BTW, nice little peice of work here by Ford: Ther Truth about F-150

Shows what kind of engineering goes into a modern Ford... versus ye olden FOX/SN95.

 

Sorry to interupt the group stroke-off here... but certain kiddies need to understand that the car they were given or spent their little life's savings on is not the best and most perfect thing in the world. Furthermore, it's a product of a company that has and can do a helluva lot better.

I recognized these issues from the start... Mustangs have been cost-effective for autocrossing and open track in the past, much less so recently.

As for my issues with the car, my cars don't sit in car shows, they don't sit in garages being polished. Maybe they perform perfectly for the people who do that stuff. Mine are used to their fullest extent. They do fine in everything else except when using them to their fullest extent... then they show their major deficiencies and lack of engineering/testing. And the last couple of have shown their deficiencies just driving around this hot town. Hitting 240 to 260 degrees on the way to work is no fun. Especially for a car that was alledgedly tested in Phoenix. I know a bunch of folks in Phoenix who can't even drive their cars hard in the summer months there (much hotter than Texas too)... one in particular is a Ford dealer certified tech who is frustrated to heck. Obviously he has access to a lot more resources than I do.

And as for "documents", I'm not in the industry, and if I had access to "documents" I certainly wouldn't be foolish enough to show them or share them in any way. That kind of junk is for BON, and you see what it got them. Now they have none - or at least cannot show them - and have zero credibility in the industry.

What I am is a certified car nut, member of SAE (where I read with envy exactly how Ford temperature-tested the Ford GT - none of which happened with the SN95 Cobra), instructor in track events (24 years of driving in them myself, and 9 years of instructing), and enough of a mechanic/electrician to take on most things in working on any car.

As for posts, I've been reading this forum for several months, but only felt compelled to comment on this rediculousness.

My family has 104 years of ties with Ford - all the way back to before the beginning. I love the company, but I won't stick up for everything and I certainly won't put up with junk just to have "390 HP" now or whatever comes next. It's absolutely pointless and useless if you can't use it.

My experiences with Mustangs started out well (except for my original '67 rusting almost literally in half), but have been getting worse and worse in more recent years. I've seen some goofs and gaffs from Ford in my years with them, but I've also seen a helluva lot better, especially outside the US. So, based on a long and considerable history with Ford (and my performance history outside of Ford as well), I expect more from Ford, and especially I expect more from SVT.

 

Just to screw up this thread with a couple facts:

A 5.4L V8 with 3V heads is only 1/4" wider than a 4.6L with 4V heads.
Without intake manifold, a 5.4L-3V is lower in height than a 4.6-4V.

So not only will a 5.4-3V fit in a 2005 Mustang w/o any problems but it's CG is not likely to be any worse than a 4.6-4V.

When listing the common usage of 4V heads the Navigator was not mentioned. Its 5.4-4V engine (2004 and older Navigators) uses almost the same heads. The Mach heads even lift half the cams from the Navigator engine.

An aluminum block for a 5.4 Cobra engine could easily find other applications, such as the 5.4-3V in the current Navigator to share costs.

 

Navigator 4V head and Mach/Cobra/Aviator/Marauder 4V heads are two different things. Related, but not the same part number... and with a couple of internal differences due to evolution. I don't believe the cams are entirely the same set either, I have heard before that the intakes are the same but have not confirmed it by checking part numbers.

In any case, all of these vehicles are out of production in that form, the Navagator having switched to the F-150 3V engine and the Aviator relying on a stockpiled supply of engines for it's last gasps (very unfortunate, it's the ultimate Explorer) thru '06.

The type of cost effectiveness I was discussing comes from sharing production parts with vehicles which are in regular production (even if some minor machining or configuring changes for a specific product, it's still the same base part when it comes to the expensive stuff - design and casting)... and the 4V head seems to be on the way out at Ford. An aluminum 5.4 block for the Navigator was cancelled years ago... it was to have been used in the 2000 Cobra R but was cancelled before that could happen. I think that now it's a matter of money... with a Navigator restyle and rework about to happen perhaps some funds will free up. Mustang technology has borrowed from Lincoln many times in the past... and couldn't have happened without Lincoln money.

Too bad about the 4V program, because they had engineered a set with variable intake cam timing (much better than phase timing both the intake and exhaust at once, not as good as cam timing the intake and exhaust valves separately). A 5V head was also discussed extensively for a while (with variable cam timing) - designed by Yamaha, but has since dissappeared from sight (several articles about it when it was shown in the Tremor, including some photos and a test drive in which it blew up). A real shame that never happened. But, engineering plays with all sorts of things for various programs which may never see the light of day, or may much later on (the V-12 engine was shown far befor eit ended up in a production car). For example, Ford has three different displacements of 4V V-10s, all in experimental form. All with aluminum blocks. A very expensive engine to put into production, given the unique head and block.

 

Jeff, for the love of god, please don't continue to bash Ford for their short comings on this board, there are plenty of forums on the web where you will be invited and welcome to bash ford, THIS IS NOT ONE OF THEM! Second, if you have something useful to say, and relevant to the topic, by all means speak your mind, but without your negative criticism towards OUR beloved Fords.

Since this is the RUMOR MILL, I heard from a very reliable source at Tremec that they are currently building an all new transfer case for a SE Mustang reported to support an all wheel drive platform. Not only will the new SE Mustangs out power the competition, but they will out handle them on the track and actually put the power to the ground !

 

Rear wheel drive does just fine at getting power to the ground. Otherwise, it wouldn't be preferred over AWD by Jaguar, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Maserati, and Ferrari.

 

Constructive (not bashing) comments to keep rumors in perspective are perfectly appropriate here or anywhere else.

Tremac - good news. There is already an AWD Monaro running around, and GM's RWD architecture includes AWD capability by default these days. That means allowance for the forward running driveshaft, and forward diff.

 

Jeff:

While I agree with your above comment, I'm not quite certain what your feelings actually are about Ford. Are you implying that you'd be afraid to buy a new Mustang right now, due to quality concerns...you know, like the old acronym: Found On Road Dead...?

 

I don't see any serious problems with the new car yet, other than a few minor items people are experiencing. The worst I've seen is a broken valve spring and a couple of computer glitches. I wouldn't care to go into a dealer with one of these problems if the car also had some of the mods I've seen people doing so far.

But those issues are not major for the usage I am interested in. I want to see somebody run one of these hard on the track for a few months, and that won't start to happen until spring. Then we'll see. This isn't the kind of thing that shows up in any magazines in the first several months during and after introduction... in fact they may not show up at all in print. The '96 Cobra cooling and tranny issues (neither of which had anything to do with the age of the underlying platform), for example, didn't show up in any magazine for a year, but we all experienced them very quickly on the track. Perfect examples of lack of engineering/testing/process/management.

The new car does have some excellent engineering and assembly behind it. Looks great so far... I'm hopeful. But the sum total is what I'm looking closely at. If there are issues in engineering/testing/process/management, they will only surface more quickly in higher-stressed special editions and SVTs.

 

http://www.popularhotrodding.com/fea...409phr_camaro/

The Camaro is dead. The plant is gone...literally. GM would have to make financial amends somehow to the CAW before it even attempts to bring the name back. Bringing back the Chevelle name makes more sense.

 

i've seen it with my own eyes, the f-body plant is definitely no more. but who says they can't build at a new plant?

 

This is a perfect example of why you should go somewhere else.

I am over 30 years old, not a "kiddie" by any means. I have owned 5 different Mustangs, and none of them were perfect. In fact, i don't believe anyone in this thread ever said that the Mustang is the perfect car for every person and in every area.

I have been driving and racing Mustangs for over half my life. I have been to drag strips, auto cross events, and even done a little street racing when i was younger and not so smart. I don't need you to explain the deficiencies of the Mustang over the years. Anyone who knows about the cars, knows their weak points.

However, what we are discussing here are future models. One more time: Future models. And, as you have said yourself, you have no experience with the new cars, and don't really see anything wrong with them. So, again, what is your point here? To bash the Mustangs of the past, and give the worst possible outlook on the future?

I'm sorry, but i came into this section of the forum to discuss and speculate on the next Cobra, among other models. I didn't come here to argue with a person, who is letting his own personal experiences cloud his view of Ford and the Mustang. If you want to discuss your problems with the company, then i am sure there are forums on this very site for doing just that. But, this isn't one of them.

 

Hey, here's an idea for all you "constructive criticism"; find me a mass produced car under $30,000 that is without engineering shortfalls.

Dollars to Donuts you can't. While everyone is entitled to their own opinion, sometimes its better left unsaid.

Heading down to the local Democratic Convention to tell them how bad the left stinks is rhetorical, borderlining stupidity.

 

The contract with the UAW teamsters at the old plant.

 

http://www.popularhotrodding.com/fea...409phr_camaro/

The Camaro is dead. The plant is gone...literally. GM would have to make financial amends somehow to the CAW before it even attempts to bring the name back. Bringing back the Chevelle name makes more sense. [/b][/quote]
I'm waiting to see what Chevrolet does.

If they make a Chevelle, complete with quad-headlamps and quad-taillamps, I'm getting one.

If they make a Camaro... well... let's just say I was really hoping this K-Mart knock-off of a Mustang was gone for good...

Bringing back the Chevelle makes perfect sense, because it will be based on the Zeta platform... which will be the basis for the 2006 GTO... and we all know who the GTO's platform-mate in the '60's and '70's was...

 

hmmm..... sounds fun. but honestlyi really knida do hope that they bring back the 'maro, 'boid, chevelle. heck bring back the 'Cuda!!! i want competition. b/c competition means more advances in technology, faster cars, nicer looks and better prices. the muscle car wars are the only wars that need to be repeated *cough*desertstrompart2*cough*

and i emphasize on NEED. look where the automotive market is heading. most 'sport' cars out there right now have very low displacement and dont have the feel or growl of their V8 ancestors. teens no longer look for the perfect V8 pwered rear-drive monster they used to. they (most of them) look at lexus, toyota and :gasp: honda. i want muscle cars not rice rockets. :buronout: the more the merrier.

but that just sounds like another idiot kid going on and on doesnt it....

 

It would truly be fun for the guys like me (19-25) to have a new version of the 60s and 70s muscle car war. That would make my day if everyone brought back their form of muscle car, just to give everyone some competition. And for those who experienced that ( i envy all of you) it would be some good deja vu for you.

 

They better not ever make a mustang that ain't a rear wheel drive or I will NEVER EVER buy one. Only ricers will have AWD or FWD cars!!!!!!!!!!!!! u buy a mustang for a fun fast tire frying car. NOT to take to a rally or artic race!!!!!!!! I Dislike Chevrolet to the fullest and hope they go Bankrupt and never ever want them to even try to compare their junk they call an auotmobile to Ford!!!!

 

I won't be doing that.

It's hard to build a viable future if you can't learn from the past. And it's the same company and most of the same engineers building the new Mustang (and variants) who built the last one.

So, I stick with what I've said. I think that's a helluva lot more realistic than sitting around stroking yourselves over thoughts and unsubstantiated rumors of a new Cobra with every single thing imaginable on it or as an option - except decent engineering/testing/process/management.

You also need to remember that we're dealing here with a very unhealthy company, a company with other goals than building a tall heavy & coupe that out-does a purpose-built sports car in a straight line, a company that has to deliver it's financial obligations to it's stockholders (well above and beyond today's announcement), a company that has to contend with a ever-larger array of regulations (like those announced by Kali-fornia this week), and a company that is still trying to live down the Firestone debacle (a couple of hundred million at a time to some savvy lawyers and their clients does a lot of damage to product development costs). You've got other divisions here in the US and worldwide that can't get anywhere near enough development money, and you've got a CEO that is on an environmental jihad. Then there is the uniquely enormous opportunity in China that you don't have enought development funds or in-house talent to exploit.

Time to get real here and consider what kind of budget is needed to build a tinyrun of 10-12,000 cars with an extremely limited profit makeup to satisfy a wish list like this. True, Ford is optimizing their efforts to a degree by out-sourcing a considerably amount of the development and leveraging OEM partners for many of the unique parts. But the up-front engineering budget still has to be allocated... as well as the testing budget. The further away the drivetrain goes from a regular production volume engine, the higher (disproportionately) the budget for this stuff goes. And the higher (disproportionately again) the potential for mistakes, overlooked items, missed items, and things just not done. That is my complaint with Ford.

This is very much like the creeping tolerances problem Ford suffered with a new transmission in the eighties. Tolerances (to simplify) of + or - 2 hundredths in each production part were being met by suppliers and in-house producers. So, each single part met it's specs. However, when taken together (assembled into the transmission) into a complex unit where many paryts depend on each other, the sum total of loose tolorances was huge and wrecked the transmission. Again, an example of engineering/testing/process/management.

That is an exact parallel to what has happened to the SVTs over the course of their history - the further they get away from the base models, the worse they get in terms of quality/reliabiliy. The '93s are comparitively identical to the '93 GTs - and they are simple cars that will go on forever (and are obsolete by todays standards). Pretty much the same for the 94/95s. The 96, with a very different engine, starts to realy show it's issues - over-powering the weak-kneeded tranny, cooling, and airflow of the base GT model. It gets much worse after that, as repeated in previous posts.

And now, with the most different and divergent SVT Cobra of them all coming up, what kind of result can we predict given SVTs history so far?

 

This is a largely academic argument. The new Mustang - while certainly popular for modding and track racing - is NOT designed for the track. No manufacturer today produces a consumer street legal grand touring automobile that is warranted (or frankly, designed) to be taken to the track and beaten on.

So if you drive the bag off your new Mustang (or any car, for that matter) and have problems, then perhaps you should expect to have difficulties with the vehicle.

If you want a track car, then you buy one specifically designed for that purpose - a Ford racing Mustang...a GT supercar, etc. Heck, even if you buy a Ferrari or Porsche 911 GT3; if they find out you've been racing it on a track your warranty is automatically null and void.

I guess it depends upon what your usage plans for the vehicle are. I don't plan to track race my new Stang, that's for sure.