the 05 mustang...
 

I get the magazine motor trend as a subscription, (reading about new cars is another hobby of mine) and today i get another one in the mail. as im flipping though it, they have an article in there about the new mustnag. I knew the mustang had a new design, and i knew what it looked like but never got to see any stats on it.
holy ----.
"The 2005 Mustang GT is the first mainstream production Mustang to break into the 300-horsepower arena. The 4.6-liter aluminum V-8 has three-valve per cylinder and cranks out 300 horsepower and 320 lb.-ft. of torque"

motor trend says...
(from the magazine)
0-60 in 5.1 :(
1/4 mile 13.6@ 99.9mph :D -and out of the box to! holy ----!



http://www.fordvehicles.com/2005must...5_exmain_1.jpg

if my wife gets this rustang like she wants and i get my evo like i want, i might have a challenge. ???

does anyone else feel another "speed era" comming on? I mean, look at these cars that are comming from the factory...at a reasonable cost.
this new stang a 13sec car
evo another 13sec car
srt-4 13.7 car
hell even the magnum is fast as ---- with the "swith from 4cyl to 8 cyl" going down the highway...

the next muscle car era is upon us!

Re:the 05 mustang...
 

i think they are just ugly

Re:the 05 mustang...
 

very beautiful car

whats the v6 rated at?
i was told they gave it more power also

Re:the 05 mustang...
 

http://www.fordvehicles.com/2005mustang/home.asp

on the V-6
"SOHC V-6 engine generates 210 horsepower and 240 lb.-ft. of torque—in both cases, an improvement from the 2004 Mustang powertrains. And the all-new specially tuned intake manifold balances sound characteristics with maximum airflow, assuring a Mustang engine throaty growl that sounds as good as it performs."

Re:the 05 mustang...
 

lol, still behind the camaro by like 7 years. the old ls1 would probably romp that

Re:the 05 mustang...
 

I think that looks sexy as hell. Yeah the v6 gained 20 horses.

Re:the 05 mustang...
 

The car looks nasty.


MUSTANG:300 hp at 4.6 liters = 65.22 hp per liter
b16: 160 hp at 1.6 liters = 100 hp per liter


What great efficiency these new cars have. ::)

Re:the 05 mustang...
 

Johnny is going to call you a ricer. :P

I owned a Dodge Magnum once. :) Biggest pile of ---- I've ever driven. :-X Wrecked that fucker a couple times. :-\
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

Re:the 05 mustang...
 

Hey steve.. compare torque ;)

Re:the 05 mustang...
 

Johnny can say whatever he wants. It just seems to me like if honda can make a motor to get that much per liter, than all of the other manufacturers should be able to at least come close to it.
All these years you've heard, <in redneck voice> "There's no replacement for displacemnet", yet it doesn't seem like they're using thier displacement to it's full potential.

Hey, look at the bright side. The new mustang has as many valves per cylinder as an hf. :o

Re:the 05 mustang...
 

watch car and driver.

see the Hennessey twin turbo viper..
10 psi 800 hp 840 ft lb torque.

bump it up to 13 psi with new internals 870 hp

i would like a gain of 70 hp per 3 psi.. ;)

Re:the 05 mustang...
 

i hate explaining this ---- to everyone so i'll do it once...

the 4.6l motor does not have to rev to the sky to produce enough horsepower and torque to move the mustang along pretty fast...

the k20 2.0l motor HAS to rev to the sky to move the civic si very slowly...

compare the gas mileage on both the cars, civic si, mustang... probably not that far apart...

mustang gt 17/25 13.99 1/4
civic si 26/30 high 15s? 16 flat? 1/4

the 4.6l motor is SOHC, so its not a technology gap that is making the 4.6l produce less hp per liter... its PURE REVS.

IF, ford wanted to they can make a 4.6l motor rev to 9k... it would produce 100hp/l and would be fast as ----, its called FORD RACING. it would get terrible gas mileage shifting the powerband up that high, and the gears accordingly to use the powerband.

the bottom line is the 4.6l DOES NOT NEED TO REV OUT LIKE THE k20 has to... IT IS VERY POSSIBLE, and IT HAS BEEN DONE MANY TIMES... check out ford racing and look at their new mustang GT race car...

what is the point of making the 4.6l rev to 9k? IT DOESN'T HAVE TO... TO MAKE THE MUSTANG RUN 13.99 STOCK. with all the air intake and exhaust restrictions... it can do it without revving that high, it also makes the motor last a lot longer, and give the owner less trouble. and since the motor produces torque, certain gears can be used to maximize gas mileage, and still retain the performance.

revs = wear

i do see another muscle car era coming along, i do not see many 4 cylinder cars that will be able to hang, the only ones able to as ones pushing 16-20psi stock, and i am certain that the motor in the evo pushin' whatever it does 16+ pounds, will not last as long as a 4.6l mod motor. btw the hemi magnums are pretty fast, in the 14s...

turbos and their excess heat ruin motors... sure there are turbo motors lasting longer than 200k miles, but they're in minivans and huge trucks, they are not in performance cars, just drive around and take a look at all the turbo benz's and turbo vovols that blow smoke.... heat is the enemy, high revs and turbochargers wear on a motor...

oh and guy at my work just got his pre-order'd c6 vette today, lemme tell you it is amazing... ls2 motor is amazing. displacement on demand... 400hp/400torque... the car is completly keyless, push button start. gigantic brakes... very very light... yes the back end does push in like on the show topgear or wahtever... i tried it :P makes the some'bitch very light and agile. they're amazing cars...

Re:the 05 mustang...
 

i cant wait till the new z06 comes out, they dyno'd the new c6 and it put down 340 something to the wheels

Re:the 05 mustang...
 

I like the look of the new stang. No good in the snow though!

Re:the 05 mustang...
 

I guess what we're getting with honda is only something that Ford can give on the track.


We're still talking about a Ford, right? ???


I think the bottom line is that I hate Ford, love honda, and think it's funny to see Random start throwing stats in a "holy quadnie post". lol (it's not that I really care who's car is better, even though........ I know. ;) :D)

Re:the 05 mustang...
 

random what do mean "the back end does push in you tried it" as in the bumper bends???

Re:the 05 mustang...
 

ok new american sports cars, only 2 worth getting in my book are the 05'vette or any vette for that matter and any viper.

Re:the 05 mustang...
 

yes

Re:the 05 mustang...
 

japan is basically the only place where companies build
high revving no torque motors...

high revs = more hp, less torque, high powerband, short gears
low revs = more torque, less hp, mid powerband, long gears.


05 ford focus base model 136 @ 600 / 133 @ 4500

05 civic coupe base model 127 @ 6000 / 114 @ 4800

the new accords are great cars and have a engine that produces horsepower and torque on the same level, that is why they sell good in the US... people want torque for everday driving, no one wants to wrap out their engine to keep up with traffic...

2.4l 160@5500 161@4500

Re:the 05 mustang...
 

http://crimethink.org/forums/domesticEthug.jpg

-PHiZ

Re:the 05 mustang...
 

https://www.homemadeturbo.com/jbliss/integra.jpg

https://www.homemadeturbo.com/jbliss/integra_ver.jpg

Re:the 05 mustang...
 

i seem to agree with randome.

Re:the 05 mustang...
 

revs = wear
I love torque thats why i like the cadillac motors.
525 ftlbs at 2800 rpm 325 hp an this is stock components.Gonna throw twin ct26 supra turbos at it in place of the trailer park 283.I think thats whats its gonna have to take to keep up with jeff an leigh an gun for beau. LOL

Re:the 05 mustang...
 

I think you meant to say that displacement = torque, not revs. ;D

Re:the 05 mustang...
 

if you're talkin to me i meant what i said...

this is what is boils down to, and there are many factors which make this happen, head(s), cam(s), IM, exhaust ext...

revs = horsepower
low revs = torque

if you're building a motor for torque, it won't make power way up high obviously, so there is no reason to be there...

if you're building a motor for horsepower, it won't make torque down below, so there is no reason to be there...

example.

b18b
b18c

same displacement, vtec complicates it a lot, but you get my drift... if the b18c didnt have vtec just agressive cams for way up high in the revs it would make less torque and the same horsepower, while the b18b would make more torque and less horsepower than the b18c.

vtec lets the b18c keep the torque and still create horsepower at high revs with the other cam lobes... that is what its for :P

Re:the 05 mustang...
 

I think the torque your refering to is based more on the fact that it's larger displacement. If you want to build a torque motor, you build with large displacement. :P

Re:the 05 mustang...
 

Pushrod motors tend to lend themselves to low rpm - high torque output due to the long valvetrain, thats why most V8s see more low end than top end. The higher revving DOHC cars like yours and mine have a much shorter valve train lending it better to high rpm operation. Obviously a typical pushrod v8 can be built like any motor to make high end HP, but for the most part they stay in the low end. Its hard to make a 1.6L engine torquey so the key is to make it rev out, hold the torque, and built HP.

Re:the 05 mustang...
 

http://www.newbieforces.com/files/ethug.JPG :-X

Re:the 05 mustang...
 

haha nice.

Re:the 05 mustang...
 

one thing i don`t understand about push rod motor is, WHY and WHAT makes it produce THAT MUCH more low end tork.
i am not talking about displacement tho

Re:the 05 mustang...
 

the torque produced by typical push rod motors has nothing to do witht he way the valves are open'd

they just lend themselves to a low revving torquey motor, there is much more that has to be moved and has to be moved farther before the valve opens... the valves start to float way earlier than a OHC would... by float i mean they dont open or close all the way

Re:the 05 mustang...
 

the stroke

Re:the 05 mustang...
 

o

Re:the 05 mustang...
 

ls1
Bore X Stroke 3.90x3.62

RSX type S
Bore X Stroke 3.38x3.38

srt4
Bore X Stroke 3.44x3.98

civic coupe 1.7l
Bore X Stroke 2.95x3.72 <--- more stroke than a ls1 :P

Re:the 05 mustang...
 

So than it's the displacement. :P

Re:the 05 mustang...
 

for a production/street car there really isn't a replacement for displacement, I'll reluctantly admit that.

do I think that honda motors are better then ford or chevy motors? absolutely. not because of peak numbers though.

having pushrods in a motor is rediculous, we are beyond that now, I'm glad to see SOHC and the few and far between dohc motors in american cars. but I'm sick of people cramming ---- down my throat about how fantastic of a motor their god damn pushrod pushing, carbuerator sucking, old pile of american ---- is.

and for all these people bitching about numbers, compare them both at 1.0L (proportionately)

Mustang Gt 4.600 Liters displacement 302ft/lb peak torque
66ft/lb per Liter of displacement

LS1 5.665 Liters displacement 335ft/lb peak torque
60ft/lb per Liter of displacement

B16A 1.595 Liters displacement 111ft/lbs peak torque
70ft/lbs per Liter of displacement

B16B 1.595 Liters displacement 118ft/lbs peak torque
74ft/lbs per Liter of displacement

what were you saying about torque? ::)

japanese performance motors are for Road Racing there is a damn good reason why a CTR has 1.6L motor that puts out 185hp@8000rpm and 118ft/lb@7500rpm

but I'm with you, if I were gonna drag race, I'd have a large displacement motor, but to tell you the truth, for my application I've been thinking about going to a D15b.

Honda's technology is BETTER period.

Re:the 05 mustang...
 

05 focus base model 2.2L
05 civic base model 1.7L
DUH ::)

Re:the 05 mustang...
 

dam, this ---- turned into a huge arguement last night!

Re:the 05 mustang...
 

Pushrod motors are absolutly not rediculous. Take, for example, the GM 3.8L V6. That basic motor has been around for 20 years and has over the years continued to become more and more durable. Its used in many of the old people cars which see 23-28mpg, not bad for a boat. The 3.8 is a strong, well built motor had can easily see 200K without a rebuild and provides ample power and torque (205hp 210tq) to get the car moving. The s/c application of the 3.8L is even more impressive. I think in stock form the GTP cranks out 240hp/280tq, and they can be modded like hell and can handle more boost (N/A uses high comp pistons and a diff. head) easily. I saw a gtp that put down 360hp and 495tq to the wheels while still having a reliable motor. Pretty impressive if you ask me. The Ford 3.8L V6 is crap on the other hand.

Re:the 05 mustang...
 

I detest mustangs......but that one I would rock in a graphite color with black deep dish rims and a polished lip.

I hated v8s,but now I have mad respect for them.If all goes well my next project will be boosting the 4.7 v8 in my Ram.On 6psi turbo calc. says it should make about 450hp and about the same torque...try that with a d16.