it's the best overall car they've got. Nothing like building on top of a great foundation.
Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:02:25 -0500, RichA wrote something wonderfully witty:
Well your `88 was a 4.9L V8 rated at 225hp unless it was a Ca model which I think had 10 less HP. That year Vette was a 5.7L V8 rated at
240hp and weighed in at 3229 #'s. In 93 the Mustang went down to 205hp and the Vette was up to 300.I guess it depends on what type of racing you are talking about, but the 88's should have been fairly equally matched starlight line cars with the only true variable being the driver.
The Mustang put the Camaro in it's grave. Ford doesn't compete with the Corvette. Sounds like Ford and Chevy have an understanding for these two different markets now.
A stripper is ripping out stuff. Cost reduced is having the stuff, it just costs less to make.
The initial GT show cars had something silly like that.
Stripper is no heater, no radio, no passenger seat, ripping out stuff. Using steel instead of carbon fiber is cost reduced.
They could. Any decent mechanical engineer can.
snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:
Maybe we differ on the definition of 'stripper'. To me, it's basically a no-option car. Ask Patrick about that. "Stripped" is what you're describing.
Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC
I thought a stripper was
no, wait wrong thread.
:-D
I have come to have a healthy respect for the 4.6L engine. The power that can be made with the '03-'04 Cobra engines shows just how well Ford engineered the basic engine block/heads. Especially when using forged parts. The after market tuners are getting another 30-40 rwhp from the '05 GT's from just a computer flash. Ford still has room for improvement. I bet they could get 400+ hp from it N/A if they had the balls to build it.
IMO they can only get so much performance out of a $25k chassis. If they can make the Ford GT and sell 3,000 of them for $150k and make money then they could justify an $80k-$90k sports car with an annual production run of 5,000-10,000 a year. I think Ford would do well to have an image car like the Vette is for Chevy and the Viper is for DC. The GT is nice but it's too exclusive, pricey and short-lived to be a corporate flagship model.
No I am not. Using a plastic windshield washer bottle instead of a metal one. Using sheetmetal instead of a casting. Using a plastic injection molded part instead of a multi-piece sheet metal assembly, etc and so forth. That's what I am talking about. All production cars are filled with such things. That's the difference between a production car and a street rod or a hand built super car.
How can I make this clearer... A 2003 mustang has a non-cosmetic front bumper that is simply painted covered with a urathane cosmetic cover. A
1965 mustang has a chromed steel front bumper. Making a cosmetic piece like a bumper out of steel and finishing it with chrome is more expensive than making it out of a mold covering a simple stamped and spot welded bumper in a production environment. (replacement is a different story in this case) Another example: A 1965 mustang has headlamp buckets formed of sheet metal and has formed sheet metal on the fenders to aid in holding the headlamps in place. The headlamps are made of glass. A 2003 mustang has headlamps made of plastic they attached to a plastic piece that not only attaches the lamps to the car but serves as the headlamp bucket. A 1997 mustang has a trunk lid formed from multiple sheet metal parts and some plastic trim pieces. A 1999 mustang has a composite trunk lid.This is what I am talking about. A 2003 mustang isn't a stripper compared to a 1965 by any means. But it has many part and design aspects that are reduced in cost to make.
Ford engineers are more than capable enough to make another car that is roughly like the GT but geared towards mass production. But ford isn't into making production cars for performance in the US market. It's into making performance collectables.
To say ford can't do that is to say that ford's engineers are inferior to those at GM and dodge. The problem is there is no will (marketing department desire) to do it.
When was the last time you drag-raced with corners ? :-) (it's not worth 15k)
Remove NO-SPAM from email address when replying
Market it better ? By slapping on some cladding ? I think there's been enough marketing. Every GM enthusiast was screaming when they heard the words GTO. They are crying with the results.
That thing is pig-heavy and will never be taken serious.
Mediocre ? Have you driven one ? It's a sedan, not a sportscar. I think the execution is great except for the transmissions. It's huge, quality feel/fit/finish is lightyears ahead of anything what gm has.
Who cares. These cars NEED lots of power because they are PIG HEAVY.
no, but it's where Ford makes the big bucks on. Makes it possible to do projects like the GT. More to come on that area.
I'm still waiting, since the aztek it's been downhill. One disaster after another for GM. What were they thinking. They dropped the f-body without a replacement. They just gave up. And then the quality. Ever heard of piston-slap ? Gm has lots and lots of defective engines out there. They claim they're fine, but people are already seeing excessive wear on engines with way less than
100K on them due to piston-slap. bad bad bad. Remove NO-SPAM from email address when replying
Wouldn't do that on a normal ls2 engine. It won't live long for sure. Why do you think Lingenfelter replaces half the LS1's engine to use forced induction ? It can't handle it otherwise.
OHC is the way to go, the japs figured that out long time ago.
Given Ford's intro of the Shelby GR1 I'd say it's VERY likely to see it.
that was just an exercise. They cranked that puppy out in a record time and it beats anything American out there. Now look at the GR1, another record development.
Remove NO-SPAM from email address when replying
I think the stripped-down LXs (like mine) weighed about 3000lbs. Compared to my Mach-1 which weighs around 3500. Now the Vette is 400lbs less than the Mustang.
-Rich
snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:
"What we have here is a failure to communicate."
The Mustang GT is already pretty inexpensive for what it is. You don't think that Ford has cut costs as far as it can with that car?
The Ford GT was designed to be a "performance collectible" as you put it. My point is that Ford can't make that car a car for the masses because they have no budget or directive to do so. Both the Corvette and Viper are available to the masses, but Ford doesn't have the capability to compete at that level given their current financial status.
Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.