Thoughts on 2012/2013 Ford Mustang?

[Arkaign]

Don't know why people rag on the 300 HP V6 Mustang...

But not a 300 HP 370Z, G37, etc all the other cars with 300 HP V6s that don't even offer a V8 option.

1000% correct. And the Mustang V6 w/track pack will outhandle all of the others in the class fairly easily.

The only real criticism I can see of the 3.7 is that the V8 *punch* isn't there down low. You have to rev it fairly aggressively to match the outgoing 4.6L GT. It definitely doesn't drive like a 'muscle' car in that regard. Even the entry V8 Charger, which I'm sure is slower than the V6 Mustang, probably 'feels' a lot faster than it is due to torque.

Considering the price, and the V6 competition not being any better, I don't think that's a real issue.

 

[Throckmorton]

In 1982 the "high output" V8 had 157hp. LOL

 

[ElFenix]

In 1982 the "high output" V8 had 157hp. LOL

the SVO made about that. from a turbo 4.





sometimes i wonder how hard it would be to use the MZR turbo and make a new SVO? the block is the same as the miata 2.0 (different heads) and the N/A version mates to the miata's transmission just fine. so the appropriate RWD bits are available. you'd need to put the plumbing somewhere but the mustang has much more space under the hood. and the block even says 'ford' on it (well, my N/A does).

of course i wouldn't swap that into a current mustang but it might be interesting in a fox.

screams money pit.

 

[exdeath]

In 1982 the "high output" V8 had 157hp. LOL

Heh FWIW most everything sucked in the late 70s to 80s ^_^

 

[Ferzerp]

You sir are an absolute moron

Hardly. I'm far from a moron, but I could be considered an elitist in this regard. Next time you feel the urge to attack me, please try to be accurate.

The V6 Mustang is still a V6 Mustang. Regardless of how it compares to old Mustangs, you buy one, and you still have a V6 Mustang.

A new Honda compares favorably to an early 80's Ferrari in some regards. I guess Honda is just as good as Ferrari. It is the same reasoning.

 

[exar333]

FTFY

170 HP 4 cyl wouldn't be bad at all. Don't forget it was almost a 170 HP V6 until very recently Even the V8 used to only be 260 HP

All the current engines are finally as good or better than any competition import or domestic.

True.

I would say that the HP numbers alone doesn't dictate how 'fun' the car is to drive (all other parts equal; weight, etc.).

For example:
-I would take the 260hp V8 > current 300hp V6 engine (more torque, V8)
-Prefer a 250-280hp Turbo over the current ~300hp V6 engine choices

Thats my preference though, nothing against the current V6 options for the Camaro or Mustang. You could not even really get a 300hp NA V6 10 years ago on a car <$50k. Now they are everywhere.

 

[Ferzerp]

You could not even really get a 300hp NA V6 10 years ago on a car <$50k. Now they are everywhere.

That's because we, as a species, have decided that we care more about performance than we do mileage. Instead of getting the same power, and better mileage, we'll take the same mileage and more power

 

[exdeath]

That's because we, as a species, have decided that we care more about performance than we do mileage. Instead of getting the same power, and better mileage, we'll take the same mileage and more power

When we have 400 HP I4s and 600 HP V6 that get 30 mpg, I'll be looking for the 800 HP V8 that gets 25 mpg.

The only way the 6 would be adequate is if you guaranteed me that everyone else bought the 4 cyl

 

[Ferzerp]

Mitsubishi did have a 400HP 2.0L I4 something like 8 years ago! (I assume it had a pretty narrow power band)

 

[Zap]

Mitsubishi did have a 400HP 2.0L I4 something like 8 years ago!

Wasn't it available anywhere but USA? I seem to recall some Top Gear or Fifth Gear video with a stock 400HP Evo. :hmm:

 

[shabby]

Wasn't it available anywhere but USA? I seem to recall some Top Gear or Fifth Gear video with a stock 400HP Evo. :hmm:

FQ400 i believe, uk only. FQ stood for fuckin quick

 

[Sid59]

Do you guys feel the Mustang is the best-bang-for-the-buck RWD car?
I'm not a garagegearhead, rather look into something new or CPO.

 

[Arkaign]

Do you guys feel the Mustang is the best-bang-for-the-buck RWD car?
I'm not a garagegearhead, rather look into something new or CPO.

Without a doubt whatsoever, if we're talking new or very very recent (2011 models and up).

 

[Zap]

Do you guys feel the Mustang is the best-bang-for-the-buck RWD car?

Probably depends on why you want RWD and what you want it to do. If you just want the most RWD horsepower for the buck, then... maybe. Also, you may want to wait until the Subieyota comes out, as that is a highly anticipated new RWD model.

 

[ElFenix]

That's because we, as a species, have decided that we care more about performance than we do mileage. Instead of getting the same power, and better mileage, we'll take the same mileage and more power

i'm not sure those are mutually exclusive. you only need a handful of horsepower to stay at 65.

 

[Zap]

you only need a handful of horsepower to stay at 65.

Cylinder deactivation?

 

[manimal]

Cylinder deactivation?

what could go wrong?

 

[Arkaign]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCKqAHShUZo&feature=related

Decent results imho

 

[SamurAchzar]

I drove the 2010 GT for a week (rental). It was a surprisingly good car overall, not an all out sports car but more of a, well, GT I absolutely loved it. It's a competent car but has lots of character.

Now, I could see this car doing just fine with a 300bhp engine instead of the 414bhp the GT has, but the engine on that was the centerpiece.

I wouldn't hesitate buying one either way. Probably the new model with a V6 would be a very good buy.

 

[Doppel]

Never driven one, but it's quite impressive on paper, the performance to cost.

 

[Harrod]

I like them, sadly there are a ton of people at work who are buying them and getting the auto versions of the v6's, GT's and even a Roush. When I asked the guy about why he got the Roush version in an auto, he said it was because he liked how it looked.

 

[JackBurton]

I like them, sadly there are a ton of people at work who are buying them and getting the auto versions of the v6's, GT's and even a Roush. When I asked the guy about why he got the Roush version in an auto, he said it was because he liked how it looked.

That's why I like the Boss 302 and GT500, they don't come in auto. If you "like the way they look," you better learn how to drive a stick. Ford doesn't water those models down for the public. You either get it the way the car was meant to be driven (manual) or you don't get it at all. I wish they did the same for the GT. They can leave the autos for the V6's.

 

[Arkaign]

I drove the 2010 GT for a week (rental). It was a surprisingly good car overall, not an all out sports car but more of a, well, GT I absolutely loved it. It's a competent car but has lots of character.

Now, I could see this car doing just fine with a 300bhp engine instead of the 414bhp the GT has, but the engine on that was the centerpiece.

I wouldn't hesitate buying one either way. Probably the new model with a V6 would be a very good buy.

The 2010 GT was the 4.6L

 

[Throckmorton]

That's why I like the Boss 302 and GT500, they don't come in auto. If you "like the way they look," you better learn how to drive a stick. Ford doesn't water those models down for the public. You either get it the way the car was meant to be driven (manual) or you don't get it at all. I wish they did the same for the GT. They can leave the autos for the V6's.

Even back in the 60s and 70s a lot of musclecars were sold with autos. Jim Rockford's Firebird was an auto

 

[JackBurton]

Even back in the 60s and 70s a lot of musclecars were sold with autos. Jim Rockford's Firebird was an auto

Yep, they were. However, IMO, automatic sports/muscle cars are boring and take away from the fun of driving a sports car.