My New 2005 Mustang

[Sedriss]

See, I wish Dodge would have done soemething like this to the Charger. By making it a 4-door no late teen, early to mid 20's adult would want one. Peeps want a 2-door sports car. They got the power with the Hemi, they just need to get a decent model car to put it in. In all respects, the Stratus RT is a nice looking 2-door car. If they could find a way to drop the Hemi in that, damn that would be pretty sweet. I grew up in a family that was anit-ford, and I still am today. But I have seen a few of the new stangs running around where I live, v6 of course. But they dont look bad. I just wish Dodge brought out a good sports car :cry:

[MR_Candyman]

you cant claim that when you just copied and pasted it that off the net.  do you really think that theres not much difference between the two?? :sleep:

http://www.billzilla.org/2v4vpage2.htm

585628541[/snapback]

Yes I did copy it off the net. Yes, I was aware of that idiot's web site. Yes in some vehicles it is better to have 4 valves, but if you would have read what I posted it explained WHEN it's more beneficial to have 4 and when to have 2. In nearly all commercial vehicles it makes VERY little difference though

[tgindrup]

Congrats :cool:

[Chadwick]

you either dont know what a redline is or every website in the world is wrong

428 hemi    GTX/RR  425hp@5000 490tq@4000

440 6 barrel GTX/RR  390hp@4700 490tq@3200

383 4 barrel  RR only  335hp@5200 425tq@3400

what the **** car hits redline b4 even max tq?

585628117[/snapback]

why argue with him, he is obviously unable to coher what the gauge says.

My chevelle tach is a bigblock version that can go up to around 7000rpm, my smallblock would not live past 6500, just because a gauge can display something, doesnt mean the engine can achieve it.

oh and winding out your engine doesn't maximize power, hp peaks before max rpm, thats wehre you want to shift.

[Quickstrike]

That is why I have so much respect for BMW.

They take on their turbo and super charged competitors (audi, mercedes) and are usually just as fast.

That really says something about BMW's engineering.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

That is why I have so much respect for BMW.

They take on their turbo and super charged competitors (audi, mercedes) and are usually just as fast.

That really says something about BMW's engineering.

585632924[/snapback]

Actually BMW's only really amazing engine is the I6. And they aren't even using that in the M3 any more.

BMW's 4 cyl and 8 cyl engines aren't nearly as impressive.

The V8 in the next M3 is larger than the one in the RS4 and produces far less power. And there have been rumors that next year will see the release of a turbocharged 330i coupe.

Audi has plenty of NA cars. In fact, the only turbocharged engine these days is the 2.0T. The bi-turbo V8 in the RS6 may make an appearance again, but for now that car is out of production.

The 3.2L VR6 with FSI (in the new A4 and base A6) is a very, very nice engine. And the 2.0T (also with direct injection) is a monster of a four banger.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Torque, and more useable power at lower RPMs.

I don't think it's inappropriate to compare NA engines with turbo engines, just so long as the people comparing have some idea of what a power curve is  :rolleyes:

585625903[/snapback]

So what does the torque curve on the mustang look like?

The 1.8T (no longer in production) held over 90% of its torque from 1800RPM to 5400RPM.

It's successor, the 2.0T FSI holds it all the way to redline.

Neither of them relies on the teeny tiny turbocharger for very much of its power. In fact, they're peak torque is reached before the turbo is even spooled (due to the engine's deep stroke). The turbo just helps it sustain that torque over the whole rev band.

You could also include the Honda/Acura 2.0L engine if you just want to talk about HP. But I, like you, am more concerned with real useable power (ie. torque and more torque). And no one delivers that like the germans.

[Old Man Pickle]

I just don't like the look of the '05 :( I'll stick with my Cobra '04 :D

[threetonesun]

So what does the torque curve on the mustang look like?

The 1.8T (no longer in production) held over 90% of its torque from 1800RPM to 5400RPM. 

It's successor, the 2.0T FSI holds it all the way to redline.

Neither of them relies on the teeny tiny turbocharger for very much of its power.  In fact, they're peak torque is reached before the turbo is even spooled (due to the engine's deep stroke).  The turbo just helps it sustain that torque over the whole rev band.

You could also include the Honda/Acura 2.0L engine if you just want to talk about HP.  But I, like you, am more concerned with real useable power (ie. torque and more torque).  And no one delivers that like the germans.

585634659[/snapback]

Those small displacement engines cannot produce as much torque downlow as a large displacement engine. It appears the V6 hits max torque at 3500RPMs. My guess is it hits "powerband" around 1200 RPMs.

Most people who are just crusing around do not want a high reving engine. That's why you get a large displacement engine. This Mustang could be driven with shifts at 2k and it would still be producing more power than a 1.8T shifting at redline. The Germans do make good engines, namely the BMW I6 and the Porsche Boxers, but as far as power delivery, Americans have always had the upper hand. For every German engine you can find that'll put down 700hp, you'll find 4 American ones.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Those small displacement engines cannot produce as much torque downlow as a large displacement engine. It appears the V6 hits max torque at 3500RPMs. My guess is it hits "powerband" around 1200 RPMs.

Most people who are just crusing around do not want a high reving engine. That's why you get a large displacement engine. This Mustang could be driven with shifts at 2k and it would still be producing more power than a 1.8T shifting at redline. The Germans do make good engines, namely the BMW I6 and the Porsche Boxers, but as far as power delivery, Americans have always had the upper hand. For every German engine you can find that'll put down 700hp, you'll find 4 American ones.

585634712[/snapback]

That's completely wrong. The V6 mustang produces a maximum of 230ft-lbs of torque at just shy of 4000RPMs. And it drops very quickly after that point.

The 225 version of the 1.8T produces at least 206ft lbs @ 2200-5500RPMs. The slowest 2.0T produces over 210 ft lbs. from 1800 to 6500RPMs.

Of course, my perspective is a little skewed, since I drive a chipped 1.8T. Mine produces 260 ft lbs of torque from 3000 to 5500.

Now, if you want to compare litre for litre... the Audi 4.2L produces 340HP in its slowest incarnation (and 420 in its fastest normally aspirated version). The 3.2L VR6 engine produces 255HP (and loads of torque).

Sorry, 50HP/litre and such poorly sustained torque is not going to impress me.

[threetonesun]

That's completely wrong.  The V6 mustang produces a maximum of 230ft-lbs of torque at just shy of 4000RPMs.  And it drops very quickly after that point.

The 225 version of the 1.8T produces at least 206ft lbs @ 2200-5500RPMs.  The slowest 2.0T produces over 210 ft lbs. from 1800 to 6500RPMs. 

Now, if you want to compare litre for litre... the Audi 4.2L produces 340HP in its slowest incarnation (and 420 in its fastest normally aspirated version).  The 3.2L VR6 engine produces 255HP (and loads of torque). 

Sorry, 50HP/litre and such poorly sustained torque is not going to impress me.

585634771[/snapback]

I got that number off of the Ford website, so no, it's not "completely" wrong. And I don't want to compare liter by liter, because if we did, the Mazda rotary engine would make your 1.8T look like a laughing stock, but that's hardly the point, is it?

If you've driven a large displacement engine, then let me know. If not, I think you're just missing the purpose of them. I can find a lot of engines that are of greater displacement that barely make any peak horsepower, because that's not their main purpose.

[GameOverRob]

sweet ride dude congrats

[imtoomuch]

The new 05 Mustangs look awesome, but you bought a V6? :'( A Mustang is a sport/muscle car and should have a V8 IMO. Anyway, I don't know why people are saying Mustangs are chick cars. Civics are chick cars if I ever seen one yet tons of guys drive them.

When it comes to all these kids bitching that V8s are inefficient and say how much more HP a V6 or V4 gets per liter I laugh. I'm not saying it's not true, but It shows that these people don't know as much about the subject as they think they know.

[Kenny McCormick]

Congrats!

Thats a hell of a ride for a 19 year old guy!

I have a old Saab 900 2.1L -93 and i'm 20.

[AnakinSolo2002]

I got that number off of the Ford website, so no, it's not "completely" wrong. And I don't want to compare liter by liter, because if we did, the Mazda rotary engine would make your 1.8T look like a laughing stock, but that's hardly the point, is it?

If you've driven a large displacement engine, then let me know. If not, I think you're just missing the purpose of them. I can find a lot of engines that are of greater displacement that barely make any peak horsepower, because that's not their main purpose.

585635090[/snapback]

:rofl:

thank you I was waiting for that! lol

My car: 1984 Mazda RX-7 GS

Specs: 198? 12A (1.1L)

Displacement: 1146 cc/70 cu in

Compression: 9.4:1

Horsepower: 101 @ 6,000

Torque: 107 @ 4,000

Induction: Nikki 4 bbl carb

Average wt = 2450 lbs

198? +

Ratios: 1st 3.622

2nd 2.186

3rd 1.419

4th 1.000

5th 0.758

Reverse 3.493

and sadly I have the slower version, the 13B has 135 @ 6,000 and 133 @ 2,750 (<- incredible) and it's 5th gear is 0.807

I'm sure as he said, "Mazda rotary engine would make your 1.8T look like a laughing stock, but that's hardly the point, is it?"

I think I'll go drive my car no, I miss her... :rofl:

Oh and by the way... the newer ones have atleast TWICE the HP and the engine's are the same size :yes:

[yert*]

I don't want to seem condescending but ain't' you a bit young for such a car?

If you were my kid there's no ways i'd buy you a car like that.

If you were 23 yrs old or older then it would be ok.

585601037[/snapback]

He's the one who bought the car...Why does it matter? Who cares if he's spoiling himself to a new toy!

Btw, it looks great - Buy me one!

[Zip]

Yes I did copy it off the net. Yes, I was aware of that idiot's web site. Yes in some vehicles it is better to have 4 valves, but if you would have read what I posted it explained WHEN it's more beneficial to have 4 and when to have 2. In nearly all commercial vehicles it makes VERY little difference though

585630422[/snapback]

my point is when is it ever beneficial to have inefficiency in a system? you could have the volvo t5 unit which is only a 2.5 which can get practically the same torque and power (and the torque is more evenly spread at that). i just think that its a waste of gas and is typical of the american car industry to put out more polluting cars becuase nobody cares about the price of fuel.

Transversely mounted, 2.5-liter, 5-Cylinder, double-overhead cam, Turbocharger with Intercooler

Horsepower (SAE net) 208 @ 5,000 rpm

Torque (lb-ft SAE net) 236 @ 1,500-4,500 rpm

[DanManIt]

(Y) That car is amazing.

[MR_Candyman]

my point is when is it ever beneficial to have inefficiency in a system?  you could have the volvo t5 unit which is only a 2.5 which can get practically the same torque and power (and the torque is more evenly spread at that).  i just think that its a waste of gas and is typical of the american car industry to put out more polluting cars becuase nobody cares about the price of fuel.

Transversely mounted, 2.5-liter, 5-Cylinder, double-overhead cam, Turbocharger with Intercooler

Horsepower (SAE net) 208 @ 5,000 rpm

Torque (lb-ft SAE net) 236 @ 1,500-4,500 rpm

585635544[/snapback]

In a muscle car, where the revs are low, it is INEFFICIENT to have 4 valves per cylinder. The gas and air cannot mix properly when there's not enough vacuum in the engine. 2 valves per cylinder mixes far easier, reducing the vacuum needed.

Believe me, we DO care about fuel costs here. It would pollute MORE to use 4 valves per cylinder in an engine designed for low vacuum engines (generally low rpm engines are low vacuum). The fact that you and some others can not understand what makes muscle cars perform differently than your 4-bangers, etc. is obviously because you have never driven one and you don't understand how to read dyno tests properly. Yes, there are good 4bangers that have good power and torque, but the engine behaves a lot differently than a mucle car style engine does. It's not a matter of efficient or inefficient (all american companies make efficient cars aswell), it's a matter of what the car's designed use is.

[dj6ross]

Nice car, although I won't be buying one. Several people in my area have those, and I want to be different then them.

The power isn't as bad as it could have been.

I still want a '77 Trans Am, that looks like the car in the Smokey and the Bandit movies.

"Smokey and the Bandit"

1977 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am SE

Engine: W72 Pontiac 400, 6.6 Litre, 200hp

Or maybe the Trans Am from Knight Rider that goes 0-60mph in .2seconds lol.

http://www.angelfire.com/ab7/mystro152/car.html

[MR_Candyman]

Nice car, although I won't be buying one. Several people in my area have those, and I want to be different then them.

The power isn't as bad as it could have been.

I still want a '77 Trans Am, that looks like the car in the Smokey and the Bandit movies.

"Smokey and the Bandit"

1977 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am SE

Engine: W72 Pontiac 400, 6.6 Litre, 200hp

Or maybe the Trans Am from Knight Rider that goes 0-60mph in .2seconds lol.

http://www.angelfire.com/ab7/mystro152/car.html

585635694[/snapback]

eh...I had one of those trans am's (77 aswell) a long time ago. probably 90% of the weight was in the front. It was the most unsafe car in winter ever. Fun to do donuts in though, the front end pretty much stayed in the same spot. Not a bad amount of power either, but the weight ratio was horrid and made it handle like crap.

[imtoomuch]

my point is when is it ever beneficial to have inefficiency in a system?  i just think that its a waste of gas and is typical of the american car industry to put out more polluting cars becuase nobody cares about the price of fuel.

585635544[/snapback]

Face it. You're just jealous of our low gas prices. You really don't care about pollution or the environment.

[Zip]

Face it.  You're just jealous of our low gas prices.  You really don't care about pollution or the environment.

585637128[/snapback]

ha. you're such an american. i dont really need to say anything about that comment. you made yourself look stupid.

you fit the stereotype. good going.

[Whidbey05]

americans inefficent?

ford 2.0 can get 40mpg how is that ineffiecent? the Toyota Eco only gets 40, and the Toyota hybrid will only get 11 more.

The Mustang v6 want made to be efficent, if you want efficent on milage then you DONT GET A PERFORMANCE BASED CAR!!! you buy a Taurus, or something else. if ford made 250-260hp V6 mustangs then less people would buy the GT, its simple business.

[CrisCr0ss]

NIceee carrr, but im gonna wait for the re release of the Pontiac firebird or maybe just mabybe i can find a Camero :rolleyes: