jsaylor

Thats it.

Hollywood_North GT

Fascinating...did they ever end up using "CGI" in these applications?

CGI is more commonly an acronym for Computer Generated Imagery though.

jsaylor

Yes, and the TDi V-8 on-line for the next F-150 is CGi as well. It would be nice if the upcoming Boss V-8 showed up as CGI as well, but I'm not holding my breath.

hi5.0

The CGI sounds like what was used in Ferrari's F1 engine blocks (?? years ago?) when they still used V12's. Stuff sounds good. If it results in engines stronger AND lighter than a similar Al block for less, I'm sold.

jsaylor

I don't know about applications through Ferrari, but Cosworth built the Focus RS rally car's engine block from the stuff and Aston Martin employs it in other areas like the clutch, etc. CGI is just great all around, allowing a lighter engine to withstand great power in a smaller package. Tooling apparently is less exspenive as well when employed on a large scale.

Agent MOO

Y'all talking about common gateway interface?

kevinb120

I dont see CF parts happening anytime soon. Don't forget that Fords new CEO is used to selling products that have a unit price of $39,000,000 each.

I really don't think the GT is heavy at all, it is a bigger car then people realize. A C-class Mercedes yuppie's-first-car sedan looks diminutive next to it and weighs more. They barely have over 200hp and cost in the upper 30's-mid $40's with vinyl seats.

hi5.0

Yeah, but that is "Mercedes-quality" vinyl!

m05fastbackGT

Maybe it's just me but I don't see the current Stang as being so huge as most make it out to be ? personally speaking it's about the same size in length as the 67-70 IMO However on the other hand ? the S-197 is a larger car in overall width than what were used to..But then again that's pretty much the direction the big 3 are going towards for added comfort, better handling and of course due to increased safety regulations..But If I'm not mistaken ? are not both the upcoming 08-09 Challenger and 10 Camaro considered to be behemoths when compared to the current S-197 Stang

kevinb120

The Challenger is bigger for sure, as for GM's theoretical 'Camaro' who knows what platform they will quickly throw bowties on at the last minute....

V10

The S-197 Mustang is about the same size as the '69 & '70 Mustang.

The '67 & '68 Mustangs were smaller (4" shorter) and considerably lighter (300 lb) than the 69-70.

m05fastbackGT

Fine, if you want to get trivial about it ? two can play at that game.. First off, I wasn't referring to weight and I'm quite aware of the fact the 67 & 68 is 4" shorter than the S-197 which was why I clearly stated the S-197 was ABOUT the same size in length as the 67-70 which interprets as meaning the 69-70 was also included in my comparison as an estimation/general statement and figure of speech..Therefore excuse the hell out of me for my lack of preciseness oh great one And btw for your info ? the S-197 is only about the same size as the 69-70 in length only.. the S-197 in reality is actually larger than the 67,68,69 and 70 in overall width and only 2 inches smaller than the 71-73 Mustang

Tony Alonso

From what I recall from the auto magazines, the Challenger most likely will weigh in heavier (4000lbs) than a V6 or GT (or derivative) model. I believe the Zeta platform for Camaro was also going to be in a similar weight range (look at the Holden cars for a potential estimate). Thus, a GT500 becomes a "lightweight" in comparison (well, the coupe anyway)!

bob

Seems to me Dodge has said that the Challenger will be a sub 4,000 pound car now and is to significantly out perform the GT500, or thats what they're shooting for. Its nice to know that the GT500 is a benchmark at least.

m05fastbackGT

So it seems that we can all pretty much agree the current S-197 Mustang isn't so huge afterall when compared to both the upcoming 08-09 Challenger and 10 Camaro..Therefore I prefer to look at this more in the perspective of the glass being half full, instead of half empty..

05stangkc

bump!

rhumb

Kinda wish the Stang would return yet more to its Pony Car roots and be sized more along the lines of the '64-'66 version. I don't recall them being considered cramped or bad looking at all.

Since then, each iteration, save the Mustang II size reset, has been ever bigger, fatter and more bloated (maybe to better fit the ever bigger, fatter and more bloated physique of the average American over the same time span?). The '71-'73 version was a veritable river barge, perhaps only equalled in road sagging weight by the GT500. What the Stang needs is some serious gym time to trim and tone up rather than yet another pass down the engineering buffet line.

Evil_Capri

I don't know exact sizing differences, but weren't Foxes smaller than the 64.5-66's and only somewhat larger than the II's. Some due dilligence seems in order for me . . . . .

ferrarimanf355

Yeah, if I can get a 'Stang with at least 300 HP, and get at least 20 in the city and 25 on the highway, it'll be awesome.

Knight

you are happy with 25mpg hwy?


the current stang can do near 30 if you are easy on it.