Not enough power... In 2005

[eric n]

For those complaining about lack of power it's pretty simple: If you want an amazingly high performance vehicle WRITE A BIGGER CHECK. Bang for the buck this thing will be huge. Superchargers, Nitrous, Heads and even cams will be available in the future.

It's clearly not meant to be the fatest car on the street, but with 300 ponies, it'll scoot pretty well. BUT IT'S ONLY A STOCK GT. Not a race car, not a cobra, Not a Special Edition, just a GT and the best performing stock stang gt ever!!!

 

[Jpjr]

Gosh.. I just got done posting about the opposite. The only *good* thing about the new Mustang is the accross the board power increase. The stock stangs were severely lacking in power for years and years. 300 ponies if very respectible, especially for the price. To me, the real problem is that the car looks old, clunky, and not geared at all towards the 18-25 segment that I expect would be buying these things. Further proof that the old guard is driving Ford's auto business further into the ground. Can anyone say Thunderbird??

 

[skywarp]

edit

 

[M1Rifle]

Gosh.. I just got done posting about the opposite. The only *good* thing about the new Mustang is the accross the board power increase. The stock stangs were severely lacking in power for years and years. 300 ponies if very respectible, especially for the price. To me, the real problem is that the car looks old, clunky, and not geared at all towards the 18-25 segment that I expect would be buying these things. Further proof that the old guard is driving Ford's auto business further into the ground. Can anyone say Thunderbird??

Ford's bet isn't that it should sell only to the 18-25 segment. Their bet is that it appeals to people under 25 and over 35, is my guess.

I had a 1987 and a 1988 (got the 88 to replace the 87 I totalled, but that's another story). Looking back, I have no idea why I was attracted to those rolling bricks.

I've had zero interest as the Mustang moved into the slope-nosed, wraparound-glasses look. The fact that the new Mustang (05) is instantly recognizable as a Mustang by people from ages 25 to 70 pretty much turns me on. It certainly looks newer than a 2004 (a 15 year old visual design)

 

[boone217]

05 power

given Fords history on GT's 300hp is great number. With rumors about a 3v 5.4L or a 4v 5.7L engine in the SVT stang. Your looking at anywhere between 400-500hp. My God, how much HP do you need in an off the lot car. My concern with the 05 is two fold. 1. The hood looks plain. I've looked at picture after picture of the 05 GT and the hood looks plain at best. 2. The exhaust. I'm concerned that Ford will put a weak ass exhaust on the GT. Yeah, the exhaust needs to perform but more over it needs to sound like there are 300 stallions waiting to bust out and kick some ass. Not an obnoxiously loud exhaust. I'm not a GM man but the factory exhaust they put on the GTO is the best sounding factory exhaust I have ever heard.

 

[SVTdriver]

Gosh.. I just got done posting about the opposite. The only *good* thing about the new Mustang is the accross the board power increase. The stock stangs were severely lacking in power for years and years. 300 ponies if very respectible, especially for the price. To me, the real problem is that the car looks old, clunky, and not geared at all towards the 18-25 segment that I expect would be buying these things. Further proof that the old guard is driving Ford's auto business further into the ground. Can anyone say Thunderbird??

Please go do your ressearch on the median age of mustang buyers. If you really want to generalize like that. 18-25 yr olds are more into imports than muscle. To generalize even further. Most of the 18-25 yr olds I know drive used mustangs.

 

[M1Rifle]

Please go do your ressearch on the median age of mustang buyers. If you really want to generalize like that. 18-25 yr olds are more into imports than muscle. To generalize even further. Most of the 18-25 yr olds I know drive used mustangs.

Absolutely. How many 18 year olds buy a 28K car with their own money? And I'm not talking about money that daddy gave them out of the college trust funds...

 

[shadowland2000]

I personally think the 4.6 is just too small for a muscle car. Unless it's supercharged, its going to be a dog when it comes to low end torque. I have to agree with some of the above opinions that the latest Mustang should at least compete with the LS1. Torque is what makes a muscle car and the LS1 delivers while the N/A 4.6 never will. Ford can keep wasting their time trying to make heads that will make a 4.6 fast, while GM will keep putting out bigger and better pushrods that will continue to embarass the Mustang. If only GM could put their LS1 or LS2 into a decent car with a reasonable price (the F-bodies (93-02) , minus the LS1, were just really poorly designed).

The GM pushrods might be a technological disgrace to the rest of the world, but the truth is these are high tech pushrods, and they deliver muscle car power for a reasonable price.

 

[Dr.Bleed]

Charger is too far down the road and more expensive also, the 300 is a more expensive and REALLY different kind of car.

If spring of 05 is too far down the road for ya. :^p

 

[Dr.Bleed]

I understand what you're saying and too some extent I agree but it really is the eye of the beholder type thing. I mean in terms of power yes the Cobra is "better" thent he 05 GT, but the new Stang trounces the Cobra in every other mechanical aspect.

The new 3v 4.6 is a great engine, give it it's due... but the DOHC design will always be superior to the SOHC even with it's 3v head (and it's supposid advanced form of Variable Cam Timing). With that, the only thing the 05 has on the current Cobra is it's newer platform. Outside of that, you'ed have to be crazy to go with an 05 GT over an 03/04 Cobra if you can get a comperable, or better deal, on the Cobra, unless you absolutely despise the late model SN95 design and must have the 05 simply based upon looks.

 

[Dr.Bleed]

I personally think the 4.6 is just too small for a muscle car. Unless it's supercharged, its going to be a dog when it comes to low end torque. I have to agree with some of the above opinions that the latest Mustang should at least compete with the LS1. Torque is what makes a muscle car and the LS1 delivers while the N/A 4.6 never will. Ford can keep wasting their time trying to make heads that will make a 4.6 fast, while GM will keep putting out bigger and better pushrods that will continue to embarass the Mustang. If only GM could put their LS1 or LS2 into a decent car with a reasonable price (the F-bodies (93-02) , minus the LS1, were just really poorly designed).

The GM pushrods might be a technological disgrace to the rest of the world, but the truth is these are high tech pushrods, and they deliver muscle car power for a reasonable price.

If the LS1 is the superior engine, then why is the fastest LS1 based engine only running low 8's while the fastest DOHC 4.6 is doing well into the 6'es?

For that matter I could say the quickest 5.4 SOHC/DOHC engine only dipped as low as the high 7's, and that guy doesnt even race his car anymore.

Based upon stock output... The Camaro and Firebird with there 340lbs of torque only put that car in the low 13's at best (stories of high 12's with skilled drivers) which is also true about the 03/04 Mach1, with seemingly 20 less lbs of torque. I think what were all forgetting here is that Ford, lately, has fell into the habbit of under rating there cars. It says 305hp on paper, but dynos between 280 and 290RWHP? That could mean either A, the Mach1 actually makes closer to 345hp (probably a comperable ammount of torque in its relative measurement) or, Ford has just created one of the most efficient RWD drive train's ever built.

Anyway my point being if Ford does the same with the 05 3v 4.6, then there's nothing to worry about, esspecially since the SOHC 4.6 is supposed to make it's power/torque at a much lower RPM than the DOHC. You guys need to get over this larger displacement supremecy BS. This is the 21st century, not the 60's.

 

[SVTdriver]

The new 3v 4.6 is a great engine, give it it's due... but the DOHC design will always be superior to the SOHC even with it's 3v head (and it's supposid advanced form of Variable Cam Timing). With that, the only thing the 05 has on the current Cobra is it's newer platform. Outside of that, you'ed have to be crazy to go with an 05 GT over an 03/04 Cobra if you can get a comperable, or better deal, on the Cobra, unless you absolutely despise the late model SN95 design and must have the 05 simply based upon looks.

Yes if you base it simply on power. The Cobra is a better buy. But the 05 will have better weight distribution. It will have a better front suspension design. And might possibly even compete with the rear suspension. Since nearly everyone agrees. The 99-04 Cobra IRS was combled together. And not exactly the best design. As far as the engine is concerned. I'm not all that sure that the 4 valve is superior. I drive a 97 Cobra. The 05 gt will make about the same hp and tq. And do it with less valve train weight. And on 97 octane rather than premium. Even the 99-01 Cobra only made 325hp. I like the DOHC motor. But I have to be realistic. Th only thing that we know the 03-04 cobra engine has over the 05 gt. Is the supercharger adding more hp to it.

 

[Venom351R]

HP plays a very small role in insurance prices. .

Then why do they have you specify if you drive a GT/Cobra/ or V6 ? There all built the same, have the same saftey features and both cost pretty much the same to fix if damaged. The only big diffrence is the motors, the GT and V6 are very simmilar other then that.

Thats why you see alot of people that drive V6's b/c they cant afford the insurance rates on a V8. Just go and ask in the V6 fourms and you will see, the main reason for them owning a V6 is b/c of the insurance on a GT.

 

[spectravp]

Then why do they have you specify if you drive a GT/Cobra/ or V6 ? There all built the same, have the same saftey features and both cost pretty much the same to fix if damaged. The only big diffrence is the motors, the GT and V6 are very simmilar other then that.

Thats why you see alot of people that drive V6's b/c they cant afford the insurance rates on a V8. Just go and ask in the V6 fourms and you will see, the main reason for them owning a V6 is b/c of the insurance on a GT.

Because all 3 are not the same driver demographic, each have different safety ratings. Even though there are a lot less GT's on the road than V6's, they seem to be in more accidents because 18 year olds think they are Mario Andretti. V6's tend to be driven by more conservative adults. GT's & Cobra's are coveted by thieves; therefore making the theft rate of those vehicles higher. The GT & Cobra cost more than the V6, therefor making the replacement value higher should something happen; in turn, making the insurance higher. Insurance on a convertible cost more than a coupe due to a higher fatality rate. Also, the only differnce between a V6 and a GT is not just the motors. Suspensions are different too.

 

[Z28x]

Then why do they have you specify if you drive a GT/Cobra/ or V6 ? There all built the same, have the same saftey features and both cost pretty much the same to fix if damaged. The only big diffrence is the motors, the GT and V6 are very simmilar other then that.

Thats why you see alot of people that drive V6's b/c they cant afford the insurance rates on a V8. Just go and ask in the V6 fourms and you will see, the main reason for them owning a V6 is b/c of the insurance on a GT.

Because GT/Cobra/V6 all cost different prices ($18K-$35K) and cost different amounts to repair. If you total a Cobra it will cost the insurance co. more money than if you total a V6. Also it is based on the avg amount of claims put in on that vehicle. V8 drivers drive more agressive thus get in more accedents and get more tickets and put in more or higher claims per car than V6 drivers. That drives the price up for everyone. V8 vs. V6 means more to the insurance co. than 260HP vs. 300HP.

 

[RICKS]

the 18-25 segment that I expect would be buying these things.

Totally uninformed and untrue statement....

Unless it's supercharged, its going to be a dog when it comes to low end torque.

Go test-drive an '04 Mach 1. You'll recant your original statement immediately. The 3V VVT in the '05 should be even snappier.

For example I could be freaking out the Lightning is no longer the fastest production truck.

Actually, the magazines are only posting mid-13's at BEST on the new SRT-10 truck. I've got a 2000 Lightning with the typical chip/filter/mass-air upgrade. Runs low 13's when the weather's not hot/sticky, mid 13's when it's hot/sticky. A WHOPPING $700 worth of upgrades, 1-hour self-install. The truck cost $30 grand vs. $45 grand for the SRT. I had a kid run me down in a new silver SRT-10 last week (what a kid with his ballcap on backwards was doing driving a new $45K truck, I have no clue) wanting a race. We really didn't have room to race. He got beside me, and from a 40 mph roll I tromped it, which is a sweet downshift start for an L, and I went to 75 mph before I hit the brakes (coming up on cars). We left mirror-to-mirror, he was in a good gear and went right with me. In that 35 mph squirt I gained a few feet on him. A trampling? No... A statement that a much cheaper Lightning with a few easy/cheap boltons doesn't have a worry in the world? YES (especially since it was 95 degrees and MUGGY, it had just rained.

 

[Venom351R]

Because GT/Cobra/V6 all cost different prices ($18K-$35K) and cost different amounts to repair..

They all different $$$ b/c of the motor, take the motor out and there the same car, higher priced car = higher insurance rates, the reason they cost more is b/c of there motor and HP they put out. The size of the motor and the HP it puts out does have a large effect on price and on the insurance rates. Thats the only point Im trying to make.

Go to your insurance company and ask them that if you have a V6 Mustang and you drop in a GT motor if it effects the cost of insuranc at all, I bet you dollars to donuts that it does.

 

[Irv]

Only if you are silly enough to tell them

 

[spectravp]

They all different $$$ b/c of the motor, take the motor out and there the same car, higher priced car = higher insurance rates, the reason they cost more is b/c of there motor and HP they put out. The size of the motor and the HP it puts out does have a large effect on price and on the insurance rates. Thats the only point Im trying to make.

Go to your insurance company and ask them that if you have a V6 Mustang and you drop in a GT motor if it effects the cost of insuranc at all, I bet you dollars to donuts that it does.

Of course it does, but not because of horsepower. It will simply because they are going to put you in a higher risk bracket, the V8 bracket instead of the V6. Go buy a new Mach 1 with 310HP. Put in a 5.0 from the 87+ stangs with only 215 (or it may even be 205) horsepower and the insurance will be the same as the 2004 310HP Mach.

When you buy a used stang, does the insurance company say, "Well, does it have any mods? How much horsepower does it now put out?" Nope. They don't.

 

[lodom]

Higher priced cars generally equate to higher insurance costs, but not always. I can insure a $45K Vette, for about the same amount as a GT Mustang (I'm not kidding). Claim history for the vehicle, has a lot to do with the insurance rates along with the age and driving record of the owner.