300HP? Thats It...Whats wrong with Ford

[Meat496]

Wow, an IROC Z28 is considered old school now? I must be getting old.

I've owned a few products from the general over the years, but I didn't want to admit that on this board.

LOL! the IROQ was made in the 80's my buddies is one of the late 80's cars I believe some where around 87 almost 20 years old ! I wouldnt call it a classic but I think oldschool sounds about right. so how old are you?

I believe your as young as you feel.


Later

 

[Dotanukie]

so how old are you?

I believe your as young as you feel.

Ug, I'm 35 now, don't like to think about it.

My wife keeps telling me I'm 12 though.

 

[Meat496]

Ug, I'm 35 now, don't like to think about it.

My wife keeps telling me I'm 12 though.

thats funny my wife tells me the same thing! BTW Im 28 going on 12 at least thats how she puts it.


later

 

[Dotanukie]

Next time you get a Jeep, go to the Jeep-Chrysler Dealer near that really wide bridge turn on 206 going towards Manville. They are locally owned. I bought the 300c there and they are amazing there, incredible salesmen and servicemen (they only have two salemen, the owner and his best friend..made it very personal)

Oh OK, you mean Belle Mead Chrysler/Jeep. I've been over there a few times, to get parts for my wifes Grand Cherokee and once to look at a used Volvo they had on the lot. You're right, they are nice guys.

Thats beat about your friend and the Focus, crappy that they would try to screw someone like that, especially a member of the military. Only problem I ever had there was the rear went on my Jeep Wrangler literally less than 1K past the warranty. I had the truck there twice before the warranty expired for leaks in the rear, and the third time, they were initially unwilling to admit that there was obviously a related problem. They wouldn't make good on the repair for an obviously pre-existing condition. After some haggling and threats to write a letter to Chrysler, they caved and replaced my rear with a new unit, brake drum to brake drum. They knew they were in the wrong and I was willing to make a stink about it.

 

[i4power]

I think what the n00b is trying to say is that he would like the OPTION of something higher than 300hp. 300hp for the base GT, and then something maybe bigger as an option package, just like the old days.

Still, 300hp is quite a bit. I sure would like to get that out of my 2.3 turbo project.

 

[mystein]

I think what the n00b is trying to say is that he would like the OPTION of something higher than 300hp. 300hp for the base GT, and then something maybe bigger as an option package, just like the old days.

Still, 300hp is quite a bit. I sure would like to get that out of my 2.3 turbo project.

The options are the same as they've always been. A high performance version of any model only went so far. If you wanted to take it further, there is the aftermarket and a HUGE one is already building to support the new Mustang. I think we're only a few short months away from seeing some stock '05 Mustangs solidly in the 12's (albeit on a set of drag radials). The Pure Stock 428 CJ in the 68 Mustang ran a best of something like a 13.35 ET and 106 mph trap speed when driven by a professional driver. I think what this little 281 cid 3v is accomplishing is great...and it's doing it on 87 Octane. It's only going to get better (As long as the Insurance Companies don't get involved again.)

 

[rhoover2]

I find it un-****ing-believeable that people think 300hp is "not enough". Furthermore, it is not only "not enough" power, but it is so far below their expectations that they say Ford "dropped the ball". I have news for you: an 05 GT with its paltry 300hp will make a 340hp Dodge Magnum look like it's standing still.

I have only spent around $1000 on mods for mine and I had one of those Dodge station wagons come up beside me and challange me. The results were not good for his 340HP. I don't know what mine dyno's at yet but from the start all I saw was his grill in my rear view mirror...

 

[Dotanukie]

I don't think Ford dropped the ball at all with the new Mustang, I think it's right where it needs to be for the introductory year of a major redesign. However, I will give immense kudos to Dodge on the Magnum, based on the simple fact that Ford would never even consider building a 340 horse V8 powered station wagon (or GM for that matter). For almost 15 years now Chrysler has always been the one willing to push the limit and take chances on controversial cars. They started with the Viper and never looked back, they just keep building on sales successes like the PT cruiser. Granted, they have not always hit the mark, the Prowler was a fantastic looking car but a dismal failure for obvious reasons, the verdict seems to still be out on the Crossfire, I hear the SRT version is much better. But you can't fault them for not trying. Whats the riskiest thing Ford has built in the last decade, the GT? I'm not trying to slam Ford here, thats not my intent, but I think they (and GM) have played things way to safe and conservative for to long now. I think the SSR was one of the best things GM has done in awhile, even though I don't particularly like the car. They saw what happened to Chrysler with the Prowler, learned from that mistake, and made an edgy, in your face enthusiast oriented vehicle with something under the hood that can at least come close to backing up it's looks. Now I'm waiting for Ford to pull the trigger on something similar, something that a person with an income less than Donald Trump can afford.

 

[Jon Do]

The Mustang GT was meant to sell in the low $20s. If Ford gave it too much power no one would step up to the 5.4L version with the Triton V8 in the mid to high $20s. Also remember that both Ford base engines are supposed to see a power boost in 2007...


The arguments about GM pushrod engines are ridiculous... The simply fact is, old camaros were dynoing higher than new Mustangs. The LS1 was not old technology--it came out in '97. The LS2 is not old either--it came out in 2005. GM would rather use larger displacement pushrods for cost and packaging savings. It doesn't matter. They get better performance, mileage and a more compact than the Ford engines... The Chrysler 300C has a pushrod engine too, but compare that engine to one from the 50s and you will see a difference.

 

[jadesville]

The LS2 is not old either--it came out in 2005.

We live in 2004.

 

[watch]

The basic design for the cheevy small block has not changed since the 50's.Can you name one sports car with a V8,V12 or V6 that STILL relies on anything other then sohc 3 valve or dohc 4 valve design (except saleen ) ?

 

[watch]

I said design not parts,you still have not named any manufacturer that uses this money saving ,space saving ohv architecture.

 

[one2gamble]

the LS series is basically the best of the sbf/sbc in one motor. It really is a good pushrod design.

 

[Jon Do]

"I said design not parts,you still have not named any manufacturer that uses this money saving ,space saving ohv architecture."

Chrysler just went back to using them.

Pushrod engines are at a disadvantage compared to OHC engines because their engine characteristics favor low end to midrange torque. However, with muscle cars, that is what we want--these type of cars aren't tuned for high end torque in the first place. The simple fact is, it makes no difference to the end user. Do you really think you would hate your Mustang that much more if instead of its current 4.6L 3 valve OHC engine, it had the slightly higher horespower engine from the 2002 Camaro?

I can see a problem with OHV in say, a high revving performance car like the RX-8 but not in the Mustang or Camaro. Besides, the LS2 revvs 500 RPMs higher than the engine in the Mustang anyway...

 

[ponypowa2]

LOL.. the higher reving cam motors were developed by the japanese way before pushrod engines... SOHC and DOHC are ultra old technology if you wanna look at it that way

 

[watch]

Can't name one SPORTS CAR WORTH A F--- .Let me help your camaro mind set. Acura? NO BMW? NO FERRARI? NOOOOO! HONDA? NO JAGUAR? no MERCEDES?NO NISSAN? NO PORSCHE? NO and on and on . GET with the program they dont' make the f body's for a good reason , figure it out. The Corvette is the only good car cheevy makes today


WHEN WAS THE SOHC 427 FORD ENGINE BUILT WHEN ? TRY !1965 THE HONDA STARTED MAKING CARS IN 1970

 

[watch]

HELLO the mustang is also in that group . Go back to your GM board

 

[watch]

MERCEDES uses single cam for a good reason go check it out. Since you brought up the Z06 ,call your local cheevy dealer and ask them how many ring jobs they do a month on the 01Z06 .

 

[watch]

MERCEDES well why not OHV with two valves .

 

[z3r0c00l]

I am a total fan of the Mustang and am in love with the new body style but why couldn't they come up with more than 300HP. You can buy a Chrysler 300c or a Dodge StationWagon with 340HP. Jaguar even has a lighter 4.4L motor producing 300HP. Ford needs a major option like the all Aluminum Big Block from Chevy in the 60s (the option cost more than the car). I want a muscle car with real muscle. Ford came really close with this version but dropped the ball on the motor.

You should check and see of the Jag or 300c are modular. My guess - No. What does that mean....you're pretty much stuck with what you get out of the factory.

Not with the Mustang however. It's marketed and built to be modified. That's the point, and the main reason for their popularity, besides the fact that it's an american icon and looks badass. Good luck strapping on that SC to the 300c; want some steeda springs for that 300c, or how about some 46 lb injectors... doh... that's right you can't do that with a 300c or at least not easily.