Automobile Magazine
10/22/04, 11:25 PM
#1
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 19, 2004
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rather favorable review overall. Again we see the disparity of performance specs from magazine to magazine.
Automobile
Automobile
10/22/04, 11:34 PM
#2
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 19, 2004
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If anyone is familiar with Cars.com I spoke with the writer/author of that website's car reviews. He lives in the village I work for and I saw him in his driveway with a legend lime 05 GT, auto with Bullits wheels. He says he was very surprised at the overall quality of the Mustang and that he was getting thumbs up from passing motorists all day long. He said his review should be up shortly.
10/23/04, 07:49 AM
#3
Yea, it's a favorable review, but the review reads as if it is killing them to say anything good about the Mustang or Ford.
The review starts out rehashing some of Ford's problems which really had nothing to do with the new Mustang.
They harp on almost endlessly about the cost constrained strut front suspension. Somehow Automobile conveniently forgets that 95% of ALL cars sold today have strut front suspensions including the wonderkar BMW 3.
They say "So camshafts, valves, and sophisticated suspension systems went out the window (for now)." They seem to be implying that the '05 Stang uses pushrod engines somehow forgetting that both the V6 & V8 are OHC engines with 2 cams per engine and the V8 has 24 valves, the same as Mercedes has been doing for many years on many of its far superior cars.
They don't get the V6 HP rating of 210 HP right either, perferring to use the 202 HP preliminary HP rating. They also find the need to point out that the "root" of the V6 are really old.
Next they say " get the latest version of Ford's long-running modular V-8. This one mates the nearly equal bore and stroke 4.6-liter aluminum block (living here placidly since 1996) to a set of aluminum heads pirated from the truck side of the house. Since these SOHC three-valve-per-cylinder heads were engineered to feed 5.4 liters, no alterations were necessary to persuade them to handle the fluids ingested and exhausted by the Mustang's smaller pistons. "
Apparantly the Automobile writers are clueless that the bore and stroke of every Ford 4.6 Mod Motor is identical and the 4.6 shares the same bore as the 5.4 does. The "pirated from the truck side of the house" again is a negative compliment. They could have acknowledged that the 3V heads were designed from the start to be used on both cars and trucks. But at least they got the 320 lb. ft,. # right.
Now here's some real confusion. Automobile says they tested an ATX GT. Then they say "We also learned that the new Mustang knows how to kick hooves. Fling the tach needle to 2800 rpm, step smartly off the clutch while adding throttle, and you're gone. "
I have not yet figured out where the clutch pedal is on the ATX.
Interesting that they only got 14.2 in the 1/4 but hit 102 MPH, "After shifting into 4th". Was this an ATX or MTX, they don't say. An MTX GT should be able to hit 107 MPH in 3rd gear before fuel shutoff. So it appears that they tested an ATX in the 1/4 but are trying to make the reader think they were shifting gears in a MTX.
Finally they finish off with another jab at the front suspension "How the tuners will deal with the new Mustang's tendency to pitch forward onto tiptoes during extreme braking we can't predict so readily. Consider this the Achilles' heel of strut front suspensions. Chassis engineers report that increasing the antidive effect beyond the current 20 percent level deteriorates ride quality. Their concern is understandable, because the new Mustang shows signs of bronco behavior whenever a pothole or an expansion joint looms."
Again they seem to be acting like the Mustang is the only car on the road with struts up front. Their assement of ride quality also seems to contradict all of the other reivews.
The bottom line is SCREW THE CAR RAGS! They can't seem to get even half of their facts correct, so their opinioins are equally worthless.
If you want the facts, use the internet. 3/4 of the people here on The Mustang Source know more about cars than those $20K / year Car Rag editors.
The review starts out rehashing some of Ford's problems which really had nothing to do with the new Mustang.
They harp on almost endlessly about the cost constrained strut front suspension. Somehow Automobile conveniently forgets that 95% of ALL cars sold today have strut front suspensions including the wonderkar BMW 3.
They say "So camshafts, valves, and sophisticated suspension systems went out the window (for now)." They seem to be implying that the '05 Stang uses pushrod engines somehow forgetting that both the V6 & V8 are OHC engines with 2 cams per engine and the V8 has 24 valves, the same as Mercedes has been doing for many years on many of its far superior cars.
They don't get the V6 HP rating of 210 HP right either, perferring to use the 202 HP preliminary HP rating. They also find the need to point out that the "root" of the V6 are really old.
Next they say " get the latest version of Ford's long-running modular V-8. This one mates the nearly equal bore and stroke 4.6-liter aluminum block (living here placidly since 1996) to a set of aluminum heads pirated from the truck side of the house. Since these SOHC three-valve-per-cylinder heads were engineered to feed 5.4 liters, no alterations were necessary to persuade them to handle the fluids ingested and exhausted by the Mustang's smaller pistons. "
Apparantly the Automobile writers are clueless that the bore and stroke of every Ford 4.6 Mod Motor is identical and the 4.6 shares the same bore as the 5.4 does. The "pirated from the truck side of the house" again is a negative compliment. They could have acknowledged that the 3V heads were designed from the start to be used on both cars and trucks. But at least they got the 320 lb. ft,. # right.
Now here's some real confusion. Automobile says they tested an ATX GT. Then they say "We also learned that the new Mustang knows how to kick hooves. Fling the tach needle to 2800 rpm, step smartly off the clutch while adding throttle, and you're gone. "
I have not yet figured out where the clutch pedal is on the ATX.
Interesting that they only got 14.2 in the 1/4 but hit 102 MPH, "After shifting into 4th". Was this an ATX or MTX, they don't say. An MTX GT should be able to hit 107 MPH in 3rd gear before fuel shutoff. So it appears that they tested an ATX in the 1/4 but are trying to make the reader think they were shifting gears in a MTX.
Finally they finish off with another jab at the front suspension "How the tuners will deal with the new Mustang's tendency to pitch forward onto tiptoes during extreme braking we can't predict so readily. Consider this the Achilles' heel of strut front suspensions. Chassis engineers report that increasing the antidive effect beyond the current 20 percent level deteriorates ride quality. Their concern is understandable, because the new Mustang shows signs of bronco behavior whenever a pothole or an expansion joint looms."
Again they seem to be acting like the Mustang is the only car on the road with struts up front. Their assement of ride quality also seems to contradict all of the other reivews.
The bottom line is SCREW THE CAR RAGS! They can't seem to get even half of their facts correct, so their opinioins are equally worthless.
If you want the facts, use the internet. 3/4 of the people here on The Mustang Source know more about cars than those $20K / year Car Rag editors.
10/23/04, 09:00 AM
#5
Cobra R Member
Join Date: March 18, 2004
Posts: 1,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While many automotive journalists are definitely anti-ford, there are many others who do a good job of hiding any bias they have, any personal brand preferences. The members of a mustang board are much more likely to give you a biased review, don't you think? I think you just gotta drive there car yourself and make your own decisions. Otherwise, just read as many articles as you can, so you can decide which articles seem to be a little off when you look at what others have said. This one here, in automobile, seems pretty bad, the writer seems very anti-ford, based on what other reviews have said.
Of course if you were talking about just getting objective info about the car, this is definitely the place to be. Its amazing how much info gets through here.
Of course if you were talking about just getting objective info about the car, this is definitely the place to be. Its amazing how much info gets through here.
10/23/04, 12:25 PM
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Automobile has always been kind of the snob of the car mags. But the part about using the clutch when they stated at the very beginning that they had an auto was just hilarious. I loved the reference to the Boss 302 though. I still remember my uncle bringing one to my grandma's and lighting up the street with these awesome burnouts.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post