Top Gear Review on 05 GT

[Brian68GT]

This may surprize you guys but...

..the guy you are slagging off for being anti-american cars showed off his new purchase on a resent episode, his life long desire, a 1968 Dodge Charger.

So whether his opinion is right or wrong, he's a fan of American muscle.

By the way, the Mustang is a very, very cheap car, therfore there are bound to be quality issues and it will never please eveyone.

Also a live rear axle will never handle as well as well as IRS, end of story. So i'm with him on that one. But them i am european!

 

[ultramagnus1]

thank you for your delightful insight rootus. There is a reason for everything. to add to your argument, if ford put that much into the car, it would cost a lot, wouldnt sell, and you couldnt mod it. Do mustang fans really want that?

 

[426H]

You must also take into account that the Mustang costs +$55000 over here. Great value for money IMO!

 

[silver4.6]

PIITB

 

[Philippe]

I watched the review again, thinking about all the comments here on it and I must disagree.

By Top Gear standards, this was a good review (if you want to see a negative review, watch the one about the VW Touareg with a V10 diesel). Like stated earlier in this thread, the guy trying the Mustang is NOT anti-american. There's actually 2 shows about the Dodge Charger of his dreams.

Seems like some people only heard the negative comments and didn't pay attention to the review as a whole. And the whole bit about "the corner" is an ongoing joke/dispute/friendly argument between american cars and european cars.

He summed it all up at the end. "It's a bargain to own an icon."

 

[QCStang]

You must also take into account that the Mustang costs +$55000 over here. Great value for money IMO!

 

[05'StangLover]

POCKET ROCKET???
THEY COST AROUND 55 THOUSAND DOLLARS IN EUROPE!

 

[AzSnake]

Why?

Probably because HP per liter is still p|ss poor compared to most performance I4 configs, and many V6's.

I love that a V8 yields the superior torque and sound, but you gotta admit that ~65 HP per liter in the new Mustang is seriously weak given today's technology... and it's still a gas hog.

So... yes... you could call it asthmatic. <-- Maybe an understatement there.

I had an SVT Focus before this '04 Mustang. No doubt that the Focus engine was weaker, but even the little 2.0 in it put out 85 HP per liter, N/A. That Zetec had variable intake and cam. With this method, J@p motors have been wringing out 100 HP or more per liter for years.

Why hasn't Ford learned how to implement this properly yet? The new Mustang uses much the same technology as the SVT Zetec (similar to VTEC) and the output per displacement still doesn't even come close. You hardly get that on their latest supercharged supercar.

What gives?

You can't keep championing displacement when your tech falls so far behind like this. Engine technology wise, Ford has got their @ss handed to them years ago, and their best efforts to compete are laughable to say the least.

WTF are you talking about?
First of all these cars have been proven to be underrated. These motors have been making an average of 275-280 RWHP after their broken in. That’s right about 70-71hp/l (this hp/l comparo is a ricers argument though and it's totally BS)
What N/A ride in Europe has over 70-71hp per L that is as fast as the Mustang, importantly (especially in Europe) getting that output on 87 Octane and is most importantly under 30K. Not if you want to compare FI to FI you gotta look at Fords Cobra which runs with nearly ANYTHING in Europe under 70K and has roughly 94hp per L, or the Ford GT which has roughly 111hp per L. Personally I think that the output their seeing is very nice for a NA V8 from the factory. Everybody was on the LS1's jock and they were only putting out 63hp per liter. The LS2 is only putting out 66hp per L. Like I said give me an example of a N/A car in Europe that has that much grunt for that little money.
Also please explain where Ford is getting killed in the engine technology and design department. In the early 90's they started from scratch with a new engine design. The engine has been developing and evolving and now runs with some of the best available and is sold in affordable packages.

 

[racinready300ex]

yeah, the hole hp/ltr thing is pretty stupid. My car make's like 150-175/ltr. how that sound. Of course I have to run the highest oct at the pump, and water injection to do it. And the power doesn't come on untile 5k rpm's. But does that really matter? All that matters is how much power you make. And how fast your car is.

If you want to go fast there is no replacement for displacement.

 

[Rootus]

What argument?

I take it you are not familiar with the definition of argument?

Clearly, we have fallen behind.

You did not respond to the facts that I gave. You say the 4.6L 3V is behind. And yet it compares favorably to several Japanese high-performance engines.

For giggles, here are some more...

Lexus LS430. 4.3L V8, very similar in size to the Mustang's engine. 290 horsepower, so it is just *slightly* more "hp per liter" than the 4.6L 3V. And 18/25 for gas mileage.

BMW 545. 4.4L V8, 325 horsepower, again just slightly more "hp per liter" than the 4.6L 3V. 17/25 for gas mileage.

So I have now given as examples a 4-cylinder Honda, 6-cylinder Nissan, an 8-cylinder Toyota, and an 8-cylinder BMW. Please elaborate on how we have fallen so far behind? Because we have a performance car that does not make the same fuel efficiency as an economy car? That argument makes little sense. Performance cars by definition will always have to sacrifice fuel efficiency, there is no way around that. Maximum fuel efficiency occurs when the engine is at max torque and nearly full throttle. That is anti-performance.

He was not disrespecting the Mustang (he does own one after all).

I never said that he was disrepecting the Mustang. Just that his "facts" are completely bogus.

Is it in your nature to go looking for fights

What can I say, I have a low threshold for dumb people. If someone is going to come on here and argue that the 4.6L 3V is garbage, they should at least bring along relevant facts to back it up.

 

[M1Rifle]

PPS - Horsepower is a measure of work done. Torque is only momentary force. So, the best measure of an engine's output/efficiency is HP/Fuel consumption. The best Ford 4.6 is far less efficient than many current foreign designs, and so is nearly every other domestic engine design. Clearly, we have fallen behind.

How are you measuring efficiency? In one argument, you say HP/displacement, in the next, you say HP/fuel. Which is it?

By the way, nobody here has any data about what type of fuel consumption the cars have while producing peak HP. So don't go around showing EPA mileage and HP peaks as any sort of "efficiency" number.

THere is no doubt that the 4.6 we have is less efficient. But you are throwing around the wrong measurements of it.

Example: Let's assume for a moment that a 4.0 liter V8 had the same exact torque and horsepower curve as our 4.6, and used the same fuel? Which is more efficient and why? (note: I have purposely left out information).

By the way, torque usability across a range of RPM is very important for driveability. Your assertion that torque is just an instananeous foce is ludicrous when comparing HP at a SINGLE RPM, which, of course, is simple an instantaneous point in time during an acceleration run.

A car that only makes usable horsepower and torque in a small band is going to require a lot of shifting to be usable. Unless you are into racing on the Engine Dyno, in which case, you win every time.

 

[Jon Do]

"THEY COST AROUND 55 THOUSAND DOLLARS IN EUROPE!"

But so does the Mustang. That is a function of exchange rates. Basically, cars are just more expensive in Europe.



Lexus LS430. 4.3L V8, very similar in size to the Mustang's engine. 290 horsepower, so it is just *slightly* more "hp per liter" than the 4.6L 3V. And 18/25 for gas mileage.

"BMW 545. 4.4L V8, 325 horsepower, again just slightly more "hp per liter" than the 4.6L 3V. 17/25 for gas mileage."

To be fair, those cars weigh more than the Mustang. When comparing the fuel efficiency of one engine to other cars, you have to factor in weight.

Still, the Mustang doesn't have poor fuel efficiency because of the engine but because of gearing.

 

[tylers65]

I take it you are not familiar with the definition of argument?

You did not respond to the facts that I gave. You say the 4.6L 3V is behind. And yet it compares favorably to several Japanese high-performance engines.

For giggles, here are some more...

Lexus LS430. 4.3L V8, very similar in size to the Mustang's engine. 290 horsepower, so it is just *slightly* more "hp per liter" than the 4.6L 3V. And 18/25 for gas mileage.

BMW 545. 4.4L V8, 325 horsepower, again just slightly more "hp per liter" than the 4.6L 3V. 17/25 for gas mileage.

So I have now given as examples a 4-cylinder Honda, 6-cylinder Nissan, an 8-cylinder Toyota, and an 8-cylinder BMW. Please elaborate on how we have fallen so far behind? Because we have a performance car that does not make the same fuel efficiency as an economy car? That argument makes little sense. Performance cars by definition will always have to sacrifice fuel efficiency, there is no way around that. Maximum fuel efficiency occurs when the engine is at max torque and nearly full throttle. That is anti-performance.

I never said that he was disrepecting the Mustang. Just that his "facts" are completely bogus.

What can I say, I have a low threshold for dumb people. If someone is going to come on here and argue that the 4.6L 3V is garbage, they should at least bring along relevant facts to back it up.

I don't recall him saying the engine was garbage.

But,

My 3.9L has more power than most 4.6L that have been produced to date.

Ford built it, so why can't they get more power out of the 4.6L?

Now, I am not saying the 4.6L is garbage, I am simply asking a question. If Ford can make 280HP with 3.9L why can't they get past 300HP with 4.6L?

PS. I still get 28MPG on the freeway with my 4000+LB Lincoln.

Same Auto Tranny as the Mustang too.

There is nothing wrong with stating facts.

There is something wrong with calling people dumb for asking a legit question.

 

[PJM99]

Mustang is not a Ferrari or Porsche. It should not be compared to those cars.

 

[Jon Do]

"Now, I am not saying the 4.6L is garbage, I am simply asking a question. If Ford can make 280HP with 3.9L why can't they get past 300HP with 4.6L?"

What incentive does Ford have to make the Mustang just 3.9 liters? That would just make it harder to modify to squeeze more power out of it, thus turning away the target audience.

Also, you have to consider torque curve and cost. The Mustang engine is probably both cheaper to make than the Jaguar engine, plus it probably has a thicker torque curve. Thus it suits this application better.

This argument is as ridiculous when used against the Mustang as it is when Ford lovers use it against GM's pushrod cars. If you can have high displacement along with fuel efficiency and light weight (and GM has made engines with all these qualities in the past), what difference does it make if an engine has high displacement? That just means it will have a fatter torque curve and be easier to modify. That is the type of engine that muscle car and pony car lovers want.

 

[426H]

"That is a function of exchange rates. Basically, cars are just more expensive in Europe.

That's not the whole truth. Yes, cars are in gereral more expensive in europe, BUT american cars are relativley more expensive in europe and european carse are relativley more expensive in the states. A '05 GT costs about the same as a Porshe Boxter and just slightly less than a BMW M3 or Audi S4 in europe.
So thats the kind of cars the stang gets compared to, and that's why I ordered the Stang!

 

[Jon Do]

Well, I think the Top Gear review concerning weak horsepower and a live axle set up starts to make more sense, then. If it is put in the class of the M3, it certainly doesn't stack up very well when looking at raw performance.

 

[Rootus]

My 3.9L has more power than most 4.6L that have been produced to date.

What does the dyno graph look like for a 3.9L vs the 4.6L? Make me eat my words, please -- it sounds like you are judging two engines by their respective peak horsepower numbers. WHY?

Ford built it, so why can't they get more power out of the 4.6L?

Since Ford does nothing by accident, I am going to say that they wanted more horsepower elsewhere under the curve, and sacrificed the top-end peak to get it.

PS. I still get 28MPG on the freeway with my 4000+LB Lincoln.

But with all due respect, I am willing to bet your Lincoln is not on par with the Mustang for performance. Fuel efficiency goes up when the engine has to work harder, which is what happens with the smaller motor in your Lincoln.

To be fair, those cars weigh more than the Mustang. When comparing the fuel efficiency of one engine to other cars, you have to factor in weight.

Do you honestly think weight is a big factor? I am not so sure. Look at the other examples I gave, in particular the Honda S2000. A little over 2800 pounds, a 2.2L motor, and 20/25. I would have expected 30-35 if weight were a big factor.

Dave

 

[Jon Do]

"Do you honestly think weight is a big factor?"

Yes. Compare the LS2 GTO with the LS2 Corvette, for example.

"Look at the other examples I gave, in particular the Honda S2000. A little over 2800 pounds, a 2.2L motor, and 20/25. I would have expected 30-35 if weight were a big factor."

But that engine revs to 9,000 RPMs. Engines that rev like that aren't fuel efficient. If that same engine was put in, say, a 4,000 lb Lexus, its fuel economy would be worse than than the 4.3L V8 that's currently in there.

Basically, even though the S2000 has a 2.2L engine, it is still a performance engine and performance engines aren't made for fuel economy.

 

[Rootus]

Basically, even though the S2000 has a 2.2L engine, it is still a performance engine and performance engines aren't made for fuel economy.

Okay, we agree . I have been saying all along that the Mustang is not a gas hog as someone else stated.

Dave