You sir are correct. I had the 3.0VQ in my 2000 Maxima. It's a great engine. In 2K2 they added more displacement, a electronic TB, and VVT.

 

It is one heck of an engine! (I own a '92 Maxima :P )

 

Wow, there sure are a bunch of hardheads here (meaning they are absolutally right, and you are absolutally wrong, no matter what you say).

There are a few things here that I want to address. I feel that I can add something to this discussion, as I have been in the Mustang game since 1985 (currently do not own one........... yet). I have heavily modified Mustangs, been involved in Mustang and Ford clubs, raced my Mustang, showed my Mustang, and have followed everything about them since before 1985 (my first boyfriend had a 1970 Mustang fastback that I loved). I have every issue of MM&FF's since they started in 1989.

Anyway, enough about that. In all of these years of being a Mustang enthusiast, one thing has remained a constant............ every time there is any kind of change of substance, in the Mustang, the complainers come out of the woodwork. Ford is always wrong............. and they are always right. They should have done this, shouldn't have done that, charged too much, didn't have the options "I" want, and Ford is going to heck in a handbasket. The biggest one has always been, "_________ means the end of modifying Mustangs." (insert your favorite upgrade over the years).

This arguement strikes me the most interesting, however. The reason I say this, is that through the years, Ford has done exactly the right thing with the Mustang............ which is why it has survived for, and sold well for, 41 years. This is also why it will continue to sell well. As much as many would like to lament Ford for this or that, the buying public has spoken............ and they continue to buy Mustangs.

The thing that some here are trying to allude to, is perception. Yet, they try to discount the "perception" that Ford does not build quality vehicles. I say perception, because it is very real................ yet real world quality is very similar between all of the manufacturers (if you can show me the difference between 1.09 defects per car, and 1.3 defects per car............ then you are a much smarter person than myself).

You who are saying that the Mustang having an SRA instead of an IRS is part of the reason that Ford has such a poor image (and sinking sales)in the mind of the buying public, need to go out in the real world a bit. Ask a few questions, and I bet you will be very surprised by the results.

Here are a few questions that you need to ask Joe Public.
1) Does the Mustang, having a SRA, instead of an IRS make you have a worse opinion of Ford in general???

The first answer you will get, 99% of the time, is "What is a SRA and IRS???"

You then tell them. They will then answer, 95% of the time, "well, since I don't know what that means........... no."

2) What type of rear axle does your car/truck have???

I'm betting that 85-90% don't have a clue.

3) Do you think that Ford builds poor quality vehicles???

You will then get a wide range of answers. Some will say "Found on Road Dead," or "Fix or Repair Daily." Others will say "Generally yes, my aunt/uncle/father/mother/friend/coworker/etc had a Ford ________, and it was a POS." Others will be very simple and just say yes or no.

The point being, that you will probably get close to half of the people saying yes, in one way or another. This is the perception. This is the main problem that both Ford and GM have.............. not weather or not their 300hp V8 $25K ponycar has a SRA or IRS.

The sad thing is that this perception will take a VERY LONG time to change. It has been developed over decades. While it may not take decades to fix, it will not happen overnight........... or even very quickly.

Ford and GM made big mistakes in the past. They are continuing to make some mistakes now, but they are much less. They are both working very hard to fix their problems. They are both HUGE companies, which greatly slows the process, and they are both at the mercy of the UAW right now. Also, this change takes time. Resources are limited, and not everything can be fixed today........... thus, they are prioritizing. I think Ford is doing a better job than GM, at this time.

That said, a couple of other things.

My '91 Mustang GT would pull over 1g on its stick axle, and didn't beat the poo out of me. It also did not cost me a fortune to achieve.

I would prefer a well done IRS also, as I much prefer the twisties to the dragstrip. However, I do realize that significantly more people drag their Mustangs than SCCA race them. The lack of an IRS also would not in any way stop me from buying one.

For the IRS proponents, please list me all new sub $40K cars that have 450+hp and an IRS. Used and modified vehicles do not count.

The truth of the matter is that it does cost alot more money to build an IRS that will hold up to that kind of power............... under all conditions. Vettes blow rears, Vipers blow rears. After the problems with the 390hp 03/04 Cobra rears, and the associated warranty costs, I would venture to guess that they are a bit gunshy.

Finally, do not be surprised if IRS does show up at some time, in this generation Mustang. Look to the Mustangs direct competition (not a 2-seater V6 sportscar)............... like............... ohhhh.............. a possible upcoming Ponycar from another competitor, to partially dictate what will, and won't happen. In the meantime, do not bash Ford because they have the audacity to want to make a profit on the Mustang. They are not a charity.

 

If HTT believes that wanting Ford to produce the most capable Mustang ever is being a snob, then count me among the "snobish"

 

Good post Gloria, I agree with what you've said. Ford and GM's problems are not related to what these IRS people have tried to argue. They are saying that they use components that are "just good enough", which is not why Ford is having problems with earnings. They have a very good handling car, and yes, it does have a SRA, and yes, they did it because it was cheaper. Ford's decisions, whether it be an under-powered V6 in the 500 or a SRA in the Mustang are not easy decisions, and there are a lot of factors that go into it, and too many to discuss in the detail that would be needed to come to any conclusions. The bottom line is that most of the time, they have to go with what they have (engine) to get the car to market, or what will generate the most profit(SRA), and still have a good vehicle, which both the 500 and Mustang are!

Their main 2 problems are perception and costs from unions/pensions, and I can speak from 1st hand experience on perception. This is the 1st American car I have owned, and only the 2nd new car. I can say that my other new car (Acura) was not much better quality wise on delivery. It was better, but there was a $5000 difference in price to consider as well. Now, durablitiy is another issue that I will be able to comment on after owning the Ford for a while.

Anyway, I also think there will be a IRS in the future, and it might even be an option on the GT, or on a SE.

 

With the possible exception of the Cobra R, the Shelby will be the most capable Mustang ever!

 

Thank you !!!!

Its nice to hear about this being your first Ford purchase. As much as many here would not like to believe it, both the Mustang, and the 500 are making conquest sales (where customers have never owned a Ford before). While we do not know the real number on Mustang, we do know it on the 500. According to Ford, appx 45% of 500 sales are conquest sales. That number is HUGE !!!! It also goes to illustrate the priorities of the people who buy that type of car. In other words, not too many of them are taking their 500's, Accords, Camry's, or Avalons to the drag strip.

As for durability............. that is a problem that Ford has never really had. This I can tell you from experience. For the most part, most Fords will prove to be very durable. I have owned many............ and worked on many more (me and my husband had an auto repair and towing business for 9 years........ thus my perspective may be a bit more rounded than some). Just drive your Mustang, maintain it, and it will serve you well.

For others, while Fords market share is down, their car share has risen every month for the last 4 months. That has to say something.

 

Good first post Gloria. Welcome to the forums.

 

Thanks !!!!!

I have lurked for a while. I do post on many other forums though (all manufacturers, and all makes), as I like anything performance.

I hope I never win the lottery................... as I would have it all spent on cars/trucks in way too short of a time. LOL

 

Yeah me too! I've always said when (wishful thinking) I win the lottery, my houses will be modest, and my garage's will be lavish to hold all my cars!

 

Although, I do like how you said houses and not house.

 

Ditto.

 

LOL, a garage with an attached house. LOL

I really want a Mustang Vert. I really like the GT.............. but REALLY like the GT500. Hopefully they will make a vert. However, I really, REALLY like the Adrenalin (not as a replacement for my L, but as a more practical buddy).

It's funny, my hubby says if we ever won the lottery, he wants a Ford GT in every color. LOL

 

You read, but you don't comprehend. Go back and reread my posts.

 

Actually, no, it doesn't.

 

Proof of this please...

 

Then why have manufacturers started reducing the number of options available? I remember the first time I ordered sa new car (1985). The list of options was huge by comparison to what you see now. They started lumping options into groups in order to cut down on the multitude of variations that come down the assembly. If there wasn't a cost involved, why did they do it?

 

Posted on this very site with sources listed:

http://forums.bradbarnett.net/index.php?showtopic=24421

In case you want a direct link to a source:

http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0...auto-185642.htm

 

Actually, I was referring to his remark about the GT outhandling the 350Z - because it doesn't according to most automotive magazines I've read. OVERALL, they said they would probably take the Mustang (for other reasons, nostalgia, looks, etc) - but no-one has been audacious enough to say it will outhandle the 350Z.

 

beat me to it