Why 4.6?

Discussion in '2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-' started by svtash, Jul 8, 2005.


  1. jfischer

    jfischer New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2005
    Messages:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I was talking about mileage efficiency :nice:

    Yes, the 4.6 puts out slightly more HP per liter, but the LS1 still puts out much more power overall than the 4.6, and gets better mileage doing it.

    What's really pathetic is the 4.0 V6 in the Mustang. 210 horsepower and hardly any better mileage than the 4.6 V8. I rented a brand new 2005 V6 a while back with 550 miles on the clock. Did a couple hundred mostly highway miles on it and it got <20 MPG.
     
    #21
  2. oohsoobad2

    oohsoobad2 Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2004
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I for one would love to see more cubic inches in an affordable Mustang. Ive been waiting for it since 94 when they should have used a 351. Granted the Shelbys on its way but it'll be too damn expensive for me. A 330hp 3V 5.4 sounds like a good GT motor to me.
     
    #22
  3. jfischer

    jfischer New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2005
    Messages:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    350hp 3V 5.4 sounds even better to me :D
     
    #23
  4. 351CJ

    351CJ New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Messages:
    1,769
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My point was that the LS1 does not meet the latest emissions requirements and would most likely have it's milage reduced if it was updated to meet them.

    The LS2 was not part of the discussion at that point.
     
    #24
  5. jfischer

    jfischer New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2005
    Messages:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not that I don't believe you, but do you have a source for that? Given that the LS1 was a brand-new design in 1998 and not all that old, I find it difficult to believe that it has any sort of emission issues.
     
    #25
  6. Rainz

    Rainz New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You win the fanboy award for being completely ignorant. I love all brands of American cars. The new Z06 pricing has already come out, putting the base price at 65k. You're 15k off. You can get a base Vette at around 45k. The Base GTO goes at 28k. So please, don't try and blow sunshine up everyone's ass with your ignorance. GM's been in slumps before, they'll get out. So please don't post until you know what the hell you're talking about.
     
    #26
  7. Mossberg

    Mossberg Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    ATL, Shawty
    Requoted for the mileage arguements in posts above
     
    #27
  8. SVTdriver

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2001
    Messages:
    3,425
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle Wa
    Speaking of knowing what you are talking about. Have you looked at the Pontiac website?
    http://www.pontiac.com/gto/index.jsp?brand=home
    GTO:
    Base MSRP: $32,995 before incentives*
    As shown: $32,995 before incentives*
    Standard Features
    • 6.0L Gen IV LS2 V8 engine
    • Standard 4L65-E 4-speed automatic transmission1
    • Rear-wheel drive and independent rear suspension
    • Driver Information Center
    • 8-way power-adjustable sport seats
    • 200 watt Blaupunkt Surround Sound entertainment system

    1 Tremec close-ratio 6-speed manual transmission is available
    Maybe the sunshine has blinded you :shrug: . You are however correct on the corvette.
     
    #28
  9. Bob Cosby

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 1999
    Messages:
    287
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    HP/L is a poor metric for determining how well an engine does. That's an arguement that the import racers have used for years, and is still virtually meaningless.

    A more useful measurement would be how much HP the engine makes vs how physically big and/or heavy it is. This is where the Modular motor simply does not compare well to the LSx series. Though I'm a big Mustang fan, the LSx is clearly a superior motor compared to the modular by most standards. It is physically smaller, physically lighter, overall simpler, makes more power, and is likely at least the equal of the modular for fuel efficiency. Reliability is probably pretty close between the two, though I cannot say with any certainty one way or the other.

    That said, the only car I would readily buy that GM currently puts a LSx in is the Vette. The GTO is very nice, just a bit too heavy for my tastes given its power, and I'm not fond of IRS.
     
    #29
  10. Rainz

    Rainz New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    With the rebates the GTO will go for under 30k.
     
    #30
  11. SVTdriver

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2001
    Messages:
    3,425
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle Wa
    Sure but people can negotiate a lot on prices (People have gotten x-plan or even just above invoice for the stang). So that is meaningless. Some people get better pricing some don't. MSRP is the ultimate price EVEYONE starts from.
     
    #31
  12. 02LS1

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Boynton Beach, FL
    Did they all come with a T56 behind them?

    As I said earlier, the 4L60E's (depends a little on 2.73s or 3.23s) were rated just slightly less mileage than with the T56...no CAGS, no tall 6th.
     
    #32
  13. jfischer

    jfischer New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2005
    Messages:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There are no rebates on the GTO, and it is not part of the GM Employee Pricing this month either.
     
    #33
  14. Bob Cosby

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 1999
    Messages:
    287
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    I guess that depends upon your definition of "slightly less". A 2002 Z28 M6 was rated at 28 mpg highway. The same car with an A4 was rated at 25 mpg highway (regardless of gear).

    To go one further, the 2005 GTO (with the LS2 and .57 6th gear) is rated at 25 mpg highway, while the A4 is rated 21 mpg highway.

    Edit: Fixed my typos.....or postos, as this one was pretty bad.
     
    #34
  15. jfischer

    jfischer New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2005
    Messages:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The 2005 GTO is rated 17/25 with the M6, and 16/21 with the A4.
     
    #35
  16. Bob Cosby

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 1999
    Messages:
    287
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Errr....I meant to put 21 mpg highway for the A4. Thanks for the correction - I edited my post.
     
    #36
  17. sawman70

    sawman70 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Messages:
    238
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Cleveland Ohio Area

    Hey RAINZ, don't take it so personal, is your last name General motors or something.

    I'll post whatever my memory gives me to work with at the time and if I am corrected, that is cool. Read all the posts prior to spewing your stupity next time.

    Your the GM hero of the hour!!!! :hail2:
     
    #37
  18. sawman70

    sawman70 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Messages:
    238
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Cleveland Ohio Area
    No one said it wasn't. It just wasn't enough to keep the car alive. The original point of this thread was the 4.6 is too small.

    Obviously by the sales numbers, it is not.

    I fail to see where this logic creates an atmosphere for argument. :shrug:
     
    #38
  19. SVTdriver

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2001
    Messages:
    3,425
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle Wa
    Because sometimes everyone needs a reason to be unhappy.
     
    #39
  20. cheezsnake

    cheezsnake New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I suppose, by this argument, we should be looking at something like (HP*Kg)/L. An interesting formula, but output efficiency has traditionally been measured in HP/displacement, like you mentioned. If someone had the mass numbers of the 4.6 and the LSx, it would be interesting to see these results.

    I've always been curious about the Mustang - GM comparison. I never have quite understood why Ford has continually undersized the Mustang powerplant, compared to the GM competition. It's been this way for a long time. It really hasn't been a fair comparison since the 60's. The Camaros, Firebirds, and Corvettes (if you want to include the Corvette) have carried bigger displacement motors for years and, generally, have had more HP than the Mustang. Well, they'd better have more power -- the LS1 motor has about 65 cubic inches on the Ford 4.6! That's a lot more fuel and air potential! Just think what a Ford 5.7L 3V overhead cam engine could do to the LS1 cars. At 65.2 HP/L that would be over 370HP vs. 345HP for the LS1. For years we've been trying to compare apples to oranges ... it just doesn't work.
     
    #40

Share This Page