What’s wrong with Ford and the new Mustang? - Page 14

Jaguar D-Type · 12-14-2005, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 01L2Cobra

1. MacPherson front suspension
2. No IRS
3. It's too heavy

Here is a little tid bid of info the SVT Fusion has already been said to be nothing more than a MazdaSpeed6.

Not to be rude, but have you driven a new Mustang GT?

Also, thanks for the "official" information with sources.

01L2Cobra · 12-14-2005, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaguar D-Type

Not to be rude, but have you driven a new Mustang GT?

Yes I have thats why I have an 01 Cobra.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaguar D-Type

Also, thanks for the "official" information with sources.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Motortrend

One SVT insider also has hinted that they're eyeing the turbocharged, all-wheel-drive Mazda Speed6 to yield its powertrain and suspension upgrades to create an SVT Fusion.

http://www.motortrend.com/future/spi...by/index1.html

TheStang00 · 12-14-2005, 11:31 AM

i also researched last night and found that the speed6 will be atleast a starting point for the SVT fusion. however i dont mind that at all, i mean comon, a turbocharged AWD midsized car that should corner well. i cant complain. should be a lot better than SVT contours.

BlackGT2000 · 12-18-2005, 09:25 AM

How can anyone bash the new GT500 that hasn't even come out yet? Nobody has driven it. I don't see how a car with the motor from a supercar and the suspension of a race car can be all bad. I also never thought I would see the day when someone called a car that will likely run a low 12 and has 450+ horsepower, underpowered. As for the new GT, I am jealous. I have driven it and its much better than my own GT. Every car on earth is only getting heavier with all the safety and rigidity people are demanding.

01L2Cobra · 12-18-2005, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackGT2000

I don't see how a car with the motor from a supercar and the suspension of a race car can be all bad.

Thats not true. It doesn't have the Ford GT engine and the suspension is not the same as the FR500C. 450hp in a 2 ton car is underpowered. Just look at the 300C SRT-8 that what it will be like with maybe 25hp more.

BlackGT2000 · 12-18-2005, 11:21 AM

Come on, they may not be identical parts but they are reasonably close. I am however aware of the differences so there is no need to point them out. I am glad that they made it a solid rear personally, if it was only an option than we would be stuck with a poor solid rear or a poor IRS. I mean as it stands its going to have a great solid rear. Coming from where the mustang was 2 years ago (not so good solid rear, not so good IRS in the cobra)everyone should be happy. Correct me if I am wrong, most of the last IRS's benefit really came from the balast weight it added in the rear to balance the car (not to mention smoother around corners). I really can't judge the car yet being that its not on the road, but I am sure it will be the fastest mustang ever.

01L2Cobra · 12-18-2005, 11:25 AM

The last IRS was on a platform that was never intended to have one. The new 3link is on a platform intended to have an IRS. In other words an IRS would be better than what is on there now.

TheStang00 · 12-18-2005, 12:02 PM

Yeah but most people buy mustangs for straight line speeds anyway, its a muscle car. According to the tests ive seen just in magazines the solid rear on this car is really great for a solid rear.

While the pulley situation is a setback on modding, i know the engine has a lot of potential, and it shouldnt be too difficult to get some more power out. its probably underrated too. did you know that the Ford GT actually had about 600 crank hp when motor trend dynoed it? (im not saying magazines are always right, but thats all we have to go off that i know of).

BlackGT2000 · 12-18-2005, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 01L2Cobra

The last IRS was on a platform that was never intended to have one. The new 3link is on a platform intended to have an IRS. In other words an IRS would be better than what is on there now.

I agree with you there. I was just saying that I appreciate the fact that they made an acceptable compromise to me in that they used the 3 link rather than the clumsy 4 link or offer another retrofitted IRS. It really has to be one way or another, at least this time they picked one and did it correctly.

Jaguar D-Type · 12-21-2005, 07:18 PM

Graham Bell, a European reviewer for pistonheads.com, liked the Roush 420RE. He probably would have like it more with the interior upgrade package (IUP).

http://www.pistonheads.com/doc.asp?c=47&i=12670

01L2Cobra · 12-21-2005, 10:18 PM

big deal have you ever seen the Top Gear review of the 05? They give the car the thumbs up but not by much in fact Clarkson even says its "it's not a very good car". Even when they reviewed it they had to take it out on the longest straight flat road they could find.

http://cec.wustl.edu/~ljm1/personal/...Mustang4-2.avi

Loekee75 · 12-21-2005, 10:24 PM

In my opinion any "new" mustang is better than the old foxbody style

giddyup50 · 12-22-2005, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loekee75

In my opinion any "new" mustang is better than the old foxbody style

Oh No You Didn't!! Sorry, I need a beer. I know the Fox body Mustangs were not the best looking, most aerodynamic, most powerfull, didn't have the best brakes/suspension. BUT, you have to admit that the Fox body Stangs are what got us this far! They had plenty of power-225, tons of torque-300. They were also very lightwieght. And most of all, fun as hell to drive!! For dragracing they have to be the best, because of their lightwieght. And if you upgrade the brakes/suspension, they would be great for the roadcoarse aswell. As for the looks of them, I like the clean lines of the Fox, kind of like the 1979 or 1980 Chevy Malibu, just a clean looking car, but with the right wheels/tires or the right setup they look mean. Don't get me wrong the 94 and up Stangs are better braking/suspension, aero, power (99-05), and they do look mean. And don't forget, the Fox's are alot easier to work on and their is a TON of aftermarket for the Fox 5.0!! But come on man, how can you dog the Fox??

giddyup50 · 12-22-2005, 07:07 PM

Why is it the Fox even after all of it's sucess some people just don't give them the respect they deserve? It's not like they are the Mustang II (Pinto) from 74-78!!

TheStang00 · 12-22-2005, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by giddyup50

Why is it the Fox even after all of it's sucess some people just don't give them the respect they deserve? It's not like they are the Mustang II (Pinto) from 74-78!!

despite how pathetic the power may have been, i really like the mustang II

POST REPLY TO THIS THREAD