New Musclestang Motor & Golf MkVI

All the news that's fit to shift.
Rope-Pusher
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 11607
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:44 pm
Cars: '08 Jeep Liberty
Location: Greater Detroit Area

New Musclestang Motor & Golf MkVI

Post by Rope-Pusher »

'08 Jeep Liberty 6-Speed MT - "Last of the Mohicans"
User avatar
theholycow
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 16021
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 1:36 pm
Cars: '80 Buick LeSabre 4.1 5MT
Location: Glocester, RI
Contact:

Re: New Musclestang Motor & Golf MkVI

Post by theholycow »

Ford's playing catch-up with the Camaro.

I hope they'll do something for their 300hp V8...it would be lame to choose between a 305hp V6 or a 300hp V8 even though the V8 has a lot more torque.
1980 Buick LeSabre 4.1L 5MT

Put your car in your sig!

Learn to launch/FAQs/lugging/misused terms: meta-sig
watkins wrote:Humans have rear-biased AWD. Cows have 4WD
Rope-Pusher
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 11607
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:44 pm
Cars: '08 Jeep Liberty
Location: Greater Detroit Area

Re: New Musclestang Motor & Golf MkVI

Post by Rope-Pusher »

Ford has had some tissues thru the ears on tryin ta wring out s'more powa from their Musclestang V-8 motors. Remember the time they had to extrude-hone the intake manifolds on a recall so they could meet the advertised horsepressure?
'08 Jeep Liberty 6-Speed MT - "Last of the Mohicans"
ShiftItDriveIt
Junior Standardshifter
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 8:53 pm
Cars: 2004 Ford Focus ZX3

Re: New Musclestang Motor & Golf MkVI

Post by ShiftItDriveIt »

Well, I wish the camaro wasn't so heavy. I think it's a good 300lbs heavier than the mustang.
Rope-Pusher
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 11607
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:44 pm
Cars: '08 Jeep Liberty
Location: Greater Detroit Area

Re: New Musclestang Motor & Golf MkVI

Post by Rope-Pusher »

ShiftItDriveIt wrote:Well, I wish the camaro wasn't so heavy. I think it's a good 300lbs heavier than the mustang.
Twoo. Based on the G8 / Zeta architecture, which is shared with some larger sedans. What platform is Musclestang based on? Is it dedicated to Mustang?
'08 Jeep Liberty 6-Speed MT - "Last of the Mohicans"
scionkid
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 2539
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 1:47 am
Cars: 04 xB
Location: Anaheim, CA
Contact:

Re: New Musclestang Motor & Golf MkVI

Post by scionkid »

Rope-Pusher wrote:
ShiftItDriveIt wrote:Well, I wish the camaro wasn't so heavy. I think it's a good 300lbs heavier than the mustang.
Twoo. Based on the G8 / Zeta architecture, which is shared with some larger sedans. What platform is Musclestang based on? Is it dedicated to Mustang?
I'm not sure, but isn't the current Mustang share the platform used by the Lincoln LS/Jaguar Type-S? Speaking of Jaguar, I want to try the Tata.
Rope-Pusher
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 11607
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:44 pm
Cars: '08 Jeep Liberty
Location: Greater Detroit Area

Re: New Musclestang Motor & Golf MkVI

Post by Rope-Pusher »

scionkid wrote:
Rope-Pusher wrote:
ShiftItDriveIt wrote:Well, I wish the camaro wasn't so heavy. I think it's a good 300lbs heavier than the mustang.
Twoo. Based on the G8 / Zeta architecture, which is shared with some larger sedans. What platform is Musclestang based on? Is it dedicated to Mustang?
I'm not sure, but isn't the current Mustang share the platform used by the Lincoln LS/Jaguar Type-S? Speaking of Jaguar, I want to try the Tata.
Kinda does and kinda don't share the platform. /The kinda don't part is probably why the Musclestang weight is less than the Camaro's or Challenger's weights.
'08 Jeep Liberty 6-Speed MT - "Last of the Mohicans"
watkins
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 15880
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 12:42 am
Cars: '08 Saab 9-5 Aero wagon
Location: Salem, MA

Re: New Musclestang Motor & Golf MkVI

Post by watkins »

Rustang V8s have pretty much always been dogs. My friend has a '94 5.0. Thats about 225ph 250tq factory. My car (though newer) is less than half the size at 2.3L and I make the same power. Yes its a turbo, but that doesnt make up for his car having twice the cylinders or that huge displacement advantage.
User avatar
Standardshifter
Site Admin
Posts: 869
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2003 11:23 am
Cars: 2005 Legacy GT, Buell
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: New Musclestang Motor & Golf MkVI

Post by Standardshifter »

New 5.0 with 400HP+ will be available sometime in 2011.

Cheers to Ford for keeping the Mustang's weight in check.
-Standardshifter
Shifting the Standard of Automotive Websites
User avatar
theholycow
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 16021
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 1:36 pm
Cars: '80 Buick LeSabre 4.1 5MT
Location: Glocester, RI
Contact:

Re: New Musclestang Motor & Golf MkVI

Post by theholycow »

I agree...credit where credit is due, it's extremely hard to keep weight down on new vehicles these days but Ford is doing it a little better than the others with the Mustang.
1980 Buick LeSabre 4.1L 5MT

Put your car in your sig!

Learn to launch/FAQs/lugging/misused terms: meta-sig
watkins wrote:Humans have rear-biased AWD. Cows have 4WD
eggwich delfiero
Senior Standardshifter
Posts: 896
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 10:31 pm
Cars: Mustang GT
Location: San Francisco

Re: New Musclestang Motor & Golf MkVI

Post by eggwich delfiero »

watkins wrote:Rustang V8s have pretty much always been dogs. My friend has a '94 5.0. Thats about 225ph 250tq factory. My car (though newer) is less than half the size at 2.3L and I make the same power. Yes its a turbo, but that doesnt make up for his car having twice the cylinders or that huge displacement advantage.
Really, an article about a Mustang and you're spinning it about how superior your car is? I'm shocked, just shocked. While the 5.0 you refer to wasn't well-matched to the SN-95 body style and its weight, if you go down to any dragstrip, any night, you will see dozens of those Ford Windsor 302 small blocks you're disparaging in all types of cars. And they are STILL producing new aftermarket parts for that engine, fifteen years after it stopped being produced. Typically, engines that are "dogs" don't get that much of a following. Pure pushrod magic (no disrespect meant to the 350 small block Chevy which is twice as prevalent at the strip). Add a 1.7 liter blower onto your friends Rustang, or even a tiny turbo, and then see how things stack up. And the 2010 Mustang will run low 5s 0-60 and high 13s in the quarter mile. If that qualifies as a dog, I'm curious about your points of reference.

The new 5.0 V8 Coyote engine will be released with the 2011 models, which actually go on sale in March 2010, so we'll see them soon enough. I'm excited about the Coyote, but really, the V6 is kind of a bigger deal. They've been using the 4.0 liter Cologne V6 forever, and while they can provide some fun, they've definitely earned the whole "all show no go" reputation that V6 Mustangs have. The Track Pack will be available with the V6 for the first time, too, should be a fun car.

The 2010 Mustang GT weighs 3400 pounds, the 09 GT 3356 (both, and all other cars listed here, are weights for the lighter manual transmission models.) While that seems heavy compared to a 2800 pound foxbody stang from 1993, it's comparable to the V6 Genesis Coupe (3389), and less than the Camaro V6 (3741), and 500 lbs less than the Camaro V8 (3860). I still like the Camaro, and I love the Genesis, but if the Mustang adds 85hp without adding more than 200 pounds of weight, game over.

Of course, then Chevy will make changes. And on and on go the pony car wars, may they never end... :lol:

http://www.edmunds.com/apps/nvc/edmunds ... &tab=specs
watkins
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 15880
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 12:42 am
Cars: '08 Saab 9-5 Aero wagon
Location: Salem, MA

Re: New Musclestang Motor & Golf MkVI

Post by watkins »

Defensive much?

From the factory, the old 5.slow was a dog. There are no excuses for how little power it was putting out. The reason there is such a following is because there is so much that can be done to make it into a good engine.
eggwich delfiero
Senior Standardshifter
Posts: 896
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 10:31 pm
Cars: Mustang GT
Location: San Francisco

Re: New Musclestang Motor & Golf MkVI

Post by eggwich delfiero »

I don't know much, but I know the 5.0 was no dog. So yes, I guess I'm defensive about it, because I know I am correct. The 5.0 was putting out 225/245 in 1990, running 6.1 secs to 60 and 14.5 in the 1/4 mile. This is faster than a stock Viggen and faster than most cars made within the following ten years, at least not those named Camaro or Firebird. And it was cheap. So how is this a bad engine again?

The aftermarket for it grew because the bottom could handle a lot of mods (not necessarily true of the 4.6 sadly), not because it was a weak motor. It can get to 300HP pretty cheaply. And how many modern engines even twenty years later come stock with 245 lbs of torque? The 5.0 is a beast. And yes, I love it.

Start insulting the LT1 and I'll throw another tantrum! :lol:

LHOswald
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:46 pm
Cars: '99 Civic Hatch w/B16a
Location: Enfield, Connecticut

Re: New Musclestang Motor & Golf MkVI

Post by LHOswald »

i love the sounds of the tires chirping through every shift. not to say that 12 seconds is slow, but when anyone else was watching that, did it seem to take forever for the run to end? maybe everything goes in slow motion when i watch cars and im extremely interested
Image
watkins
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 15880
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 12:42 am
Cars: '08 Saab 9-5 Aero wagon
Location: Salem, MA

Re: New Musclestang Motor & Golf MkVI

Post by watkins »

eggwich delfiero wrote:I don't know much, but I know the 5.0 was no dog. So yes, I guess I'm defensive about it, because I know I am correct. The 5.0 was putting out 225/245 in 1990, running 6.1 secs to 60 and 14.5 in the 1/4 mile. This is faster than a stock Viggen and faster than most cars made within the following ten years, at least not those named Camaro or Firebird. And it was cheap. So how is this a bad engine again? =
I never said the engine was bad. Im saying what Ford did with it was bad. Once again, there is absolutely no excuse for the poor power from the factory. It should have put a minimum of 250hp. Probably quite a bit more.

A car designed as a sports car being faster in a drag than a stock FWD performance variant of a hatchback is nothing to be proud of. Not that it wins by much. Viggens only take about 6.8 seconds to 60 and high 14s in the 1/4

Though where it counts - corners - my car can easily outperform my friend's Mustang with a lot of suspension work done.
Post Reply