Mustang is a shit car

Status
Not open for further replies.

BlitzR

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 1, 2006
Messages
1,846
Location
Sydney, Australia
The modern V8 diesel is again more expensive then the Mustang V8. The Mustang V8 is built to a lower price then everything you have compared it to.
 

youngwarrior

Active Member
Joined
May 16, 2006
Messages
445
BlitzR said:
The modern V8 diesel is again more expensive then the Mustang V8. The Mustang V8 is built to a lower price then everything you have compared it to.
im not even talking V8 diesels here. Them V6 diesels are much better than that crappy mustang V8.
 

BlitzR

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 1, 2006
Messages
1,846
Location
Sydney, Australia
Well when people buy a V8 then don't necessarly care about fuel economy. :p
Also there aren't too many modern v6 diesels on the market that are cheaper then the Mustang V8.
 

Hatmouse

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
4,782
Location
La Jolla, California
Car(s)
'03 Civic Si
youngwarrior said:
even Diesel engines are better than the mustang V8. They rev just as high , have more torque, last longer, give better fuel economy and many have a higher output too! The mustangs V8 is just terrible. It belongs in the 80's.
Diesels do 6.5krpm?
 

Roman

Resident Skydiver
Joined
Jan 15, 2005
Messages
1,647
Location
Qu?bec, Canada
Car(s)
Boring '02 Accent.
youngwarrior dislikes Mustangs so much he won't even ride a horse of that breed. :roll:
 

un-dee

I hate your sig!
Joined
May 21, 2004
Messages
1,488
Location
Frankfurt, Germany
Car(s)
Golf IV 2.0
The Mustang is a great car, I always liked it.
Looks nice, V8, cheap. Power to the people. If I had the money i'd buy one. Sadly you pay about 30.000? here which is a bit too much. Only thing I don't like is the weight, everything else can be solved.
 

jetsetter

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
7,257
Location
Seren?sima Rep?blica de California
Car(s)
1997 BMW 528i
Oh really? Developing a maximum output of 420 bhp, the V8 revs up to a speed of 8250 rpm. With its displacement of 4163 cc, this engine exceeds the magical barrier of 100 bhp per litre - truly outstanding in a production saloon. Maximum torque of 317 lb-ft comes at 5500 rpm in this very compact engine, with 90 per cent of the engine?s torque consistently available between 2250 and 7600 rpm. The result is excellent muscle and pulling force at all times, enabling the driver whenever he ? or she ? wishes to drive in truly relaxed style without frequent gear changes.

A high revving V8 with plenty of torque in the low rev range

So this engine is smaller than the mustangs, revs alot higher than the mustangs, has basically the same torque as the mustang but alot more power than the mustang. It also has 90% of its torque available down low in the rev range. Whjat your saying doesnt match up.
Does Audi sell it in a car that costs under $30,000?
 

youngwarrior

Active Member
Joined
May 16, 2006
Messages
445
jetsetter said:
Oh really? Developing a maximum output of 420 bhp, the V8 revs up to a speed of 8250 rpm. With its displacement of 4163 cc, this engine exceeds the magical barrier of 100 bhp per litre - truly outstanding in a production saloon. Maximum torque of 317 lb-ft comes at 5500 rpm in this very compact engine, with 90 per cent of the engine?s torque consistently available between 2250 and 7600 rpm. The result is excellent muscle and pulling force at all times, enabling the driver whenever he ? or she ? wishes to drive in truly relaxed style without frequent gear changes.

A high revving V8 with plenty of torque in the low rev range

So this engine is smaller than the mustangs, revs alot higher than the mustangs, has basically the same torque as the mustang but alot more power than the mustang. It also has 90% of its torque available down low in the rev range. Whjat your saying doesnt match up.
Does Audi sell it in a car that costs under $30,000?
If they wanted to they could. But audi's are desirable so they dont have to :lol:
 

un-dee

I hate your sig!
Joined
May 21, 2004
Messages
1,488
Location
Frankfurt, Germany
Car(s)
Golf IV 2.0
No they couldn't. You have no idea how much work and know-how and expensive parts are in these high tech engines. But you also can't compare these concepts. Of course the Audi is technically better, but you don't compare a Fiat Coupe to a Ferrari either and I still like the Fiat Coupe.
 

jetsetter

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
7,257
Location
Seren?sima Rep?blica de California
Car(s)
1997 BMW 528i
youngwarrior said:
jetsetter said:
Oh really? Developing a maximum output of 420 bhp, the V8 revs up to a speed of 8250 rpm. With its displacement of 4163 cc, this engine exceeds the magical barrier of 100 bhp per litre - truly outstanding in a production saloon. Maximum torque of 317 lb-ft comes at 5500 rpm in this very compact engine, with 90 per cent of the engine?s torque consistently available between 2250 and 7600 rpm. The result is excellent muscle and pulling force at all times, enabling the driver whenever he ? or she ? wishes to drive in truly relaxed style without frequent gear changes.

A high revving V8 with plenty of torque in the low rev range

So this engine is smaller than the mustangs, revs alot higher than the mustangs, has basically the same torque as the mustang but alot more power than the mustang. It also has 90% of its torque available down low in the rev range. Whjat your saying doesnt match up.
Does Audi sell it in a car that costs under $30,000?
If they wanted to they could. But audi's are desirable so they dont have to :lol:
They don't and they won't for several reasons. One of those reasons is costs. You have also forgotten just how versatile the engine in the Mustang actually is.

Here is a list of what the engine and its relatives have been used in.

4.6 liter V8 version
-valve
Vehicles using the cast iron 16-valve SOHC 4.6 include the following:

1991-1993 Lincoln Town Car, 190 hp (142 kW)
1992-1997 Ford Crown Victoria/Mercury Grand Marquis, 190 hp (142 kW), 260 ft?lbf
1998-2000 Ford Crown Victoria/Mercury Grand Marquis, 200 hp (149 kW), 265 to 275 ft?lbf
2001-2002 Ford Crown Victoria/Mercury Grand Marquis, 220 hp (164 kW), 275 ft?lbf
2003-2004 Ford Crown Victoria/Mercury Grand Marquis, 239 hp (178 kW), 282 ft?lbf
2005-present Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor, 250 hp (186 kW), 297 ft?lbf
1994-1997 Lincoln Town Car, 210 hp (157 kW)
1994-1997 Ford Thunderbird, 205 hp (153 kW)
1994-1997 Mercury Cougar, 205 hp (153 kW)
1998-2000 Lincoln Town Car, 205 hp (153 kW)
2001-2002 Lincoln Town Car, 235 hp (175 kW)
2003-2004 Lincoln Town Car, 239 hp (178 kW)
2002-2005 Ford Explorer, 239 hp (178 kW) and 282 ft?lbf (382 N?m)
1996-1997 Ford Mustang, 215 hp and 285 ft?lbf
1998 Ford Mustang, 225 hp and 290 ft?lbf
1999-2004 Ford Mustang, 260 hp (194 kW) and 302 ft?lbf (410 N?m)

4-valve DOHC version
1993-1998 Lincoln Mark VIII, 280 hp (209 kW) and 285 ft?lbf (386 N?m)
1995-1998 Lincoln Continental, 260 hp (194 kW)
1997-1998 Lincoln Mark VIII LSC, 290 hp (216 kW)
1999-2002 Lincoln Continental, 275 hp (205 kW)
2003-2004 Mercury Marauder, 302 hp (225 kW) and 318 ft?lbf (431 N?m)
1996-1998 Ford Mustang, Cobra, 305 hp (227 kW) and 300 ft?lbf (407 N?m)
1999/2001 Ford Mustang, Cobra, 320 hp (239 kW) and 317 ft?lbf (430 N?m)
2003 Ford Mustang, Mach 1, 305 hp (227 kW) and 320 ft?lbf (434 N?m)
2004 Ford Mustang, Mach 1, 310 hp (231 kW) and 335 ft?lbf (454 N?m)
2003-2004 Ford Mustang, Cobra, Supercharged, 390 hp (291 kW) and 390 ft?lbf (528 N?m)
2003-2005 Lincoln Aviator, 302 hp (225 kW) and 318 ft?lbf (431 N?m)

3-valve SOHC version
2004+ Ford F-Series, 5.4 L, 300 hp (224 kW) and 365 ft?lbf (495 N?m)
2005+ Ford Mustang, 4.6 L, 300 hp (224 kW) and 320 ft?lbf (434 N?m)
2006+ Ford Explorer, 4.6 L, 292 hp (218 kW) and 300 ft?lbf (407 N?m)

5.4 SOHC and DOHC version
1997-2004 Ford F-Series, 2-valve SOHC, 260 hp and 350 ft?lbf (ratings for 1999 and later model years)
1999-2004 Ford Lightning, 2-valve SOHC, supercharged, 380 hp and 450 ft?lbf (ratings for 2001 and later model years)
2000 Ford Mustang Cobra R, 4-valve DOHC, 385 hp (287 kW) and 385 ft?lbf (522 N?m)
2004-present Ford F-Series, 3-valve SOHC, 300 hp and 365 ft?lbf
2005?2006 Ford GT, 4-valve DOHC, supercharged, 550 hp (410 kW) and 500 ft?lbf (678 N?m)
2007 Shelby Mustang GT500, 4-valve DOHC, supercharged, 500 hp (373 kW) and 480 ft?lbf (651 N?m)

6.8 SOHC V10 version
1997-present Ford E-Series vans
1999-present Ford F-Series Super Duty
000-2005 Ford Excursion SUVs

4.6 V8 Triton version
Aluminum block
2002-present Ford Explorer
2002-present Mercury Mountaineer
Cast iron block
1997-present Ford F-150/F-250
1998-2004 Ford Expedition
1997-present Ford E-Series

5.4 V8 2 valve Triton version
1998 Lincoln Navigator
1997.5-2004 Ford F-Series (2004 availability in F-150 Heritage Edition only)
2000-2005 Ford Excursion
1998-2004 Ford Expedition
1999-2004 Ford F-Series Super Duty
1997.5-2006 Ford E-Series

5.4 V8 3 valve Triton version
2004-present Ford F-Series
2005-present Ford F-Series Super Duty
2005-present Ford Expedition
2005-present Lincoln Navigator
2006-present Lincoln Mark LT

Ford of Australia
Barra 230 3-valve SOHC 5.4 L V8, 310 hp (230 kW) @ 5350 rpm, 368 ft?lbf (500 N?m) at 3500 rpm
Boss 260 4-valve DOHC 5.4 L V8, 349 hp (260 kW) @ 5250 rpm, 368 ft?lbf (500 N?m) at 4000 rpm
Boss 290 4-valve DOHC 5.4 L V8, 389 hp (290 kW) @ 5500 rpm, 383 ft?lbf (520 N?m) at 4500 rpm
 

youngwarrior

Active Member
Joined
May 16, 2006
Messages
445
lolollolol yes they could the engine costs about 5 grand to make. that leaves 25 grand left.

And if you want to talk about versatility the 4.2L V8 is in the A4, A6, A8 and Q7, oh and the gumpert apollo. So the engine ranges from 340hp up to 1000hp (the 1000hp being the gumpert)
 

chaos386

.sa = bad driver!
Joined
Nov 8, 2004
Messages
7,960
Location
Back in Saudia
Car(s)
SEAT Leon FR
youngwarrior said:
even Diesel engines are better than the mustang V8. They rev just as high , have more torque, last longer, give better fuel economy and many have a higher output too! The mustangs V8 is just terrible. It belongs in the 80's.
Many have higher output? What else makes 300+ horsepower besides the 4.2L diesel in the Audi A8? You'll have to forgive me if this seems like an ignorant question, as the only high-performance diesels I hear about are the ones shown on Top Gear.
 

jetsetter

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
7,257
Location
Seren?sima Rep?blica de California
Car(s)
1997 BMW 528i
Along with the Chevrolet V8 the Ford Modular engine is one of the most versatile engines today. Used in everything from trucks, vans, 2 door coupes, 4 door sedans, $100,000+ supercars.
 

Roman

Resident Skydiver
Joined
Jan 15, 2005
Messages
1,647
Location
Qu?bec, Canada
Car(s)
Boring '02 Accent.
youngwarrior said:
is that meant to be a joke :lol: :lol: :lol:

(im laughing at you, not with you)
Gaining other members respect with every post I see.
 

youngwarrior

Active Member
Joined
May 16, 2006
Messages
445
chaos386 said:
youngwarrior said:
even Diesel engines are better than the mustang V8. They rev just as high , have more torque, last longer, give better fuel economy and many have a higher output too! The mustangs V8 is just terrible. It belongs in the 80's.
Many have higher output? What else makes 300+ horsepower besides the 4.2L diesel in the Audi A8? You'll have to forgive me if this seems like an ignorant question, as the only high-performance diesels I hear about are the ones shown on Top Gear.
Eg. BMW:

I4 2.0L petrol: 150HP, I4 2.0L diesel: 163HP ... +16HP

I6 3.0L petrol engine: 272HP, 3.0L diesel 231HP ... -41HP
I6 3.0L bi turbo petrol: 306HP, 3.0L twin turbo diesel 286HP ... -20HP

4.4L V8 petrol: 333HP, 4.4L V8 diesel: 330HP ... -3HP
 

jetsetter

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
7,257
Location
Seren?sima Rep?blica de California
Car(s)
1997 BMW 528i
chaos386 said:
youngwarrior said:
even Diesel engines are better than the mustang V8. They rev just as high , have more torque, last longer, give better fuel economy and many have a higher output too! The mustangs V8 is just terrible. It belongs in the 80's.
Many have higher output? What else makes 300+ horsepower besides the 4.2L diesel in the Audi A8? You'll have to forgive me if this seems like an ignorant question, as the only high-performance diesels I hear about are the ones shown on Top Gear.
One GM Duramax V8 diesel

LG5
The LG5 is a 7.2 L engine.

The following trucks use the LG5:

Chevrolet T-Series

LG4
The LG4 (internally called the 6HK1) is a 7.8 L (7790 cc) engine. It is an SOHC 24-valve design with a turbocharger and intercooler. Output is 206 kW (276 hp) at 2700 rpm and 804 N?m (593 ft?lbf) at 1400 rpm.

The following trucks use the LG4:

Chevrolet Kodiak/GMC Topkick
Isuzu F-Series
Isuzu Erga

LB7
The LB7 was introduced in 2001. The V8 engine was a 6.6L and it had 300 hp and 520 ft?lbf of torque.

The Duramax was on the Ward's 10 Best Engines list for 2001 and 2002.

The following trucks use the LB7:

Chevrolet Kodiak/GMC Topkick
Chevrolet Silverado/GMC Sierra HD
2005 Hummer H1
An upgraded version of the Duramax will be made in the 2007 model year to meet emissions standards. However, it will be replaced by a new engine due after 2009 that wil reduce fuel consumption by up to 25%.

LLY
The LLY (internally called the 8GF1) is a 6.6 L (6599 cc) turbocharged engine which debuted in 2004 in GM trucks. It is a 32-valve design with high-pressure common-rail direct injection and aluminum cylinder heads. Output is 310 hp at 3100 rpm and 590 ft?lbf at just 1800 rpm. The engine is also released with a new turbocharger with a variable geometry vane system.

LBZ
The LBZ is nearly identical to the LLY engine. It is a 6.6 L turbocharged engine and was introduced in 2005 for the 2006 model year. It's output is 360 hp at 3200 rpm and torque is 650 ft?lbf at 1600 rpm. It's mated to a new Allison 1000 6 speed transmission.

The following trucks have or are due to have the LBZ engine:

Chevrolet Silverado/GMC Sierra HD
 

youngwarrior

Active Member
Joined
May 16, 2006
Messages
445
jetsetter said:
Along with the Chevrolet V8 the Ford Modular engine is one of the most versatile engines today. Used in everything from trucks, vans, 2 door coupes, 4 door sedans, $100,000+ supercars.
And because of it the engine isnt class leading in any of those vehicles. The ford GT using that engine is a joke. Couldnt ford have just made a seperate engine for it that doesnt drink fuel like a dragster
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top