There was a time when Ford floated the idea of completely replacing the Mustang with the Probe. If we make enough noise we will be able to save the beloved V8.
as for oil:
1) The US has 27% of the world's coal. Why are we not converting the coal to gasoline? The Nazis did it to fuel their war machine. Before the battle of the Bulge they produced just over 103,000 barrels WHILE being bombed by the USAAF and the RAF around the clock. What is stopping us from doing this, espcially when oil is going for over $100.00 per barrel???
2) The US has not build a new refinery since 1970. Regardless of how much oil the arabs pump oil the real bottle neck is our finite # of refineries. The problem is compounded by the fact that the same refineries produce home heating oil as well as 40 different blends of gas for the various sections of the US. WTF is up with that?
How do we fix this? Tell all the trust fund, enviro-douches to f*ck off. We should develop new sources of energy BUT that doesn't mean working class should go broke in the mean time trying to fuel their vehicles. Our standard of living and economy do not need to be sacrificied for some green nut cases.
If it means a drop in weight, and in overall dimensions (the S197 looks enourmous parked next to other generations of mustangs) I would actually prefer a twin turbo V6.
Yes, they do look bigger but keep in mind what the designer was trying to accomplish....make it look like the '60s Mustang but with a Retro look. I think they did a superb job! Not only that, but to me the '90s Mustang looked too much like a small compact car. Like Ford was trying to compete with Honda instead of keeping true to the muscle car image. Look at the Charger or the upcoming Challenger.....the '90s Mustang looks tooooo small against those beast!
For the most part, Ford accomplished the retro styling goal, but part of styling is size. The older Mustangs are considerably smaller than the new ones, actually they are on about the same scale as those 90's Mustangs that are "too small" . Oh and oddly enough, when those 90's Mustangs came out they were designed to resemble the older Mustangs as well. What this proves? Probably nothing, I'm just rambling, I guess the jist of what I'm saying is that the new Mustang needs to go on a serious diet.
Edit: grammar
< Message edited by 5.0LitreSN95 -- 3/19/2008 8:42:18 PM >
_____________________________
I have been here way too long to not have a wicked sig.
i see why they need to do something about these cars that consume wayyy too much gas ... but man the sound of a v8 just doesnt compare to anything else .. no matter how much hp a v6 has ... it just wouldnt be the same ....
ORIGINAL: 07 Stang Unless it is a misprint in Motor Trend....that is what it stated. Also it says the '06 Lancer Evo MR SE has 286 hp @ 6500 rmp, 289 lb-ft of torque at 3500 rmp. Weight to power 11.5 hp/lb.
You do realize what a 3.5s 1/4 would look like, right? Here's what can do the 1/4 in that time or less:
5.56 mm 9 mm .44 magnum .338 magnum sidewinder missle
How do we fix this? Tell all the trust fund, enviro-douches to f*ck off. We should develop new sources of energy BUT that doesn't mean working class should go broke in the mean time trying to fuel their vehicles. Our standard of living and economy do not need to be sacrificied for some green nut cases.
Gas being $100 a barrel has nothing to do with green nutcases. You do realize that the fall of the dollar has been because of conservatives fixing our economy and "cleansing" the Middle East right? Tell them you can't pay for gas. I want my "broken" economy back from the days of Bill Clinton.
< Message edited by kyle2k -- 3/20/2008 11:00:44 PM >
ORIGINAL: 07 Stang Unless it is a misprint in Motor Trend....that is what it stated. Also it says the '06 Lancer Evo MR SE has 286 hp @ 6500 rmp, 289 lb-ft of torque at 3500 rmp. Weight to power 11.5 hp/lb.
You do realize what a 3.5s 1/4 would look like, right? Here's what can do the 1/4 in that time or less:
5.56 mm 9 mm .44 magnum .338 magnum sidewinder missle
etc.
Haha, do Canadian bullets not have a lot of powder in them? It would be a lot quicker than 3.5s for the 1/4mile.
the v6 is a drag cause true american muscle says a v8 is king but the turbo can make your engine so much more efficent so a turbo v6 doesnt sound that bad
Just came back from the eye doctors office where I freeloaded a copy of Motor Trend. The cover featured the new Challenger. Inside the Mag I found an article that stated Ford, in order to fall in line with the new fuel regulations (2012 start) is going to try to get V8's out of there models. They are about to unleash a V6 twin turbo that is "gas direct injection". The engine is to be called "Ecoboost", and supposedly produces more horsepower then the current stock 4.6 V8. The Twin turo 3.7 will be installed in trucks and cars. The article goes on to say that some in Ford want to put the new motor into the Mustang. They know the additional HP, along with a lighter motor weight will enhance performance and agility. However, they aren't sure "us" Mustang fans will take to kindly to a GT with only six sleeves. The fuel regs start to phase in 2012, with full compliance by 2020. Furhter in the Mag there is an article that reads about how the Vette, Mustang, Challenger, and the mythical Camaro may be the at the end because of the fuel regs.
I know I personally would need a lot of persuading in order to swallow a "V8less" Mustang. I'm hoping that's what a test drive in a 3.7 twin turbo gas direct injection. Persuading.
Then again it's only an article in a snobby car mag.
I wander how insurance companies would think of a twin turbo v6?
Keep in mind that the feds are saying that the fleet of vehicles has to have a minimum average. If Ford can do a Focus or something that gets 50+ mpg to balance it out, then we can still keep our beloved gas-guzzlin' V8s .
But then again, I do spend a lot of money on gas...
I wouldn't mind a twin v-6 as a daily driver as long as I got my 69 Boss 429 as a weekend driver and show car. But if it ain't got that rumble it just wouldn't be a real Mustang. I drive a 4 cylinder GMC Pick-up back and forth to work and when I go out of town on trips or vacation we take my wifes Ford Focus because of the gas mileage.
i love how the government tells auto manufacturers that their cars have to get a certain MPG, but they wont tell oil companies that their oil has to stay under a certain price
this crap is getting out of hand, i dont know how to fix the US's economic problems, but we gotta do SOMETHING
_____________________________
"Dream as if you'll live forever, live as if you'll die today"
My thought... Why not go for something like a 3.8 DOHC V8? (Taurus SHO had a 3.4, and the last Tbird had a 3.9) TT that for some more efficient fun, and it'll still be a v8 for the purists and smoothness of power, plus it'll be a lot smaller displacement for MPG, and TT could easily make up for the power. And to top it off, you could still do the DOD thing on it for an even greater jump in MPG.
Printable Version
RE: Motor Trend claims Mustang may go with V6 twin turbos - 
. Oh and oddly enough, when those 90's Mustangs came out they were designed to resemble the older Mustangs as well. What this proves? Probably nothing, I'm just rambling, I guess the jist of what I'm saying is that the new Mustang needs to go on a serious diet. 
