guess the lock is coming soon.

 

How would that upset you being a ford guy? I would love to have a 03/04 cobra, or let alone a 1970 Mach 1, which is one of my favorite cars of all time.

Brand loyalty is retarded, so take the blinders off. It's people like you that are so ignorant that you can't see the good in any car that isn't made by a brand you prefer...

What about the new Taurus SHO? Pretty damn impressive if you ask me. And I've always like the SRT-8 Jeeps. See what I mean?

Like a car for what it offers and brings to the table, not for what badge is slapped on it. If you want to pull the quality card, then so be it. But GM has has just as many quality problems as the next brand...

 

I didn't know that, I thought that both 5th and 6th were overdrives (just like the T-56s and TR-6060s in the GM cars).

I know dynoing the automatic will present a similar type of issue as none of the gears are 1:1 in that one (just like the 6L80 in my Vette).

 

395 horsepower at 6,600 RPM and 365 pound-feet of torque at 4,350 rpm at the Wheels!

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/03/25/v...ustang-gt-5-0/

 

If anyone think the production 5.0 will dyno 395 to the wheels then you're smoking something. It's an SAE certified motor. A pre-pro car might dyno high, but a production car won't. We'll see very soon.

 

This will be the first 6 speed that I've heard of that is not 1:1 in 4th gear.

All the 6 speeds I've been exposed to have used 5th and 6th as a over drive.

 

My S2000 was only OD in 6th gear.

 

I'm not brand loyal to only GM. That would be an assumption. I just don't like Fords as a whole, and I have VERY good reason for it.

You are not alone. I have a strong suspicion that the dyno operator did not know this either.

 

dealer quoted me 32845 for a base GT with brembo's and 3.73.


37255 for a premium gt with full body stuff, brembo's, and 3.73.


kinda salty. im gonna talk to him monday. cant say i wanna pay that much for a stang. it isnt a luxury performance car.

 

Ya I agree these engines should respond to bolt ons quite well. They are already flowing a bunch of air and higher comp ratio. Add a better intake, long tubes and exhaust, and I can for see bigger gains that ls1s. The engine is 14 years old anyways, can't be the bolt on queen forever. It had a long prosperous heyday.

 

To make a revised 351w over an all new 4.6? Are you dumb? The amount of money that goes into designing a new engine, along with r/d, and changing over factories to produce them is way more than what making some changes to a current engine would be. Not to mention the amount of materials in an ohc engine vs ohv. Kevin, stop talkin.

 

I think the LS3 took over that designation. Over 400RWHP with bolt-on's is impressive in my book. Also the 5.0 is pretty tapped out on power to start with. It comes with a cold air intake and mid-length headers from the factory. The CAI is same that bumped the '10 to 315hp from 300hp in the '09. The headers look like a high flowing design too. Judging by that, I don't think this car will get anywhere near the gains that the LS3 does with bolt-on's.

 

True, and the LS2s do pretty well with the bolt ons as well...mine made 393rwhp through an automatic, enough to get my C6 into the 10s.

 

I understand what you guys are saying, but most people don't care about how much more they can make with mods.

They just look at how much they make stock, and a lot of people could care less and just want the (Pony) car because of the look and the sound.

 

Ford did something right and was obviously more in tune with what their market wanted since the Mustang always sold more units than the f-body. This was inspite of a smaller and lower horsepower engine than our F-bodies.

To me in comes down to; Styling(I prefer the Challenger here), weight, and HP over the your operating range. The LS motors are more compact and light than the DOHC Ford. LS has more power over the operating range of the engine, but they put it into a vehicle that weighs hundreds of lbs more so they gave up an avantage.

 

You referring to the Mustang? Because the 4.6 was out before it went into the Mustang. If you are referring to just using it in general, not just Mustangs, then we are talking about two different things.
Now think, why wouldn't Ford put something BETTER in that costs LESS?

You are making a baseless guess, and then acting condescending to me because I did the same.

Awesomeness.

 

http://blogs.popularhotrodding.com/6...-50/index.html

both cars are automatics

Journalists alternately lined up to drive both cars trying different launch techniques, and when the dust settled, every scribe to a man (and woman) had a fistful of timeslips to prove that the Mustang was faster—and by a substantial margin. Yeah, even the Mexicans, who had no “horse” in the race. My best ET in the Camaro was an 8.82 at 83 mph—which turned out to be one of the best for the day. Not bad, but in the Mustang, I managed an 8.62 at 86 mph. In the theoretical quarter-mile—and given the traction limitations of the airport’s untreated surface (and no water and no burnouts allowed)—that’s roughly 13.80 for the Camaro and 13.50 for the Mustang.

 

No magazine racing allowed.

 

More than likely the Mustang is a "Ringer" where the Camaro is a regular production car.

 

Wow, this new Mustang GT might be even faster than I'd originally thought it would be.