more HP = more $$$

there will be S/E's in the future if you want more HP

 

Ford has AWD car applications now. The new 500 has a AWD option.

But, that's not what a Mustang is about. I seriously hope the 'stang forever stays RWD.

 

Dke, not slammin ya brother but isn't Ford working on a 300hp AWD Focus??? That actually sounds like what you want (although not in the Foci styling)

As for me the stuff you mentioned is anathema. I would hope never to see that stuff on a mustang ever. For probably the first time in my life I'm glad the bean counters won out over the engineers on the rear suspension.

 

BTW, to answer the topic question...

A 13.6 e.t. in an AUTOMATIC is definitely enough for a GT. :yes:

 

Well said Dr. Iven! BTW Bob, where did you hear about an AWD 300hp Focus? Did I miss something here? Also, who is building them? SVT? Cuz last I heard SVT Focus's have gone the way of the f-bods.

 

Are you talking about the Focus RS? That ain't coming here anytime soon.

 

I don't think he means the Focus RS cuz it was powered by a 425hp 5.0 cammer and had RWD. Could some one clear this up?

 

No, no, no... that was the Focus RS8.

I'm talking about this one...

Focus RS WRC

 

There's also the regular Focus RS... this is the 2002 model...



2002 Focus RS

 

Ah-ha! :shock: Totally forgot, the RS8 was only a one-off SEMA car and the RS is only available in Europe. It all makes perfect sense now. For a minute there I though this was some all new Focus. :crazy:

 

I love the 2-door Foci. They're great-looking econocars.

 

I agree! I probably should've gotten one instead of a v6 mustang.....but then again...MAYBE NOT! :spin:

 

Nah, the Mustang was definitely the best choice. :yes:

 

It may be only consolation but it does handle better than the 03/04 Cobra according to MT. That's good enough for me.

Stangnet had a thread like this that went 10 pages.

 

I don't get it. There are always luddites that never want change or improvements. You see it in the Vette types that are against DOHC or mad because they took away the heavy and unreliable popup lights. And the Stangers that whine about IRS or other improvements as bad things.

I never said I want ALL stangs to have what I want. But options hurt no one, and broaden the appeal of the platform. (That's good for everyone as it means more choice).

The low end V6 and GT will be what they are, and I've got nothing against that. Keep it simple, a lot of motor, and economical. (Bean counters win). But some of us have to drive our cars all year long in winters, and frankly the Stang is a lot less appealing choice because it doesn't have AWD as an option, which frankly, isn't all that hard, and many modern cars have, and if it is going to compete with the 3 series, Audi, VW's, Lexus, and others (which they said they want), then they're going to have to be competitive with. That means ignoring the "purists" and being more pragmatic.

The same with autostick; welcome to the 90's or new millenium, it ain't the 60's any more. Autos are becoming faster and more reliable than sticks. I realize they aren't quite as fun, but have you driven one of the new ones?

And as for why BMW has some reliability problems, it isn't because of their mechanicals. Mostly it is because of the electricals. (I don't know about the rest). But I hardly think heated seats and full stability control is the cause of their problems, and both (as options) could help the stang.

 

we will, only it will be well over 100hp more for the same money. Wimpy pontiac.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining about IRS in general. I'm complaining about people who automatically assume a car will handle better because it has IRS. The solid axle in Ford's new Mustang is the most advanced in the automotive industry. Reviewers have actually saying it handles better than some of its IRS competitors.

That may be true, but all those options will eventually hike up production costs... which gets passed on to the consumer.

BMW's are all RWD. Audi, however, is AWD, Lexus is RWD (except for the ES, which is FWD), VW is FWD (except a few top-end Passats). Remember that rear-wheel-drive isn't what it used to be-- traction control has gotten much more advanced, and weight distribution between Front and Rear in modern cars is substantially better. Gone are the days of 70/30 Front/Rear weight distributions.

I've driven Audi's Tiptronic, BMW's SMG, and the autostick in the 2004.5 Volvo S40. Autosticks are pretty neat at first, and more user-friendly than a manual... but the novelty eventually fades and I find my left foot looking for a clutch. Don't get me wrong, they've come a long way in the past decade, but the ones I've driven were still not quite as fast as a manual... and only a fraction as fun. While it does give you control of your automatic's shifting, it still feels detached... like a go-between has been inserted into the line of communication between man and machine.

You just kind of proved my point. Just about every mechanical in a BMW is electronically-controlled. That puts the number of points of failure through the roof. Then you have systems like iDrive coming into play... where all the control systems are leaning upon one single point of failure.

There are some electronically-controlled systems I can accept. Variable Valve Timing, Traction control, and AWD...

Much more than that amounts to little more than fluff, in my view.

 

After seeing the results from Motor Trend, 300HP is just fine!
An Auto GT running 5.1 zero - 60, and 13.6 in the quartermile is great!
At 25k, I might end up buying another GT, instead of a SE or Cobra.

 

RE: Grabbergreen.

I'd posted as much about IRS on a couple other threads. It isn't automatically better, just potentially. And it is better for some things. I have no problem with some models not having it, or leaving it as an option that you charge for. But there are some that just don't want it at all.

You're wrong about BMW's. They sold ix's, xi's, and just their X series. (That was one of the reasons they bought and sold Rover was to pirate the parts/engineering bin). Lexus has the worldest largest acronym for their high-perforance-AWD thing on their sedan. And VW has it as an option on a few cars (look at the R32). Audi on most. Mercedes dabbles as well. Then there's Volvo, SAAB, and so on. AWD matters to many.

And with Autosticks, (especially VW's double-clutched DSG, or high end sports cars that are similar systems), they make a good option. I wouldn't want to force everyone to drive them, I just want the option and would pay for it. (Probably an extra $500-750 over a regular auto). More than that, not having it drives people that want that to other platforms.

I tend to agree with you on iDrive. A bit over done from what I've heard. But reallly they are just putting an interface on the systems you already have. What the average car has like 23 microprocessors? BMW was just looking at a way to build a smaller wiring harness, common protocol and interface to control the information/solutions they already have. I don't think they did a good job -- but the idea is there. (I'd rather see an interface to a laptop via USB or FireWire, and allow users/dealers to setup lots of things -- mainly program a few defaults or things that matter, and then have a much simpler interface. Like programmable guage lights on the mustangs. I don't need to change it every day, but it is nice that I can set it -- or if I could have two car settings for me and my wife, etc.).

My point was I just mentioned a few options I'd like, and some others weren't just, "I don't want those", but were drifting into the more extreme, "Those are dumb and violate the purity of the platform" sort of stuff. I've got no problem with the former, but if customers can't get what they want in their platform, they are more likely to go somewhere that they can.

 

All things being equal, a well designed IRS and Live Axle, the IRS will handle better over a mucher broader range of road surfaces and condition while compromising ride quality to a far lesser degree. A live axle will handle just fine on very smooth roads - where the suspension isn't actually called upon to do much anyways - but will quickly lose capability as the road gets rough. Sure, the '05's IRS is a good design for the type and a huge advance over the current Stang's, but still, any live axle has serious inherent drawbacks, primarily their huge unsprung mass, which quickly hobbles them on all but the smoothest roads.

Of course, which is why the consumer pays extra for options as opposed to getting them for free.


But back to origninal discourse, I think the '05 GT's presumably very healthy 300 hp are just fine, and more is likely to come in the future. But HP has never been the Mustang's main weak points anyway and I am glad that Ford has addressed those (handling, ergonomics, NVH, ride, overall quality and materials, fit and finish, etc.), which is where I think the biggest overall improvement to the Mustang has been realized. I do hope Ford aggesively keeps up a program to modernize and improve the Stang.

Retro, both in style and design, have a rather short shelf life outside a rather small core of Stang enthusiasts. Quickly, the Stang will have to stand fully on its own objective merits as a fully modern car surrounded by very capable competition. The broad adoption and incorporation of state of the art technologies at affordable price points, all while maintaining the Stang's distinctive core identity and character, is what will best keep it viable, long term, in a broad market outside of its core constituency.

While the easiest route to maintain the Mustang's personality is to retain it's original technologies, I think evolving that same personality while adopting newer, more effective technologies will the the trickier but more effective long term strategy. Not an easy balance, for sure, but then, its not an easy market. The '05 is perhaps a bit shy of this, but is, nonetheless a fully modern car in the main.

I would rate it, at this moment, a mid-right-field triple rather than a home run. But the SE's and Cobra have yet to come to bat...