2010 power ratings
Shelby GT500 Member
Joined: September 2, 2004
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
From: Chicago
Many Americans have active lifestyles with boats, trailers, and big families, and somebody needs to build vehicles to accomodate their needs. Ford has been there building what people need. Is that greedy to tailor your products to the needs of your customers?
With rising fuel prices, needs are being re-evaluated. People are using their toys less. People are driving less. People are finding ways to make do with smaller vehicles, where possible. Ford is responding with a lot of emphasis on bringing more smaller vehicles to market in all segments, while drastically producing fewer big trucks and SUV's. There are still buyers for the big rigs, but not nearly as many. I suppose you'll say Ford is dumb for putting all their eggs into smaller cars now instead of recognizing that they are simply following demand.
Ford was correct to build Trucks/SUVs, but they simply hedged everything on that market which was stupid. I don't think anyone can argue this! Ford forgot about ~40% of the market (the passenger car market). This will change in the next few years due to Europe's models being adapted stateside. If they had done this 5 years ago, Ford NA wouldn't be in nearly as much trouble as today.
Cobra R Member
Joined: May 17, 2007
Posts: 1,574
Likes: 0
From: London, ON. Canada
Thank you for the link. But I note you did not answer the question--where did you get your financial information. Your statement 'GM is in some trouble, but not near as troubled as Ford' is not substantiated by information published by Bloomberg, MarketWatch, or Moody's.
There was no suprise in Ford losing $8B--it was pretty much expected with the write downs. And though you mention GM sales are up in Europe and Russia--that does not change the overall picture for GM. In fact, using that sort of infantile logic, the fact that Ford of Europe posted a $528 million profit and Ford SA also posted a sizable profit, means Ford must be doing great.
In case it escaped your grasp, selling 4.5 million vehicles may generate impressive revenue--but revenue is not the same as profit. In fact if you had bothered to read the link to the Bloomberg article you would know that GM has not posted a profit since 2004! (One of the reasons investors are rating GM as junk bonds, along with Ford and Chrysler.)
While it is true that GM has billions of dollars more in terms of assets--the opposite is also true, Ford has billions of dollars less in terms of liabilities. Ford is in dire straits (God bless Mark Knofler) but that does not change the fact GM is chin-deep in meadow muffins.
There was no suprise in Ford losing $8B--it was pretty much expected with the write downs. And though you mention GM sales are up in Europe and Russia--that does not change the overall picture for GM. In fact, using that sort of infantile logic, the fact that Ford of Europe posted a $528 million profit and Ford SA also posted a sizable profit, means Ford must be doing great.
In case it escaped your grasp, selling 4.5 million vehicles may generate impressive revenue--but revenue is not the same as profit. In fact if you had bothered to read the link to the Bloomberg article you would know that GM has not posted a profit since 2004! (One of the reasons investors are rating GM as junk bonds, along with Ford and Chrysler.)
While it is true that GM has billions of dollars more in terms of assets--the opposite is also true, Ford has billions of dollars less in terms of liabilities. Ford is in dire straits (God bless Mark Knofler) but that does not change the fact GM is chin-deep in meadow muffins.
I don't care if you think Ford is in better shape than GM. Have a nice day.
Shelby GT350 Member
Joined: April 29, 2005
Posts: 2,133
Likes: 5
Thank you for the link. But I note you did not answer the question--where did you get your financial information. Your statement 'GM is in some trouble, but not near as troubled as Ford' is not substantiated by information published by Bloomberg, MarketWatch, or Moody's.
There was no suprise in Ford losing $8B--it was pretty much expected with the write downs. And though you mention GM sales are up in Europe and Russia--that does not change the overall picture for GM. In fact, using that sort of infantile logic, the fact that Ford of Europe posted a $528 million profit and Ford SA also posted a sizable profit, means Ford must be doing great.
In case it escaped your grasp, selling 4.5 million vehicles may generate impressive revenue--but revenue is not the same as profit. In fact if you had bothered to read the link to the Bloomberg article you would know that GM has not posted a profit since 2004! (One of the reasons investors are rating GM as junk bonds, along with Ford and Chrysler.)
While it is true that GM has billions of dollars more in terms of assets--the opposite is also true, Ford has billions of dollars less in terms of liabilities. Ford is in dire straits (God bless Mark Knofler) but that does not change the fact GM is chin-deep in meadow muffins.
There was no suprise in Ford losing $8B--it was pretty much expected with the write downs. And though you mention GM sales are up in Europe and Russia--that does not change the overall picture for GM. In fact, using that sort of infantile logic, the fact that Ford of Europe posted a $528 million profit and Ford SA also posted a sizable profit, means Ford must be doing great.
In case it escaped your grasp, selling 4.5 million vehicles may generate impressive revenue--but revenue is not the same as profit. In fact if you had bothered to read the link to the Bloomberg article you would know that GM has not posted a profit since 2004! (One of the reasons investors are rating GM as junk bonds, along with Ford and Chrysler.)
While it is true that GM has billions of dollars more in terms of assets--the opposite is also true, Ford has billions of dollars less in terms of liabilities. Ford is in dire straits (God bless Mark Knofler) but that does not change the fact GM is chin-deep in meadow muffins.
Bullitt Member
Joined: September 18, 2006
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Well, power to weight is what will let them walk the walk. That said, with a 400+hp, 5.0L V8 under the hood the 2011 Mustang GT is absolutely going to be a 12 second car which easily exceeds your request above. The question now is simply, how deep into the 12's will it go?
Mach 1 Member
Joined: November 3, 2007
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
From: South Florida
With 340rwhp I say it's a solid 12.8 at 108 from the showroom floor.
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
Joined: November 14, 2007
Posts: 3,651
Likes: 8
From: Pacific NW USA
Certainly one of my favorite Dire Straits tunes - right up there with Sultans of Swing.
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
Joined: November 14, 2007
Posts: 3,651
Likes: 8
From: Pacific NW USA
My 100% bone stock 03 Mach 1 ran 13.02 @ 105+ in the 1/4 mile. OK, so that was on drag radials, but the rest of the car was 100% bone stock. That was a 305hp 4.6L engine (DOHC), so why couldn't a 5.0L engine run high 12's or better?
Legacy TMS Member
Joined: May 16, 2004
Posts: 5,206
Likes: 18
From: Bristol, TN
The F5 should certainly clip the 12 second barrier, even in rough form with some tuning left to do on both the automatic and the engine its capable of low 13 second times and thats with the lower output engine (400hp/395 ft/lbs @ 3920 lbs - 9.8 hp/lbs), the F4 cars had roughly the same power to weight ratio as the F5 and they are verified 12 second capable cars.
If Ford comes through with the 400 horse 5.0 and keeps weight gain paired down to a minimum (hopefully its 400hp @ 3600 or so pounds) it wil certainly be a 12 second car.
Now the difference between driving an F5 and the MCE S-197 will be substantial, with the F5 you will just have to mash the gas and keep wheel spin in check - thats what 6.2 liters of displacement does for you. The MCE S-197 on the otherhand will take some more finesse since its down on displacement and it will have to rev higher to get the same amount of work done making the launch a bit trickier and keeping it in the sweet spot as well.
Last edited by bob; Jul 25, 2008 at 08:24 AM.
SUPERCHARGED RED ROCKET ------------------Master-Moderator
Joined: May 11, 2006
Posts: 10,645
Likes: 2,512
From: Carnegie, PA
Therefore what part of ADM markups, did you not comprehend ?
As I once again clearly stated.
The Challenger is also far more expensive than the Mustang, thanks to ADM markups at 20K above MSRP for the SRT8.
And if you think the 5.7L R/T version is going to sell at MSRP, you had better think again. Because they're also going to be marked well above MSRP as well. In fact I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised that after it's all said and done, a fully loaded Challenger R/T will probably cost you around 37k-40k
That being said, the Mustang continues to offer the best bang for the buck value. Hands down !
And if you think the 5.7L R/T version is going to sell at MSRP, you had better think again. Because they're also going to be marked well above MSRP as well. In fact I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised that after it's all said and done, a fully loaded Challenger R/T will probably cost you around 37k-40k
That being said, the Mustang continues to offer the best bang for the buck value. Hands down !
Last edited by m05fastbackGT; Jul 26, 2008 at 11:35 AM.
SUPERCHARGED RED ROCKET ------------------Master-Moderator
Joined: May 11, 2006
Posts: 10,645
Likes: 2,512
From: Carnegie, PA
And I suggest you take a refresher course in reading comprehension. As for moving to another city, why in the hell should I go through all that hassle, just in order to buy a lousy Challenger.
FYI, if I wanted a Challenger that bad. I'd simply order one from a dealer at MSRP, and then have it shipped, however due to the fact that I'm a loyal/die hard Ford, and Mustang owner. I have neither any intentions, nor the desire in wanting to own a 2009 Challenger, that's a 4140 lb. behemoth.. End of discussion
FYI, if I wanted a Challenger that bad. I'd simply order one from a dealer at MSRP, and then have it shipped, however due to the fact that I'm a loyal/die hard Ford, and Mustang owner. I have neither any intentions, nor the desire in wanting to own a 2009 Challenger, that's a 4140 lb. behemoth.. End of discussion
Last edited by m05fastbackGT; Jul 26, 2008 at 09:57 PM.
SUPERCHARGED RED ROCKET ------------------Master-Moderator
Joined: May 11, 2006
Posts: 10,645
Likes: 2,512
From: Carnegie, PA
Although I have nothing personal against either the Challenger, or upcoming 2010 Camaro, with the exception of they're huge size and weight. I've always preferred the Mustang, because it has remained as my best overall bang for the buck value, for under $30k. Which is more than good enough for me
Last edited by m05fastbackGT; Jul 29, 2008 at 10:49 PM.
Cobra Member
Joined: June 25, 2004
Posts: 1,076
Likes: 0
From: Ohio
I prefer the Ford styling(especially the interior) and the overall quality & safety of the car.
The only reason I am giving the Camaro & Challenger a look is because of their performance. But, I think Ford is going to deliver a nice engine in 2011MY, so I will most likely wait for that, unless a new Mach1 pops up in 2010MY.
The only reason I am giving the Camaro & Challenger a look is because of their performance. But, I think Ford is going to deliver a nice engine in 2011MY, so I will most likely wait for that, unless a new Mach1 pops up in 2010MY.
SUPERCHARGED RED ROCKET ------------------Master-Moderator
Joined: May 11, 2006
Posts: 10,645
Likes: 2,512
From: Carnegie, PA
Hey John, I'm also looking very forward to the new 400HP 5.0L 4V as well. Hopefully it will also include DI, and if it does. I'll more than likely install it in my current 05, and swap out the current 4.6L 3V.
Although Ford hasn't confirmed as to whether or not there will be a 2010MY Mach 1. IMHO I'm really hopeful that Ford will deliver us a preview of it's 5.0L 4V DOHC in an SE, before making it's debut in the 2011MY Mustang GT.
Although Ford hasn't confirmed as to whether or not there will be a 2010MY Mach 1. IMHO I'm really hopeful that Ford will deliver us a preview of it's 5.0L 4V DOHC in an SE, before making it's debut in the 2011MY Mustang GT.
Last edited by m05fastbackGT; Jul 30, 2008 at 05:36 PM.
Bullitt Member
Joined: December 17, 2007
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Basically, the safe (and certainly most likely) bet here is that--if there actually is a 400 HP Mustang in 2009--it will be powered by the tested, trusted engine from FRPP that has seen time in several Ford one-off Mustangs recently, such as the beautiful "AV8R" to be auctioned off at the Oshkosh fly-in today:
"...supercharger and tuned exhaust that will generate 400 horsepower from the aluminum block 4.6-liter, 24-valve V-8 engine."
No unproven technology here, just an off-the-shelf supercharger and related hardware that'll be emissions legal. Why NOT go this route if you're upgrading your power but you need to keep the cost under a ceiling that would be proper for a Mustang GT with an optional 400 HP engine??? Why reinvent the wheel with a new engine just to gain 100 HP over the naturally-aspirated version of this already-in-production-with-all-the-bugs-worked-out all-aluminum engine??? 400 HP is loafing for a 4.6 liter SOHC 4.6-liter V8 when it's supercharged so there should be few--if any--warranty issues.
And it is conceivable that clever electronic engine controls will allow this supercharged engine to get better mileage than the n/a 300 HP engine, albeit likely that regular gasoline would not be recommended under terms of the warranty...
Best of all, this engine would crank out 400 HP in the broad rev range commonly found in supercharged V8s--and do it without Gasoline Direct Injection!
I havta admit that the really, really high pressures needed to successfully inject gasoline directly into combustion chambers instead of into intake passages leaves some scary speculation in my mind as to what can happen after a few years of usage by owners who don't rigidly follow the maintenance & inspection recommendations in the Owner's Manual (like me, for instance). Gasoline leaks under really high pressures sounds like an opportunity to become an amateur astronaut at an astonishingly low price...
Greg "Eights" Ates
"...supercharger and tuned exhaust that will generate 400 horsepower from the aluminum block 4.6-liter, 24-valve V-8 engine."
No unproven technology here, just an off-the-shelf supercharger and related hardware that'll be emissions legal. Why NOT go this route if you're upgrading your power but you need to keep the cost under a ceiling that would be proper for a Mustang GT with an optional 400 HP engine??? Why reinvent the wheel with a new engine just to gain 100 HP over the naturally-aspirated version of this already-in-production-with-all-the-bugs-worked-out all-aluminum engine??? 400 HP is loafing for a 4.6 liter SOHC 4.6-liter V8 when it's supercharged so there should be few--if any--warranty issues.
And it is conceivable that clever electronic engine controls will allow this supercharged engine to get better mileage than the n/a 300 HP engine, albeit likely that regular gasoline would not be recommended under terms of the warranty...
Best of all, this engine would crank out 400 HP in the broad rev range commonly found in supercharged V8s--and do it without Gasoline Direct Injection!
I havta admit that the really, really high pressures needed to successfully inject gasoline directly into combustion chambers instead of into intake passages leaves some scary speculation in my mind as to what can happen after a few years of usage by owners who don't rigidly follow the maintenance & inspection recommendations in the Owner's Manual (like me, for instance). Gasoline leaks under really high pressures sounds like an opportunity to become an amateur astronaut at an astonishingly low price...
Greg "Eights" Ates
Last edited by Eights; Jul 31, 2008 at 08:45 AM. Reason: (the #@%$^&* time-out)