Those are my FOG LIGHTS, not my HIGH BEAMS
Legacy TMS Member
Joined: October 2, 2006
Posts: 4,777
Likes: 16
From: Southeast Michigan
The BMW M3 is a much nicer car than the Mustang and well worth the added cost. It looks like Ford copied the power dome on the M3 hood and used it on the 2010 Stang hood. BMW also seems to effortlessly develop a 4.0L V8 that produces 414 hp naturally aspirated. Ford's 4.6L 2V V8 produced 190 horsepower at one time, only 70 horsepower more than the 120 hp from the 5.0L V8 used in the 1979 Mustang Cobra. American V8s seem to have trouble making 100 hp per liter without using a supercharger.
Cobra Member
Joined: August 29, 2007
Posts: 1,093
Likes: 0
From: smallest state in the union.
I don't want to speak for him, but due to my scenario I think Rich was simply making light of the guy in the BMW getting mad at me...I don't think anyone was looking to get into an argument about a special edition foreign luxury sports sedan versus an iconic american sports car...
...BTW, a mod motor is easily capable of eclipsing the power you talk of...not to mention, the 4.6 mod motor was introduced in the mid 90's, while the 5.0L motor (based off of the same engines they were putting in F-150's) with less than 200HP was in a car that is thirty years old in the midst of the emissions drama...
...and your comparing those motors to those of a car manufacturer who is based out of the country where the Autobahn is located, and whose cars are in a different price bracket....
not trying to spark a blown out debate, just making a counter point.
...BTW, a mod motor is easily capable of eclipsing the power you talk of...not to mention, the 4.6 mod motor was introduced in the mid 90's, while the 5.0L motor (based off of the same engines they were putting in F-150's) with less than 200HP was in a car that is thirty years old in the midst of the emissions drama...
...and your comparing those motors to those of a car manufacturer who is based out of the country where the Autobahn is located, and whose cars are in a different price bracket....
not trying to spark a blown out debate, just making a counter point.
Legacy TMS Member
Joined: October 2, 2006
Posts: 4,777
Likes: 16
From: Southeast Michigan
FWIW, I have yet to see a production non-race Ford modular engine make 100 hp per liter without a supercharger. The 4.6/5.4 3V V8 was first released in 2002, while the 4.6L 2V Non-PI was released in 1990.
Cobra Member
Joined: August 29, 2007
Posts: 1,093
Likes: 0
From: smallest state in the union.
it's pretty common knowledge thats Fords modular motors are not as capable of making as much power as some would want....but a boss or windsor block is completely different. If there was a production motor in a Mustang that produced the power you talk of it would be stupid money, and would get disgusting fuel mileage.
...but, like I already said, we're comparing apples and oranges...the power you are talking about requires throwing an ridiculously absorbent amount of money at a European luxury sports car....something the average person would never be able to do.
but anyway, this thread is about the fog lights on S197 Mustangs, so back to the original topic...here we go
...but, like I already said, we're comparing apples and oranges...the power you are talking about requires throwing an ridiculously absorbent amount of money at a European luxury sports car....something the average person would never be able to do.
but anyway, this thread is about the fog lights on S197 Mustangs, so back to the original topic...here we go
Mach 1 Member
Joined: February 23, 2008
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
From: new castle, pa
I don't want to speak for him, but due to my scenario I think Rich was simply making light of the guy in the BMW getting mad at me...I don't think anyone was looking to get into an argument about a special edition foreign luxury sports sedan versus an iconic american sports car...
...BTW, a mod motor is easily capable of eclipsing the power you talk of...not to mention, the 4.6 mod motor was introduced in the mid 90's, while the 5.0L motor (based off of the same engines they were putting in F-150's) with less than 200HP was in a car that is thirty years old in the midst of the emissions drama...
...and your comparing those motors to those of a car manufacturer who is based out of the country where the Autobahn is located, and whose cars are in a different price bracket....
not trying to spark a blown out debate, just making a counter point.
...BTW, a mod motor is easily capable of eclipsing the power you talk of...not to mention, the 4.6 mod motor was introduced in the mid 90's, while the 5.0L motor (based off of the same engines they were putting in F-150's) with less than 200HP was in a car that is thirty years old in the midst of the emissions drama...
...and your comparing those motors to those of a car manufacturer who is based out of the country where the Autobahn is located, and whose cars are in a different price bracket....
not trying to spark a blown out debate, just making a counter point.
Member
Joined: January 26, 2008
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
From: Monterey, CA
The BMW M3 is a much nicer car than the Mustang and well worth the added cost. It looks like Ford copied the power dome on the M3 hood and used it on the 2010 Stang hood. BMW also seems to effortlessly develop a 4.0L V8 that produces 414 hp naturally aspirated. Ford's 4.6L 2V V8 produced 190 horsepower at one time, only 70 horsepower more than the 120 hp from the 5.0L V8 used in the 1979 Mustang Cobra. American V8s seem to have trouble making 100 hp per liter without using a supercharger.
I suppose that's one opinion.Another is that for many decades BMWs soley relied on 4-cyl and 6-cyl engines and prided themselves in not resorting to V8s to make real HP. Ultimately, BMW caved in and followed the tried and tested footsteps of the American companies by building V8s. Truth is I've owned many Euro, Japanese and American cars over the years and I'm not some nut that goes around trashing everything that's not American, however, you really should give credit where credit is due.
"American V8s seem to have trouble making 100 hp per liter without S/C?" Ironically, American cars are breaking the bread and butter track speed records at Germany's sacred Nurburgring - the Corvette Z06, the ZR1 and the Cadillac CTS-V (with vehicles that cost only a fraction of their slower German rivals). And, the LS7 powered Pontiac G8 is in a class all by itself with >400 hp V8 for $28k (the price of a fully optioned Camry or Accord).
And, if you want to criticise the weight of the 5.7L or 6.0L Chevy LS engines, check out this Porsche 911 engine swap where they prove the 'big' V8 weighs even less than the Porsche flat-6 and reliably vastly outperforms it:
http://www.carzi.com/2008/08/08/toy-...11-conversion/
Legacy TMS Member
Joined: October 2, 2006
Posts: 4,777
Likes: 16
From: Southeast Michigan
I suppose that's one opinion.Another is that for many decades BMWs soley relied on 4-cyl and 6-cyl engines and prided themselves in not resorting to V8s to make real HP. Ultimately, BMW caved in and followed the tried and tested footsteps of the American companies by building V8s. Truth is I've owned many Euro, Japanese and American cars over the years and I'm not some nut that goes around trashing everything that's not American, however, you really should give credit where credit is due.
"American V8s seem to have trouble making 100 hp per liter without S/C?" Ironically, American cars are breaking the bread and butter track speed records at Germany's sacred Nurburgring - the Corvette Z06, the ZR1 and the Cadillac CTS-V (with vehicles that cost only a fraction of their slower German rivals). And, the LS7 powered Pontiac G8 is in a class all by itself with >400 hp V8 for $28k (the price of a fully optioned Camry or Accord).
And, if you want to criticise the weight of the 5.7L or 6.0L Chevy LS engines, check out this Porsche 911 engine swap where they prove the 'big' V8 weighs even less than the Porsche flat-6 and reliably vastly outperforms it:
http://www.carzi.com/2008/08/08/toy-...11-conversion/
The ZR1 is supercharged, the Z06 only makes 71 hp per liter of displacement, the C6 w/ dual-mode mufflers only makes 70 hp per liter of displacement.
The Pontiac G8 / Vauxhall VXR8 / Holden Commodore has poor quality synonymous with GM and Holden (lots of issues with the previous GTO), a cheap interior (fake upscale), and still isn't a Corvette. I test drove a G8 GT and wasn't impressed at all, it just seemed like a G6 (overpriced understeer-prone FWD car) on steroids. A manual was offered in subsequent model years as an after thought. Again, its V8 engines still does not come close to 100 hp per liter of displacement. General Morons just uses the largest V8 they can find to get over 400 hp, but it still isn't the same as 100 hp per liter of displacement. This goal yields an extremely powerful engine, equivalent to a 460 horsepower naturally aspirated Ford 4.6L 2/3/4V V8. Some may argue the V8 has more pumping losses, friction, etc... but BMW, Audi, and Ferrari have managed to achieve this goal. The Audi RS4 and R8's 4.2L V8 makes 420 hp. The Ferrari F430's 4.3L V8 makes 490 hp naturally aspirated. These cars cost more than a Mustang, but it is not an excuse for Ford to ignore developments in internal combustion technology and stick with antiquated powertrains.
I thought the Mustang crowd was about performance? It's not about reaching 400 hp, it's about achieving 100 hp of output per liter of displacement. 5.0L V8 = 500 hp naturally aspirated, 5.4L V8 = 540 hp naturally aspirated. Ford comes nowhere close with its production motors. Generally speaking, torque commensurate with that horsepower will be more than enough for satisfactory spirited driving. You don't need gobs of low end torque if the car is light enough. We're not drag racing dump trucks and it is all about balance. Ford designs cars by selecting engines and transmissions out of a catalog and squeezing it into whatever chassis they can develop at the lowest cost. There's no optimization of gearing (4R70W used in E-series van, Crown Vic, Mustang, and F-series at one point, all using the same gearing) or powerbands to suit the mass of the vehicle.
The concept of design-driven product development doesn't have to cost a lot of money but it is an ongoing process. The European Ford division understands this and has won over Mulally's heart for their designs. He's ditching a lot of American designs in the next few model years in favor of the European cars: EUCD Mondeo, C1 Focus, and has even adopted a lot of the European styling in the 2010 releases: Edge, Fusion, etc...
Last edited by metroplex; Dec 26, 2008 at 05:15 AM.
Cobra Member
Joined: November 15, 2007
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
From: Torrance, CA
Yes the BMW 4.0L V8 makes 103.5 hp per liter of displacement. It's called progress.
The ZR1 is supercharged, the Z06 only makes 71 hp per liter of displacement, the C6 w/ dual-mode mufflers only makes 70 hp per liter of displacement.
The Pontiac G8 / Vauxhall VXR8 / Holden Commodore has poor quality synonymous with GM and Holden (lots of issues with the previous GTO), a cheap interior (fake upscale), and still isn't a Corvette. I test drove a G8 GT and wasn't impressed at all, it just seemed like a G6 (overpriced understeer-prone FWD car) on steroids. A manual was offered in subsequent model years as an after thought. Again, its V8 engines still does not come close to 100 hp per liter of displacement. General Morons just uses the largest V8 they can find to get over 400 hp, but it still isn't the same as 100 hp per liter of displacement. This goal yields an extremely powerful engine, equivalent to a 460 horsepower naturally aspirated Ford 4.6L 2/3/4V V8. Some may argue the V8 has more pumping losses, friction, etc... but BMW, Audi, and Ferrari have managed to achieve this goal. The Audi RS4 and R8's 4.2L V8 makes 420 hp. The Ferrari F430's 4.3L V8 makes 490 hp naturally aspirated. These cars cost more than a Mustang, but it is not an excuse for Ford to ignore developments in internal combustion technology and stick with antiquated powertrains.
I thought the Mustang crowd was about performance? It's not about reaching 400 hp, it's about achieving 100 hp of output per liter of displacement. 5.0L V8 = 500 hp naturally aspirated, 5.4L V8 = 540 hp naturally aspirated. Ford comes nowhere close with its production motors. Generally speaking, torque commensurate with that horsepower will be more than enough for satisfactory spirited driving. You don't need gobs of low end torque if the car is light enough. We're not drag racing dump trucks and it is all about balance. Ford designs cars by selecting engines and transmissions out of a catalog and squeezing it into whatever chassis they can develop at the lowest cost. There's no optimization of gearing (4R70W used in E-series van, Crown Vic, Mustang, and F-series at one point, all using the same gearing) or powerbands to suit the mass of the vehicle.
The concept of design-driven product development doesn't have to cost a lot of money but it is an ongoing process. The European Ford division understands this and has won over Mulally's heart for their designs. He's ditching a lot of American designs in the next few model years in favor of the European cars: EUCD Mondeo, C1 Focus, and has even adopted a lot of the European styling in the 2010 releases: Edge, Fusion, etc...
The ZR1 is supercharged, the Z06 only makes 71 hp per liter of displacement, the C6 w/ dual-mode mufflers only makes 70 hp per liter of displacement.
The Pontiac G8 / Vauxhall VXR8 / Holden Commodore has poor quality synonymous with GM and Holden (lots of issues with the previous GTO), a cheap interior (fake upscale), and still isn't a Corvette. I test drove a G8 GT and wasn't impressed at all, it just seemed like a G6 (overpriced understeer-prone FWD car) on steroids. A manual was offered in subsequent model years as an after thought. Again, its V8 engines still does not come close to 100 hp per liter of displacement. General Morons just uses the largest V8 they can find to get over 400 hp, but it still isn't the same as 100 hp per liter of displacement. This goal yields an extremely powerful engine, equivalent to a 460 horsepower naturally aspirated Ford 4.6L 2/3/4V V8. Some may argue the V8 has more pumping losses, friction, etc... but BMW, Audi, and Ferrari have managed to achieve this goal. The Audi RS4 and R8's 4.2L V8 makes 420 hp. The Ferrari F430's 4.3L V8 makes 490 hp naturally aspirated. These cars cost more than a Mustang, but it is not an excuse for Ford to ignore developments in internal combustion technology and stick with antiquated powertrains.
I thought the Mustang crowd was about performance? It's not about reaching 400 hp, it's about achieving 100 hp of output per liter of displacement. 5.0L V8 = 500 hp naturally aspirated, 5.4L V8 = 540 hp naturally aspirated. Ford comes nowhere close with its production motors. Generally speaking, torque commensurate with that horsepower will be more than enough for satisfactory spirited driving. You don't need gobs of low end torque if the car is light enough. We're not drag racing dump trucks and it is all about balance. Ford designs cars by selecting engines and transmissions out of a catalog and squeezing it into whatever chassis they can develop at the lowest cost. There's no optimization of gearing (4R70W used in E-series van, Crown Vic, Mustang, and F-series at one point, all using the same gearing) or powerbands to suit the mass of the vehicle.
The concept of design-driven product development doesn't have to cost a lot of money but it is an ongoing process. The European Ford division understands this and has won over Mulally's heart for their designs. He's ditching a lot of American designs in the next few model years in favor of the European cars: EUCD Mondeo, C1 Focus, and has even adopted a lot of the European styling in the 2010 releases: Edge, Fusion, etc...
Clearly came off as a joke to me. With that being said...
It's an interesting debate you have brought up. I'm pretty proud of what Ford has been able to do with the price range they aim for. The Mustang has and always will be for us middle class guys. It is possible to reach the 100hp per ci mark but at (what I believe) would be too high of a cost for the average Joe. Of all the vehicles you brought up, none are near the Mustang's price range and we still give some of them a run for their money
I believe Ford has made quite some progress. They've taken a 3V 4.6 liter V8 - running on 87 octane - and pushed out 300hp. Those are my two cents on this topic. All in all, I'm very happy to have gone Ford. People are always amazed with what this 3V can do
Besides...
Nothing like starting the day with a roar
Member
Joined: January 26, 2008
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
From: Monterey, CA
This debate also reminded me of this comparo. The Mustang and the BMW are virtually the same vehicle weight and the same HP (Mustang GT/335i 6-cyl turbo and the GT500/M6 V10): http://db.theautochannel.com/db/newc...04,21854,21806
Last edited by MontereyDave; Dec 26, 2008 at 08:13 AM.
Legacy TMS Member
Joined: October 2, 2006
Posts: 4,777
Likes: 16
From: Southeast Michigan
The BMW M3 is slightly slower than the base C6 Corvette, but for a difference of only $5k (C6 LT4), I'd take the BMW M3 Coupe anyday.
The Mustang offers great value, which is why I have one. However I wouldn't be so quick to talk down the European sports saloons and coupes.
The Mustang offers great value, which is why I have one. However I wouldn't be so quick to talk down the European sports saloons and coupes.
How much farther of topic can we get?
Cobra Member
Joined: November 15, 2007
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
From: Torrance, CA
The BMW M3 is slightly slower than the base C6 Corvette, but for a difference of only $5k (C6 LT4), I'd take the BMW M3 Coupe anyday.
The Mustang offers great value, which is why I have one. However I wouldn't be so quick to talk down the European sports saloons and coupes.
The Mustang offers great value, which is why I have one. However I wouldn't be so quick to talk down the European sports saloons and coupes.
It was a joke.As far as you would like us to go
Alright... back to topic....
It really is annoying to get high beamed knowing full well that it's just because I have four lights across the top.
Mach 1 Member
Joined: February 23, 2008
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
From: new castle, pa
Legacy TMS Member
Joined: May 14, 2008
Posts: 1,144
Likes: 9
From: South Jersey
just to let you know. The TORQUE of the M3 is well under(almost 40 ft lbs) the 4.6 3v motor. Torque is the what you feel. And its what American V8's are famous for and something BMW can only dream of..
Cobra Member
Joined: November 15, 2007
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
From: Torrance, CA
V6 Member
Joined: September 23, 2008
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
From: Iserlohn, NRW, Germany
Closet American
Joined: July 17, 2005
Posts: 5,851
Likes: 1
From: Vancouver, BC (Hollywood North)
While you're at it, compare how much torque those high revving V8s produced by BMW are making. The current M3 only kicks out 295 ft lbs of torque (less than our Mustangs).
You think 3700 lbs is light? That's how much the current M3 coupe weighs - roughly 200 lbs heavier than a Mustang GT.
I agree Ford could do better, but one of the reasons they don't squeeze out more horsepower per liter is simple: reliability. It's a demonstrable fact that the closer to redline you run the power utilization curve on a daily basis, the sooner the engine will require service...and ultimately wear out. And we all know that BMWs are not known for great reliability. Plus they cost more money up front and more money to service. And that's the REAL cost of your 100 HP per liter argument right there.
On the other hand, Ford's 4.6L has been a strong AND reliable performer for Ford thus far and won the coveted Ward's "Ten Best Engines" award three years in a row.
Cobra Member
Joined: August 29, 2007
Posts: 1,093
Likes: 0
From: smallest state in the union.
Hold up there. Says "who," exactly? I thought it was all about getting the job done, one way or another. Chevy's LS engines are pushrods, but after decades of painstaking refinement they are able to do a **** fine job of holding their own against more "modern" configurations....I agree Ford could do better, but one of the reasons they don't squeeze out more horsepower per liter is simple: reliability...On the other hand, Ford's 4.6L has been a strong AND reliable performer for Ford thus far and won the coveted Ward's "Ten Best Engines" award three years in a row.
...If I owned a new BMW (which I probably never will, just preference), the biggest thing I would dread, besides the sticker price, is the service bill if something were to happen to the car. My parents friends had a Nissan and BMW Dealership and recently sold out to Roger Penske (Inskip) but they had once talked about how much labor rates varied between a Nissan tech and a BMW Tech...not to say it would be cheap to take a new Mustang into a dealership for work, but it is more likely than not less expensive than a BMW.