Top Gear Review on 05 GT

[Jon Do]

Other reasons the Mustang get poor gas:

1) Since it is a newly designed engine, Ford made it run a little rich to be on the safe side.

2) It has to run on regular fuel whereas these luxury car engines are generally made to take premium.

At least those are other reasons that have been stated on this forum.

I would expect the Mustang to get better than 18 MPG but that is still slightly better than the 1.3L Mazda RX-8 gets!

 

[juanito]

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!

I've recently moved to California from the UK (Berkshire.) Last week, I told my friends in the UK that I had ordered a brand new 300 horsepower car (with warranty) for the equivalent of 13k pounds sterling. They couldn't believe it. The price gap exists with guitars, clothing, electronics, and just about anything else you can imagine, so it shouldn't be a surprise, but it's still shocking.

Because of the "rip-off britain" culture of the distributors and dealers, the Mustang has to compete with $50k cars, not $25k cars. Against that class of car, the Top Gear criticisms are fair (though they still love the car.) Ask that much money, put the steering wheel on the wrong side, and it takes a very special person to sign the order form.

Here in California, I've ordered the Mustang GT. In the UK, I was a Caterham/Lotus guy. They are VERY different cars, but the countries that they are driven in are entirely different as well. Neither one is superior in an any absolute sense. They do fit their respective countries of origin.

 

[mattdee1]

"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.

I agree with everything said here.

Anybody who truly thinks it through should not have to ask why Ford's HP/L in the new 4.6L is not as high as some Japanese products, or even other Ford products.

First of all, they could have seen appreciable gains in output simply by upping the compression and requiring premium fuel. Obviously, the designers understand this, and the decision to go low compression was deliberate (presumably so as to not scare off people too cheap to buy premium gas).

Second, optimizing HP/L can be costly. For this type of thing, the law of diminishing returns starts to apply fairly soon, and the incremental improvements afforded by a given "improvement" cannot be justified in light of the corresponding increase in cost. The engineers (and unfortunately, the bean counters) strike a balance that is inevitably less than optimal on an absolute scale, but still within what they deem acceptable for their target demographic.

This last point is key: the Mustang is nothing if not a great bang-for-your-buck car. Obviously, Ford understands this. We just have to accept that bang-for-your-buck means things are built on a tight budget.

I guess I'm just tired of seeing people scratch their heads wondering why Ford can't muster more power out of their V8's when, in most cases, the fact that said individuals can even afford to drive one is the answer they're looking for.

 

[tylers65]

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?

January 15th I am scheduled for a pull with the Lincoln along with some local members of Stangnet. I will post my results for you to see.

As for why I am judging by peak HP numbers... Because everyone else is. I thought that was what we were talking about. HP per Liter

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.

I am sure you are correct about this assumption

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.

You are right, but it was not built to be. My car weigh 4800 LBS, it actually weight 1000LBS more than a Mustang.

Fuel efficiency goes up when the engine works harder???? By this logic, the more I stomp on the gas, the better MPG I should get??? I think you have this back asswards. The harder the engine works, the worse my mileage gets. This should mean (in theory) that the Mustang would get far better gas mileage than my car because it has to do less work because it has more power and less weight to move.

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

Is weight a big factor??? Ask Colin Chapman (Founder of Lotus.) The 2005 Lotus Elise weighs a mere 1975LBS and is powere by a 190HP Toyota motor. Goes 0-60 in 4.6 seconds, Standing 1/4 in 13.00 flat and still gets 35MPG. Why you might ask? Because of weight.

Power to weight ratio means everything. If weight were not a factor, thn the Mustang should be able to get down the 1/4 way faster than the little Lotus based on Power alone.

When you squeeze 250HP out of a car like the S2000, you are going to make a sacrifice soewhere. Gas mileage is what was sacrificed in this case. My point is simple. I get similar power and better fuel economy out of a much heavier car with smaller displacement.

Ford built them both, so why can't the Mustang get either better Power or better fuel economy. I am not dumb enough to ask for both, but logic tells me that they should be able to do it as they already have proven they can.

As I said before, I am not knocking the Mustang, I am knocking the lack of technology that went into this new car.

It uses the same tranny as my car, the same computer, and has a bigger engine, but barely more power and less fuel economy. It lacks reasonable sense to me.

 

[tylers65]

"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.

Please read the line that you quoted and think REEAALL hard about it.

It asks a simple question and does NOT make a statement.

The question = Why can't Ford make more power with the 4.6 when the 3.9 has 280?

In no way, shape, or form did I ever suggest, theorize, hint at, or demand that the 3.9 should go into a Mustang. I actually went back and re-read my own post just to make sure that I didn't do such a thing, and I can see nowhere that anything I said could have been taken in that context.

I guess I am trying be nice when what I really mean is ... please do not quote me if you do not understand what it is I am saying.

 

[tylers65]

I agree with everything said here.

Anybody who truly thinks it through should not have to ask why Ford's HP/L in the new 4.6L is not as high as some Japanese products, or even other Ford products.

First of all, they could have seen appreciable gains in output simply by upping the compression and requiring premium fuel. Obviously, the designers understand this, and the decision to go low compression was deliberate (presumably so as to not scare off people too cheap to buy premium gas).

Second, optimizing HP/L can be costly. For this type of thing, the law of diminishing returns starts to apply fairly soon, and the incremental improvements afforded by a given "improvement" cannot be justified in light of the corresponding increase in cost. The engineers (and unfortunately, the bean counters) strike a balance that is inevitably less than optimal on an absolute scale, but still within what they deem acceptable for their target demographic.

This last point is key: the Mustang is nothing if not a great bang-for-your-buck car. Obviously, Ford understands this. We just have to accept that bang-for-your-buck means things are built on a tight budget.

I guess I'm just tired of seeing people scratch their heads wondering why Ford can't muster more power out of their V8's when, in most cases, the fact that said individuals can even afford to drive one is the answer they're looking for.

The point was not about power, it was about both power and/or MPG.

I know my car uses premium and has an advantage of the higher octane, but it also has a 1000LBS weight dissadvantage and still gets better MPG than the Mustang.

An no, it is not the gearing, and no, it is not the tranny. Gears are similar and the tranny is the exact same 5 speed auto as the Mustang.

The end is simple.

I am only saying these things to validate a point another poster was trying to make.

It is possible to get both power and EPA ratings out of the Mustang. Unfortunately, certain members of this forum feel inclined to beat up on someone for having a different view point.

I could actually care less about this debate if it were not for the fact that rootus decided to go E:bully on another member for stating simple facts. Otherwise, this thread blows and should be deleted for not staying on the topic at hand.

Shall we all get back to the Top Gear review now?

Thanks

 

[Jon Do]

"The question = Why can't Ford make more power with the 4.6 when the 3.9 has 280?"

Because it would cost more money. Also, as a Muscle car, Ford is concentrating on torque, not HP.

"In no way, shape, or form did I ever suggest, theorize, hint at, or demand that the 3.9 should go into a Mustang. I actually went back and re-read my own post just to make sure that I didn't do such a thing, and I can see nowhere that anything I said could have been taken in that context."

I didn't take it in that context bro.

"I guess I am trying be nice when what I really mean is ... please do not quote me if you do not understand what it is I am saying."

I am sorry about that. However, I didn't know I misunderstood you when I quoted you! I also didn't think you meant that the 3.9 should go into the Mustang. What I meant was, Mustang owners don't care about HP/liter--unless they are comparing their car to a Camaro or something which makes more HP and gets better fuel economy . Muscle car owners, if anything, would rather prefer the higher displacement, lower HP/liter car because that car is easier to modify.

However, rereading my intial post, my tone was rude, and that was uncalled for. So I do admit my error in that regard.

To answer your question regarding mileage, the Mustang will probably get better mileage in 2007 when the engine gets upgraded. However, now it has been tuned very conservatively (and thus runs a little rich) to be on the safe side. Basically, the engine is a new design for 2005 and Ford wanted to play it safe. Because of that, they let it run rich but in a few years, when they are better able to gauge the durability of this new design, MPG should improve a bit.

Of course, there are other issues such as the gearing and the low-grade fuel; these issues will still contribute to poor gas mileage in 2007. However, there are things that Ford will improve upon with time.

I didn't think you suggested that the 3.9L engine should go into the Mustang. I just meant to say that HP/liter is pretty meaningless. I mean, look at the 2005 Corvette. It has 400 HP and 6.0L, but I have read a few reviews that suggest it is a mid 20s car when driven mostly on the highway. Now the Mazda RX-8 is 1.3L but it is an 18 MPG car like the Mustang. The S2000 is a light car with a 2.2L engine but it sucks gas like a 400 HP Corvette. The basic point is that when you get that much HP out of so few liters, the gas mileage isn't going to be great anyway. Even though 1.3 or 2.2 liters don't suck gas, 9,000 revs do. (Especially compared to the Mustang's 6,000 revs.)

If the Mustang had different gearing, it would be a better fuel economy. However, Ford must have been hellbent on getting a 5 second 0-60. Because of that they tuned it way for the low end; as such, both fuel economy and top end acceleration suffer.

 

[Rootus]

As for why I am judging by peak HP numbers... Because everyone else is. I thought that was what we were talking about. HP per Liter

That is what *some* are talking about. Peak HP per liter is a 100% pointless measurement. It tells us almost nothing about an engine, just one point on a long continuum.

Is weight a big factor??? Ask Colin Chapman (Founder of Lotus.) The 2005 Lotus Elise weighs a mere 1975LBS and is powere by a 190HP Toyota motor. Goes 0-60 in 4.6 seconds, Standing 1/4 in 13.00 flat and still gets 35MPG. Why you might ask? Because of weight.

23/27 actually. Just another example of how horsepower costs fuel efficiency. You want good economy, you have to underpower the car. Like your Lincoln .

I am trying to figure out how to explain why an engine is more efficient under heavy load. But although I understand it myself quite well, I can't figure out a way to convey that here without making a *huge* post. So I won't. There are plenty of resources on the 'net that can explain it better than I. The short answer to your question is that you get worse gas mileage when you hit the gas on your Lincoln because you are accelerating, and doing more work. If you were required to use a lot of throttle just to maintain speed, you would not be doing more work than a car which uses very little throttle to maintain speed, but your engine would be doing it more efficiently.

Dave

 

[tylers65]

I just meant to say that HP/liter is pretty meaningless.

It wasn't meeaningles in 1965 when Ford was touted for being able to get more than 1HP per cubic inch with the 289HiPo

But I guess heritage has little to do with the Mustang

 

[Jon Do]

Well, I think it is meaningless if the high HP/liter engine weighs more and/or gets worse fuel economy. These small displacement Japanese sports cars are not great on fuel economy. That is because gearing and RPMs basically ruin the lower displacement advantage.

These tiny engines are basically made to run in tiny cars, and because of that their compact (usually 4 cylinder) size is OK. In a big car like the Mustang however, there is space for a bigger engine.

GM probably makes the most fuel efficient sports cars when considering their power levels, and they use the largest engines. (Excluding the Viper.) Think of the Corvette with 6.0 liters. Sure, it has 6.0 liters but it also makes 400 HP and can get in the mid twenties with a lot of highway miles.

The Corvette can get such great fuel economy (particularly on the highway) because it has enough torque such that it can be geared to rev really low when cruising--in fact, it may be spinning at less than 2,000 RPMs cruising on the highway! T

he Japanese 4 cylinder high HP engines have no torque so they have to rev like crazy. Since they have not torque, they have to be geared to turn high revs crusing on the highway. And revs eat fuel just like displacement does.

Now let's look at the engine with the greatest HP/liter available. The Mazda RX-8. It has a N/A engine with 1.3L. And the car only weighs 3,000 lbs. But it still only gets about 18 MPG in fuel economy. Just be glad that your 300 HP Mustang can hold its own with these 1.3L cars with regards to fuel economy. And the worst part about it is the RX-8 has a 6 speed transmission and the Mustang has 5. If Ford decided to put more money into the transmission (and they may well do so when they release the 5.4L Triton V8 version of the Mustang) the Mustang would probably be getting better fuel economy than the RX-8. In fact, I am willing to guess that the 5.4 Triton V8 version of the Mustang might get better fuel economy than the **current** 4.6L version if it does come with that six speed.

Personally, I would be a little pissed getting 18 MPG in a 300 HP Mustang but I would be REALLY pissed about getting anything less than 20 MPG on average in a 3,000 lb RX-8. At least you get some torque with your bad fuel economy. But then again, just like Mustang lovers love their torque, RX-8 fans love their huge rev band. Both eat fuel economy like crazy.

 

[Brian68GT]

With the $ getting weaker and weaker the Mustang is becoming cheaper and cheaper in europe.

I worked it out that if i can get a Mustang to Ireland, including shipping and import duty for around 34,000 euros ($45,000). Thats cheaper than an Audi A3, which would cost me 34,000 euros.

If the dollar continues to drop, so will the price for euroipean buyers. There is speculation that the $ may go to 1.80! That means i may be able to get an 05 for 15,000 euros plus import duty! that makes it mid 20's. My 1999 Audi A6 cost me 12,500 euros 6 months ago.

Keeping in mind Ireland is also THE most expensive place in Europe to buy cars, more expensive than even the UK, and the Mustang is still cheap here.

Bring it on!

 

[juanito]

With the $ getting weaker and weaker the Mustang is becoming cheaper and cheaper in europe.

I worked it out that if i can get a Mustang to Ireland, including shipping and import duty for around 34,000 euros ($45,000). Thats cheaper than an Audi A3, which would cost me 34,000 euros.

If the dollar continues to drop, so will the price for euroipean buyers. There is speculation that the $ may go to 1.80! That means i may be able to get an 05 for 15,000 euros plus import duty! that makes it mid 20's. My 1999 Audi A6 cost me 12,500 euros 6 months ago.

Keeping in mind Ireland is also THE most expensive place in Europe to buy cars, more expensive than even the UK, and the Mustang is still cheap here.

Bring it on!

The problem in the UK is that the local distributors don't drop price as the dollar crashes, so you have to import privately to benefit. I'm unfamiliar with the rules in the republic, but the UK club covers a number of issues that may still be relevant for private import - shipping, etc... http://www.mocgb.co.uk/ look in the FAQ.

On the German cars, can't you do what so many in the UK do - order a RHD car from the continent at ~30 to 50% savings?

But back to the `05 Mustang review thread already in progress...

 

[DBMSTNG]

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.

hp/l isn't anywhere near as important as hp/weight. i have an SVT Focus. it needs to make more hp/l to make up for it's torque deficiency. also, if you want 100 hp/l out of a V8, it's gonna cost you alot more than $25k. it's simple economics. what other V8 car comes close within $15k of the Mustang and make as much hp/l? none. the 400hp LS2 makes .5hp/l less than the new 3V.

people keep bitching about stuff like this without realizing that Ford is trying to make this car affordable to the average Joe. look at the S2000. you pay $30k for a hi-output 4cyl and it still gets beat by the low tech/lower price Mustang GT's in acceleration.

 

[mattdee1]

That is what *some* are talking about. Peak HP per liter is a 100% pointless measurement. It tells us almost nothing about an engine, just one point on a long continuum.

23/27 actually. Just another example of how horsepower costs fuel efficiency. You want good economy, you have to underpower the car. Like your Lincoln .

I am trying to figure out how to explain why an engine is more efficient under heavy load. But although I understand it myself quite well, I can't figure out a way to convey that here without making a *huge* post. So I won't. There are plenty of resources on the 'net that can explain it better than I. The short answer to your question is that you get worse gas mileage when you hit the gas on your Lincoln because you are accelerating, and doing more work. If you were required to use a lot of throttle just to maintain speed, you would not be doing more work than a car which uses very little throttle to maintain speed, but your engine would be doing it more efficiently.

Dave

This is absolutely true. Mechanical efficiency increases with throttle opening.

Gasoline has a given "energy content" that is converted into mechanical energy via the combustion process. Mechanical efficiency is basically:

(Power Out) / (Power In)

"Power Out" corresponds to the useable (i.e. brake) power generated by the engine. In this case, "Power In" is the flow rate of chemical energy into the engine (due to the steady flow of fuel into the cylinders). With a given rate of fuel flow, there is an upper bound to the amount of power the engine can make. In other words, the engine cannot possibly make more power than is being delivered by the amount of fuel it burns. Due to the inherent inefficiencies of the 4-stroke cycle, the engine never even gets close.

To put it in perspective, if you're running a mechanical efficiency of over 30% with a 4-stroke engine, you're doing quite well.

There's a lot more to the story than this, but it is a FACT that a given engine's mechanical efficiency is at it's best when running at wide-open throttle.

 

[tylers65]

This is absolutely true. Mechanical efficiency increases with throttle opening.

Gasoline has a given "energy content" that is converted into mechanical energy via the combustion process. Mechanical efficiency is basically:

(Power Out) / (Power In)

"Power Out" corresponds to the useable (i.e. brake) power generated by the engine. In this case, "Power In" is the flow rate of chemical energy into the engine (due to the steady flow of fuel into the cylinders). With a given rate of fuel flow, there is an upper bound to the amount of power the engine can make. In other words, the engine cannot possibly make more power than is being delivered by the amount of fuel it burns. Due to the inherent inefficiencies of the 4-stroke cycle, the engine never even gets close.

To put it in perspective, if you're running a mechanical efficiency of over 30% with a 4-stroke engine, you're doing quite well.

There's a lot more to the story than this, but it is a FACT that a given engine's mechanical efficiency is at it's best when running at wide-open throttle.

I stand corrected

 

[jasonlee0704]

Just from an engineering standpoint, whenever you take a basic design and aim for a higher output, efficiency is going to suffer. Comparing the efficiency of a 2.xL 4-cylinder engine to a 4.6L 8-cylinder is laughable because you're comparing two totally different power targets. Gaining the same efficiency at a higher power target will require more trade-offs - cost, complexity, smaller powerband, etc. If it were simply a matter of engine design, Japanese trucks/SUVs would be running around with 300-400+ HP engines... and last I checked, a Toyota Tundra with a 4.7L DOHC 32V 8-cylinder was making 282 HP, 325 lb/ft in a vehicle in approximately the same price range as the Mustang GT. For another example, the new 350Z base model is approximately in the Mustang GT's price range, making 287 peak HP from a 3.5L DOHC 24V V-6. But that's also on premium fuel (higher compression), and to get a 350Z with a 300 HP engine requires a price hike of $8,000 to the Track model, way out of the GT's price point.

Sure, the 05 Mustang could have had a 460 peak HP N/A engine... it'd probably drive like a dog unless you were above 5000 RPM, it'd run on premium fuel, and you'd pay $40K+ for your new Mustang GT... all of which would hurt Mustang sales and Ford's bottom line.

Also, HP/liter is not nearly as important as HP/weight of the engine performance-wise. If you've got two engines making the same HP/torque curves, weighing the same, but with wildly different displacements, which engine will drive the vehicle faster? Overhead cam technology is great at decreasing the displacement of the engine, but not so great as it balloons the size and weight of the engine for a given displacement. As a consequence, a Ford iron-block 4.6L SOHC has nearly the exact same dimensions as a Ford 460 cu.in. iron big-block OHV V-8 (28" x 25 5/8" x 26" vs. 32" x 26" x 26") and it weighs more than the old iron 5.0L OHV (thank heavens Ford's moved to mostly aluminum blocks).

 

[Mickey21]

Back to the topic at hand. After watching the video I gotta say I dont see the negativity in the review. It was a little tongue in cheek, but in the end the reviewer loved the car. The only sequence in the video you need is the roar of the V8 engine and acceleration he fealt. The intangible things he is talking about is looks and the feeling of power. That is why I buy Mustangs. The roar of the engine, the gut feeling of speed. That will keep me and a lot others coming back time and time again... Bravo Ford, Bravo...

To compare the Mustang to something that hasn't lasted the test of time is sheer nonsense... To compare it to something that has, is only a showing of appreciation for the icons that matter...

 

[NumberWon]

I finally downloaded the video (dial-up ).

I saw a little negativity in it. Saying the car actually wasn't very good, but it just looked good. Then there were a few other stabs at it and one at American cars. Plus, he says the Stang got tamer over the years... yeah, you race an original Mustang from back in the 60s against the 05. Of course, all of this could have been meant as humor since they have a different sense of humor over across the pond.

Also strange that they say the Mustang is just a badge. Maybe to them. To most Americans, it means a little more than that.

 

[Jon Do]

I saw a little negativity in it. Saying the car actually wasn't very good, but it just looked good.
--------------------------------

Well, Mustangs over there cost as much as S4s and BMW M3s. When you consider that, it was a positive review.

 

[nomostang]

I love top gear

I don't always agree with their bashing of our American machinery, however, as a videographer, I love the production value of their show! It is tight! the video work is beautiful! the countrysides, and scenes and the tongue in cheek humor are what make the show worth watching. Does it air here in the USA? I would love to watch it on a regular basis.