I know... I'm not a purist, I'm a pragmatist. But in reality, the suspension and motor of the Adrenaline sounds awesome. Sure the Shelby pre-specs sound more powerful, but I've heard things like SRA and so on. That's fine for some people and racing. But I want a Mustang road car. Give me the following Mustang:

• Advanced powertrain features: supercharged, 390-hp V-8 paired with SVT’s first 6-speed automatic and all-wheel-drive
• Four-wheel independent suspension for balanced dynamics
• Confident driving character and advanced safety features, including Ford’s industry-leading AdvanceTrac™ with Roll Stability Control®
• Hood vents/rear/body style like the concept.
• Make the interior not pickup a racing theme, but a driving theme (like the adrenaline)

I'm I alone on this? It's a divergence from a "traditional" mustang. But seems like a more balanced car, rather than a pure muscle car. And heck, I would even drive it in winter (assuming I put on some blizzaks).

 

Sounds nice, but with AWD and a s/c engine that thing would be a boat.

 

I figure the S/C 4.6 would be lighter than the 5.4, wouldn't it? AWD and 6 speed auto add a little in weight -- but the IRS probably removes 1/2 that. It shouldn't take much to recover some other weight gains; but I'm not sure it would matter much.

I suspect SVT will make the Adrenaline truck perform well, and it will weigh far more. I do like "light and responsive" cars. (M3 type). But have you driven an M5 or 850 or other heavier sport-touring car? The weight/mass definitely means they aren't race-cars, but gives them a stability that isn't all bad.

 

Correct me if I am wrong but the ford IRS weighs more then the 8.8 live axel dosen't it.

 

looks like a cool car

 

The IRS does weigh more I believe. Also the weight difference between the 4.6 and 5.4 isnt that much. People always think that just because an engine is a "Bigger Size" that it weighs much more. The 5.4 does weigh slightly more due to its higher deck height but not by a large amount. Engine size doesnt always equate to larger external dimensions. Its more a matter of bore and stroke.

It always cracks me up when someone says I couldnt fit in a 350 so I went with a 283/327. I.E. a 283 chevy weighs about the same as a 400 small block and is almost dimensionally identical. A stroker 4.6 or 5.0 weighs just about the same as a stock one. Yes the 4.6 and 5.4 are slightly different but in the same family much like the old mopar B/RB big blocks.

It would also be difficult and very expensive to adapt the mustang to awd. The car was never intended as such. It couldnt use a transmission style front power unit like an STI/EVO due to the location of the transmission (very similar to most front drive cars). The imports are easier to set up with awd because they already have a sideways mounted engine and front drive setup. The axles on most (not all) come directly out of the transmission. The mustangs transmission is between the seats so thats not a possibility. Adding rear drive is much easier because there isnt much to block the setup in the rear of a car in a front driver.

The mustang would have to be some form of transfer case with driveshaft or such running to a front axle. This would ad a huge amount of weight (front axle, transfer case, driveshaft). You would also have to clear the oil pan and front sub frame.

Think of everything that runs directly between the center of your front wheels. Thats where the axle to power the front wheels would have to go.

The sport trac adrenaline doesnt have this problem because its a truck and setup for 4 wheel drive already.

 

Somehow I couldn't think of that as a Mustang. They can make another car like that, but it wouldn't be in character for the Stang.

 

They said in that MT article (interview with HTT) that the IRS was a couple hundred pounds heavier. He also said that the slight performance increase would not justify the weight increase.

There are LOTS of happy SRA race cars out there running TA/PHB setups that will outrun a comparable IRS Mustang.

I was pulling for an IRS Cobra but I'll be quite happy with my SRA 07
Cobra.

 

1991 GMC Syclone 0-60 4.9, E/T 1/4 mile: 13.1, all with 280 HP

Link: Remember the Syclone?

The performance of the Syclone was compaired to the ZR1 Corvette of the day. While the Syclone had approximately 100 HP less and weighed more than the ZR1, it managed to perform, in a streight line, just a well as the Corvette. In fact it is rumered that the Syclone's short production run was in part due to the fact that it ran too close to GMs greatest Corvette ever produced at the time, someting that GM did not want.

Keep in mind that the track times for the ZR1 and Syclone are exactly that, track times, on a clean track, lots of VHT (sticky track prep), with profesional drivers. Now take these two vehicles on the street with normal spirited drivers and you can see the end result. In a traction limited enviornment the AWD wins.

Now we have a similar event that is about to occour, Adrenaline meets the Shelby GT500, sound laughable that the Adrenaline would have a chance against the Shelby, but beware. Each vehicle will have underrated engines. Adrenaline with 390 HP, more like 450 HP, and the Shelby GT500 with 450 HP, more like 500 HP. With a difference of only 50 HP between the two power plants, and six speed automatic transmission ready to snap through some gears rather quickly in the Adrenaline, one might hazard to guess that the Adrenaline may win a few stop light to stop light challenges.

Conclusion: There comes a point where a vehicle is so powerfull that traction becomes more of an issue than additional power. That is why I would welcome an AWD drivetrain in the Mustang, as an option. I don't suppose anyone would complain about an AWD Shelby that accelerated to 60 mph in less than 4 seconds, would they ?

 

I guess I should have patented the name of my car so I could make some money everytime they sold an "Adrenaline" car

 

Sounds like you want an SVT Fusion.

 

The Enzo is rear wheel drive only. I don't hear too much complaining about its performance.

Sounds to me like you want a 04 Cobra with Shelby styling, 500 AWD, and a, yawn, automatic tranny. What a mutt!!

 

Yes, the Enzo doesn't have traction issues because it has the weight of both the engine and transmission over the rear wheels- since its a mid-engine car. So basically it has the traction of a front wheel drive car, with all the benefits of rear wheel drive.

 

Vehicle 2004 Ferrari Enzo
Tested Price $659,430
Hp: 650
0-60: 3.3
1/4 mile: 11.2
1/4 @ mph: 133
Lat G's: 1.05
Magazine/Source Car & Driver 07/04

Just to prove a point, the optimum ET for the Enzo in the 1/4 mile is in the 9.6-9.7 second range, assuming it has 650 hp and ETs at 133 mph. So there you have it, even the all mighty Enzo has traction issues.

The comparison is not very realistic since Ferrari could care less about us Blue Oval guys and our need for speed below 160 mph!

 

What numbers does it get with slicks? I thick more of the traction issues come from the tires than a lack of AWD.

 

:bang: Agreed, but we are trying to compare apples to apples. Yes you can put slicks on your Enzo, or your Shelly GT500 to make up for their traction deficiencies. I myself do not like to drive on the street with slicks, after my incident with a guardrail :bang: . I just think the next logical step in the horsepower wars is to start putting the horsepower to the ground .

 

I didn't think it was even legal to drive on the streets with slicks since your car would turn into a death trap on wet roads.

 

There's no denying the fact that awd would improve your ability to accelerate a car. There's a maximum force you can apply at each tire without it slipping, that's equal to the weight of the car divided by four (since AWD or RWD, there's always four wheels) times the coefficient of friction between the two surfaces. If you apply this force at all four wheels instead of two, that pretty much doubles the accelerative force you can apply without the tires slipping.

Now i know you want a bit of slipping, but you still get the idea. You can push more if your pushing with twice as many tires.

 

While I agree that AWD is better than RWD for acceleration (and power in turns, etc.), it isn't quite as easy as your formula (Mustang Sallad). You're not wrong in anything you said, I just want to clear up a misperception.

The problem is under acceleration the CG moves backward in the car (the weight distribution) -- meaning the rear wheels get more traction (have more weight over them) than the front. So a 50/50 car, will act like a 35/65 car under high acceleration, thus the AWD can only increase performance by 35% (not 50% that some might think).

That's also why rear engine and rear drive cars get better performance than they should (in the quarter), as the friction coefficient for the contact patch is higher on the drive wheels because that's were all the weight is sitting. People think 50/50 is optimum -- it isn't bad for cornering, but for breaking you want more weight in the rear -- and for acceleration you want more weight in the rear (assuming you've got RWD). In fact, I've heard that a 45/55 (or 40/60) car is far better handling than a 50/50 car, assuming RWD and bigger tires in the back.

 

this isnt exaclty on topic but bear with me:

last years mustang GT had 2 valves per cylinder right? the 2005 GT has 3. the cobra (both last years and the next) have 4 velves per cylinder.

is it possible to have 5 valves per cylinder? im just curious, so dont fry me if so how much would it affect pricing? and has anyone ever done this (on any cars/engines, not just mustangs and V8s) theres proabaly something that makes it totally inpossible or imporbable, but to this know-it-all teenager, it seems like the obvious thing to do in the next mustang SE or whatever...

thoughts and answers?