I think going to a M6 would provide the most notable difference, I was playing the mileage game again and checking fuel economy at various speeds, with my 3.55 rear on 255/45R18's at 45 mph I was at 29 mpg and some change, at 65 mph IIRC that number dropped to 25 or 26 mpg., 55 mph got me arouind 27 or 28 mpg. I'll have to note the mpg next time I'm fiddling around with it. It also seems the change to 255/45R18s netted a 2 mpg or so reduction in mileage.

 

yes the camaro has had the t-56 since 1993.

 

Since the F-bodies have had 6 speeds since 93' there is absolutly no excuse for the Mustang GT not to have one. I understand that it may cost a little more but how much will it really add to the car's MSRP? Just about every other sports car Domestic or Import) on the market has a 6 speed, heck even the new Civics have them!

 

The diffence with the camaro though is they always got parts trickled down from the vette. so they have powertrain cost spread and the SS and Z28 were almost identical cars so again powertrain is spread.

 

I read a lot of good ideas on improving the mustang. Just curious how much cost would be added to the mustang by doing all those things?

-Gary

 

The weight debate has gotten well out of hand. The reality is that an 05 Mustang GT didn't weight that much more than the typical C6 Corvette....think less than 200lbs. In the real world you would have to try very hard to notice the difference in highway fuel mileage between cars with so minor a weight difference all else being equal.

The big advantage for the Vette in terms of fuel economy has long been the 6-speed manual and overall superior gearing of that vehicle. Aerodynamics no doubt help too, and to a far greater extent than does weight without a doubt, but the elephant in the room is definately gearing.

Factor in the inherent inefficiencies created by the mod motors super tight bore spacing and the reality that Ford gives up much of the advantage an OHC motor offers by insisting on tuning these engines for regular fuel instead of premium and how the Vette so handily trumps the Mustang is no mystery.

Also, my understanding is that SUV's are now lumped in with car for the prupose of CAFE ratings.

 

I would have no problem with GOOD V6s and smaller V8s, coupled with improved handling, braking and overall dynamics. Rather than the engineering ethic of more (weight, content, power, etc), perhaps $3+ gallon gas and ocean front property 20 miles inland from where it is now will compel an ethos of better, more efficient yet still fun and exciting car design.

Reduce the Stang's size by an eighth, trim 200-300 lbs of road hugging lard, smooth the aerodynamics to something better than the garage you park it in and you've got a good start. Now imagine this lighter, trimmer, sleeker Stang with an Audi RS-4'esque motor, DSG type tranny and a suspension design of the 21st century rather than the 19th and you have a helluva frisky ride that could still get decent mileage and take the Stang's neck off the chopping block when the axes of CAFE, EPA and OPEC starting swinging away.

 

i have to disagree with the DSG (mustang should stay 3 pedal imo) but your other points are great

 

A 1/8 size reduction is pretty drastic. I don't think anyone over 5' 3" tall would be able to fit in it unless they made it a 2 seater.

1/8 smaller would make the Mustang 23.5" shorter. That works out to 164" long & 63" wide which is about the size of a Mazda Miata. So if that's the kind of car you're looking for, you should just go buy a Miata.

 

I'd say Ford didn't take advantage of the small bores found in the Mod motor. Small bore engines tend to be better at managing the combustion event and are more tolerant of increased compression (increased compression = increased efficency).

Then again this begs the question, although the Mod motor has fallen by the wayside in terms of the big inch engines produced by GM/DC, has its time come again? The "superiority" often attributed to the GM/DC engines is pretty much a derivative of thier displacement. The bare truth of the matter is that they make more power simply because they are bigger. In its current iteration, the 4.6 3v engine is right there in terms of HP/L and with people looking to down sized V8s in the future was the engine really as bad as GM/DC adherents would like you to beleive?

 

Shifts faster than a Standard, results in great efficiency, and has the magic "D" mode for when you're stuck in traffic. What exactly does the third pedal have over that?

 

personality

 

I agree, DSG should be an option but you can't get rid of the good old stick shift.

 

From now on I'm just calling it "The Man Pedal"

 

I've been an ardent three-pedal guy all my life, but after reading about the DSGs and driving a couple, I must say, I'm pretty sold on the concept. As efficient or more so than a stick, a touch simpler and lighter than a slushbox, all the useful driver interaction you need plus the ability to go auto-mode at rush hour, and the prospect of sub-quarter second shifts ... well, there just seems to be a lot more positives than negatives. And that the 1,000hp AWD Bugatti Veyron uses one shows that they can be made to handle mondo power.

I really do think that twin-clutch type trannies will eventually replace both current manual and stick shifts.

 

I've never driven a car with a DSG, how do you take off in one? Is it like a clutch for launch? Or is it just like an auto with paddles??

 

Pride

 

Not gonna have alot of pride when the DSG 'Stang smokes you on the 1/4

 

In Europe Ford is going to sale in a few weeks the Euro Ford Focus with the new Powershift gearbox (a DSG from Getrag). First with diesel engines, 2.0 Tdci 140 HP:


Jointly developed by Ford and transmission specialists GETRAG, the gearbox consists of two layshaft transmissions working in parallel, each with its own wet clutch unit. Thanks to the layout of the intermediate shafts – one carrying the 'uneven' gears 1, 3 and 5, while the other one 'even' gears 2, 4 and 6 – the next gear change can be prepared by pre-selection whilst in motion and at full power. As a result, in this configuration, the average fuel consumption improves by around 10 per cent, and CO2 emissions will be lower, compared to a conventional six-speed torque converter automatic transmission. Final homologated fuel economy and CO2 emissions data, as well as performance data for the Ford Focus with this new transmission technology, will be published closer to the car's market launch.

 

Ford better put that transmission in the next gen Fusion and Focus!