Idiot. Like there's any chance you have enough power to come anywhere close to pulling redline in top gear... Plus, I'd be very surprised if that POS wasn't governed to less than 120MPH, due to the tire's limitations. Plus, going even 120 MPH, with the wallowy suspension in that grandpa-mobile, would have you crapping your Depends. LOL
If you're driving a Ford product, then I don't think so:
These guys determined that the 4-cylinder Camry goes nearly as fast with automatic:
Now, if you're actually referring to a Lincoln, that's different. Some Lincoln models appear to approach 147mph (base Lincolns seem to do about
130mph). Of course, Toyota's going to take it as a real compliment if you think a Camry and a Lincoln are comparable cars.It's fairly difficult to find top-speed numbers on the net, so I'll probably check back issues of R&T, etc, when I have a chance to hit the library.
Actually Exxon lobbied to get small refineries shut down.
What in the world leads you to believe a Mustang GT with its 'Z' rated tires is a grandpa-mobile? No wonder you call yourself DIZZY. LOL
mike hunt
Once again you have chosen to comment on a subject on which you obviously have little or no knowledge. Both my 2005 Mustang GT convertible and my
2005 Lincoln LS Sport came equipped with 'Z' rated tires, which therefore have no speed limiter, and they are both capable of 140 PH or more. LOLmike hunt
Once again you are a lazy blowhard who does not read posts in their entirety. I provided a Crown Vic/Camry comparison. Your posts slammed Toyotas generally and were not model-specific. My comparison was therefore legitimate. If you'd like to call a Camry and a Mustang comparable or a Camry and a Lincoln comparable, I'm sure the people at Toyota will be pleased.
Your posts continually lack substance, yet you frequently choose to slam Toyotas as "underpowered." A 4-cylinder Camry automatic will hustle up to
60 in under 9 seconds and will do 124 mph, 49 mph faster than would be legal on any road I've driven in the US. It's roomy enough for most purposes and is rated for 34mpg on the highway. Ford could learn a trick or two from Toyota.Go troll one of the .ford groups. You can be a cheerleader for Fords over there, which I'm sure will amuse the audience there, most of whome are posting about broken Fords and poor Ford dealer service.
What a joke. I never said Toyota did not make good vehicles, what I said Toyotas are generally underpowered compared to other manufactures vehicles of the same size and price range and that is a know fact in the industry. No other manufacture even offers a 4cy in a vehicle the size of the Camry and eight out of ten Camrys sold in the US only have the 4cy. You are the one comparing them to Fords not me. Although the V6 Camry and the V8 CV sell for around the same price, if you had looked at or driven a new CV and a Camry you would know the Camry can not come anywhere near to a CV is size or power, or handling, the CV has around a 100FT/LB more torque than the Camry.. As to a Mustang GT Camry comparison, the Camry Solara V6 can't even run in the same league with the Mustang GT yet the Solara costs at least $5,000 more. Get real you have no idea what you are talking about.
mike hunt
. I provided a Crown Vic/Camry comparison.
Toyotas get better gas milage, which, is more important these days. Wouldn't you agree?
I addressed that. Toyotas aren't generally underpowered. Sub-9 second 0-60 (the 4-cylinder Camry achieves this) is quite respectable. The fact that Toyota offers a choice of engines (2.4L-I4, 3.0L-V6, 3.3L-V6) is a good thing, Toyota lets the customer pick good performance and very good fuel economy or better performance and less fuel economy. The fact that most people choose the 4-cylinder tells us that most people agree a 4-cylinder Camry is powerful enough. The judgement of the market is "powerful enough." It will go 49 mph over the maximum speed limit of any road that I've driven (I've never been to Nevada), which says "powerful enough." It is about as fast as a police Crown Vic, which also says "powerful enough." A Camry with the 3.3L-V6 will probably leave the Crown Vic driver asking "where'd he go?" when the lights turn green. In other posts, I've pointed out that the Camry compares favorably with the Five Hundred, and I provided specs and links to back my claim.
Ford has produced plenty of cars that take longer to 0-60 than the
4-cylinder Camry. Ford has produced plenty of Mustangs that aren't as quick as the Camry. Not good for their "sporty" image if they get pushed aside by a family sedan, is it? Who's making "generally underpowered" cars? Ever check the performance of a Mustang II? It is to laugh.I did not say they were comprable in every way. I objected to your frequent assertions that Toyotas are underpowered. They are not, performance testing and the market agree. You are the clueless one.
If I had "looked at or driven a new CV," it would have been because I needed a good laugh.
Have you actually had your Camry up to 124 mph? I've seen road test that claimed the top speed for the six cylinder Camry was only 120 mph (computer limited??). It seems unlikely a 4 cylinder would be faster. Consumer Reports claimed 0-60 for the 4 cylinder/ manual transmission Camry was 9.7 sec (not sub-9). Other reviews of Camry 4 cylinders actually had the 0-60 at 10 sec or higher. The small V-6 was barely sub-9 (8.7 sec).
Mustang II? So what 1978 Toyota are you using as a comparison? It is not fair to compare a 27 year old Mustang II to a current car. Even a current Focus will outrun a 27 year old Mustang II (assuming both are stock).
Ed
Come on over to Virginia - there are some people at PETA that you can take on - see
I was referring to those who kill cats.
Where does PETA get it's funding from, G. Soros?
Not to me, I prefer the safety of a larger more powerful vehicle that is capable of getting out of the way when necessary. If high fuel mileage is a prerequisite, GM offers more high mileage cars than Toyota.
mike hunt
In debating when one does not have the facts to bolster their side of the discussion it is better to try to change the subject. The guys in this NG do it all the time because the facts are not on their side Personal purchasing preference and wishful thinking aside, one can not win in a discussion of whether Toyotas are far superior to other vehicle available on the market TODAY, they are NOT. They can not win in a discussion about Toyotas being underpowered compared to competitors vehicle because they ARE. They can not win in a discussion about Toyota market pricing compared to similar equipped vehicles of the same size available on the market today because they ARE overpriced. They can not win in a discussion about Toyotas sales figure because Toyota is still number four in sales far behind GM, Ford and Chrysler They would like to think Toyota is soon going to overtake GM because GM has problems and is loosing market share, but the fact is GM is selling more vehicles, in the growing US market of 18,000,000 today, than when it controlled 50% of the 8,000,000 market back in the fifties or at any other time in its history. ;)
mike hunt
"C. E. White" wrote in message news:435ce1b7 snipped-for-privacy@news1.prserv.net...
Ed: I've had my '03 Corolla up against the speed limiter 4 times (112 mph indicated) on level ground. I don't think it would have gone much faster (5 mph at best).
Back in 1976-'77, I dabbled in bracket racing. I ran an old Dodge Lancer (225 slant six, automatic, with a two barrel manifold, headers, and purple grind Mopar cam). That ol Lancer would turn consistent high 16 second times ... which was nearly always a second faster than a Mustang II V8 that I would run against on occasion.
As you like to say, you forget to add "in my opinion", top-poster.
The market decides what is "overpriced" or not. Toyotas clearly are not, according to the market.
PETA is doing that. From my reference:
"The Center for Consumer Freedom Documents on its website PETAKillsAnimals.com that "from July 1998 through the end of 2003, PETA killed over 10,000 dogs, cats, and other 'companion animals' - at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. That's more than five defenseless animals every day. Not counting the dogs and cats PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 85 percent of the animals it took in during 2003 alone."
I suspect they are getting it from well meaning, but miss-informed citizens. I mean who is against treating animal ethically?
Ed
Sound reasonable to me.
A Mustang II V-8 was not exactly the high point of Ford performance. But I am surprised it couldn't outrun a Dodge Lancer - but then I guess yours wasn't stock. I never owned a Mustang II (V-8 or otherwise). I did have a
1978 Ford Fairmont with the same V-8. The car was surprisingly fast considering Ford only claimed 140 HP. It had an 85 mph speedometer, so I don't know the actual top speed. We used to joke it was "0" since it would literally wind the needle completely around to the "0" pin. I noticed that later model Fairmonts had a pin at 85 to eliminate this "fun" feature. Not a bad car, but I never really like it either. I still autocrossed cars back then and the Fairmont was not exactly completive (except nothing in its "class" was competitive either). I scattered a lot of cones with it. After it was rear-ended by a truck, I had it fixed and sold it. Never missed it. But to be honest, as far I am concerned the entire period from say 1975 to 1985 was filled with a bunch of uninteresting non descript cars. I had a bunch of car in that period (1975 Datsun 280Z, 1975 Jensen-Healey, 1978 Ford Courier, 1978 Ford Fairmont, 1978 Ford Fiesta, 1981 Audi Coupe, 1983 Mazda 626, 1983 Toyota Cressida) and only one, a 1978 Ford Fiesta (bought used from my Sister) was anything special. The rest were disappointing in one or more ways.Ed
If you refer to any old Motors Manual, the 225 slant six with a ONE barrel carb was rated 140 hp at 4,000. I never performed a dyno test after the engine modifications but seat of the pants suggested a fair improvement in mid/upper rpm power. I had more pure fun with that bucket of bolts!
The decade you mention was indeed .... depressing. Smog, EPA, fuel mileage, etc.
-Philip
But that Hp rating of your slant 6 was pre-emmisions, pre-SAE Net (vs the SAE Gross figures used before the early 70's). I never owned anything with a slant 6, but it had a great reputation. I remember seeing them in farm machinery (some older combines used them).
Ed
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.