Mustang is a shit car

Status
Not open for further replies.

Top Geek

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 23, 2006
Messages
10,837
Location
Canadaland :)
Car(s)
1995 Nissan 240SX
Why not think about this seriously for a moment?

Let's see, it's got...

- a live rear axle. That's about as clever as a child's wagon.
- a 4.6L OHV/pushrod V8 engine with 3 valves per cylinder that produces only 300HP
- a 3500lb curb weight (that's over a tonne-and-a-half)

Technically speaking, it is a pretty lousy car when you consider that a company like Honda can get 240HP -- only 20% less than a the Mustang's V8 -- out of a naturally-aspirated four-cylinder engine that's 56% smaller at 2.0L. Or that Ascari can take a BMW V8 that's only 8% larger at 5.0L to develop 500HP. So, the Mustang's engine certainly isn't brilliant or clever, that's for sure. Maybe that's what he means by...*ahem*...it's a "dookie" car ;)

So, yeah, you get bargain-basement engineering. But, you're paying bargain-basement prices. What more can you expect? And no one's going to look at a Mustang and say "What a lousy car". Not when it looks as good as it does.
 

chaos386

.sa = bad driver!
Joined
Nov 8, 2004
Messages
7,960
Location
Back in Saudia
Car(s)
SEAT Leon FR
epp_b said:
Why not think about this seriously for a moment?

Let's see, it's got...

- a live rear axle. That's about as clever as a child's wagon.
- a 4.6L OHV/pushrod V8 engine with 3 valves per cylinder that produces only 300HP
- a 3500lb curb weight (that's over a tonne-and-a-half)

Technically speaking, it is a pretty lousy car when you consider that a company like Honda can get 240HP -- only 20% less than a the Mustang's V8 -- out of a naturally-aspirated four-cylinder engine that's 56% smaller at 2.0L. Or that Ascari can take a BMW V8 that's only 8% larger at 5.0L to develop 500HP. So, the Mustang's engine certainly isn't brilliant or clever, that's for sure. Maybe that's what he means by...*ahem*...it's a "dookie" car ;)

So, yeah, you get bargain-basement engineering. But, you're paying bargain-basement prices. What more can you expect? And no one's going to look at a Mustang and say "What a lousy car". Not when it looks as good as it does.
The thing is though, if it makes 300hp, who cares how large the engine displacement is? If next year they were magically able to make the same 300hp from a 2.3L engine (but the overall weight of the car was unchanged), would that make the car any faster? Would it be "better" now that the hp/L rating went up?

Also, which model Honda has a 240hp 2.0L engine? I've never heard of one here or in the US. :huh:

To youngwarrior: why are you lashing out against the Mustang here? You said it's because people are always praising the price/performance ratio of cars like the Mustang and Corvette, but the only time I've seen that come up here is when somebody makes a comment in a thread along the lines of "X is a shit car" or "American cars suck", and some of the forum members defend said car. It's not like the whole forum responds either. This isn't a forum based on American cars, or the Mustang, or the Corvette. It's a forum based on two British motoring programmes, and as such I would think that most members prefer European marques. I, personally, prefer Toyotas (despite their reputation for being boring) and am quite enamored of the Holden Commodore (for various reasons, only some of which involve the merits of the car itself). I would never want to buy a Mustang, but what I can do is recognize the love it gets from other people, and appreciate the fact that there exist people who have tastes much different from my own, making this world a much more interesting and exciting place to live in.
 

zenkidori

Banned For Trolling
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
4,806
Location
A mile high...and then some
Car(s)
RX-7, Jeep Cherokee
keep in mind that's turbo.

all things the same the only two ways to increase power in an NA engine are to increase revs or increase displacement, and revs just aren't the mustangs thing.
 

mojo_786

Active Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
472
Location
Richmond Hill, Ontario
Car(s)
Mazda Protege
chaos386 "To youngwarrior: why are you lashing out against the Mustang here? You said it's because people are always praising the price/performance ratio of cars like the Mustang and Corvette, but the only time I've seen that come up here is when somebody makes a comment in a thread along the lines of "X is a shit car" or "American cars suck", and some of the forum members defend said car. It's not like the whole forum responds either. This isn't a forum based on American cars, or the Mustang, or the Corvette. It's a forum based on two British motoring programmes, and as such I would think that most members prefer European marques. I, personally, prefer Toyotas (despite their reputation for being boring) and am quite enamored of the Holden Commodore (for various reasons, only some of which involve the merits of the car itself). I would never want to buy a Mustang, but what I can do is recognize the love it gets from other people, and appreciate the fact that there exist people who have tastes much different from my own, making this world a much more interesting and exciting place to live in."

Well said...

Honestly, i would argue a person who has knowledge of what he/she is speaking rather than a person who is opioniated. I dont hate a mustang, at the same time its not like i love it. But its better than alot of other cars. Ignorant people like you talk alot of bullshit without even having decent arguments. Thats just a poor and a very retarded way of even starting an argument.

And just for you youngwarrior

LONG LIVE THE MUSTANG...
 

gtrietsc

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
1,582
Location
Allen, TX USA
Car(s)
'07 Ford F-150 FX4, '06 BMW M5
ESPNSTI said:
Sorry about the messy split, you guys posted much too fast for my slow connection. :p
Split? I dont get why you gave this troll asshole his own thread. :?
 

Top Geek

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 23, 2006
Messages
10,837
Location
Canadaland :)
Car(s)
1995 Nissan 240SX
If next year they were magically able to make the same 300hp from a 2.3L engine (but the overall weight of the car was unchanged), would that make the car any faster? Would it be "better" now that the hp/L rating went up?
A 2.3L engine is substantially smaller and would most likely be quite a bit lighter (probably even if it was a cast iron block...the V8 has an aluminum block). And, don't forget, a 2.3L would help with fuel economy when your not jamming it.

or 228bhp from the rotary 1.3 Mazda? thirsty engine though
Mmm...I could go on about rotary engines. After driving an RX-7, no engine feels as smooth or as capable of holding on to it's power as long as the wankel rotary.

That would be the Honda S2000
That's the one I was referring to, yes.

keep in mind that's turbo.

all things the same the only two ways to increase power in an NA engine are to increase revs or increase displacement, and revs just aren't the mustangs thing.
Forgot about the SVO 4-cyl turbo? Yes, it was a pretty wretched car (the gearbox was even worse, the throw from gear-to-gear was litteraly about a foot long :lol: ) but, you have a point in that the modern Mustang and a turbo-4 don't go together.
 

BerserkerCatSplat

Hormone Induced
Joined
Jun 21, 2005
Messages
9,540
Location
Alberta, Canada
Car(s)
The Jeep of Theseus, Angry Wagon
BlitzR said:
chaos386 said:
which model Honda has a 240hp 2.0L engine?
That would be the Honda S2000
Ah, the quintessential Torqueless Wonder. ;)

The downside to adding revs to gain top-end power is that it doesn't do anything for low-end torque - an area the the Mustang's engine excels in.
 

KaJuN

Disco Inferno
Joined
Jul 31, 2006
Messages
9,745
Location
Dayton, Ohio
Car(s)
Mini Cooper S, Landy Series III, Vulcan 900 Custom
To me, the V8 Mustangs have always been about getting a big engine in a small package. The recipie has worked for 40 years, why change it? American sports cars just aren't like their European and Japanese counterparts. They aren't engineer's playthings to see how much power they can get out of the smallest engine. It's about pure thrills; not electronically-controlled, turbo-lagging high revs. We like the low rumble of a V8, not the whine of the turbo spooling up. (At least I don't) It's just part of our culture that fast is perceived as a straight-line thing. That's the way things are and I really can't see what everyone's problem with it is.
 

Vitamin J

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
615
Location
Denver, CO
Car(s)
1996 Mazda Miata 1.8L, 1992 Spec Miata 1.6L
HAY GUYS MUSTANGS ARE STUPID DONT YOU AGREE LOL!!!!
 

youngwarrior

Active Member
Joined
May 16, 2006
Messages
445
BerserkerCatSplat said:
BlitzR said:
chaos386 said:
which model Honda has a 240hp 2.0L engine?
That would be the Honda S2000
Ah, the quintessential Torqueless Wonder. ;)

The downside to adding revs to gain top-end power is that it doesn't do anything for low-end torque - an area the the Mustang's engine excels in.
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.
 

youngwarrior

Active Member
Joined
May 16, 2006
Messages
445
KaJuN said:
To me, the V8 Mustangs have always been about getting a big engine in a small package. The recipie has worked for 40 years, why change it? American sports cars just aren't like their European and Japanese counterparts. They aren't engineer's playthings to see how much power they can get out of the smallest engine. It's about pure thrills; not electronically-controlled, turbo-lagging high revs. We like the low rumble of a V8, not the whine of the turbo spooling up. (At least I don't) It's just part of our culture that fast is perceived as a straight-line thing. That's the way things are and I really can't see what everyone's problem with it is.
the mustang isnt a small package though is it :lol: Mercedes make cars mainly aimed at the american market, and their engines are good though. What gives? :p
 

chaos386

.sa = bad driver!
Joined
Nov 8, 2004
Messages
7,960
Location
Back in Saudia
Car(s)
SEAT Leon FR
BlitzR said:
chaos386 said:
which model Honda has a 240hp 2.0L engine?
That would be the Honda S2000
*bangs his head on the desk repeatedly*
I completely forgot about it. :blush:

Although now the North American version has a 2.2L engine.

epp_b said:
If next year they were magically able to make the same 300hp from a 2.3L engine (but the overall weight of the car was unchanged), would that make the car any faster? Would it be "better" now that the hp/L rating went up?
A 2.3L engine is substantially smaller and would most likely be quite a bit lighter (probably even if it was a cast iron block...the V8 has an aluminum block). And, don't forget, a 2.3L would help with fuel economy when your not jamming it.
The convertible Mustang gets 17/25mpg, the S2000 gets 20/26mpg. So cutting the engine to less than half the size gains a whole 3mpg in the city (which I'm guessing has a lot to do with the fact that the S2000 is a smaller, lighter car with only two seats instead of four), and only 1mpg on the highway. And you have 60 fewer horses. I'm not saying the Mustang is somehow better than the S2000 (they're different cars for different people), just that their engines are fairly equal, engineering-wise.

youngwarrior said:
BerserkerCatSplat said:
BlitzR said:
chaos386 said:
which model Honda has a 240hp 2.0L engine?
That would be the Honda S2000
Ah, the quintessential Torqueless Wonder. ;)

The downside to adding revs to gain top-end power is that it doesn't do anything for low-end torque - an area the the Mustang's engine excels in.
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.
For USD$66,000 the Audi RS4 damn well better have a more advanced engine than the Mustang.
 

BlitzR

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 1, 2006
Messages
1,846
Location
Sydney, Australia
youngwarrior 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.
That V8 is pumped full to new tech. You can't compare the Audi FSI V8 to the Ford Mustang V8. They are both in different leagues. One engine is built to be affordable, the other for the rich and wealthy.
 

Mally Dangerous

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2005
Messages
2,188
Location
Atlanta
You know, when the latest Mustang came out. I didn't like its look all that much. However, once I saw tuner versions my mind was changed. It's like the tuner versions is what the car should have looked like from the dealership. I don't say that about many cars.
 

youngwarrior

Active Member
Joined
May 16, 2006
Messages
445
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top