Road and Track on Mustangs
03-14-2005, 08:26 AM
#51
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pittsburgh..south side..
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personal experiences are great for helping someone decide which car they want to buy themselves, but are hardly a good basis for any kind of reliability argument. Then again, I can agree with you that many people say "Honda good, Ford bad", without knowing knowing any real statistics, either.
Bottom line: all these arguments mean shit, until someone posts some decent statistics on the vehicles in question. And those analyses are probably going to be flawed anyways, so will also probably mean shit. Just buy the brand you have good experience with, and know that whatever the case, statistics don't mean shit to you, when you are the one with the lemon of a Honda/Ford/BMW....
Bottom line: all these arguments mean shit, until someone posts some decent statistics on the vehicles in question. And those analyses are probably going to be flawed anyways, so will also probably mean shit. Just buy the brand you have good experience with, and know that whatever the case, statistics don't mean shit to you, when you are the one with the lemon of a Honda/Ford/BMW....
03-14-2005, 09:23 AM
#52
Registered User
Originally Posted by brockLT1,Mar 13 2005, 11:54 PM
An S2000 is a horrible example because its tuned as much as it can be tuned from the factory to get that magic 240 HP number. V8 guys can do that in their sleep and FORD is clearly not scrounging for HP.
03-14-2005, 09:35 AM
#53
Registered User
Pfft! Does that amazing "HP per liter" somehow keep you feeling warm and happy when some dinosaur-ish V8 vacuums your doors off on the streets? Or passes you in a turn (eh, not the Mustang of course)?
As far as build quality, don't you think someone looking to buy a S2000 might assume they have bad build quality after reading the various complaints here? Bulletin boards like this one are used to point out defects. People who have no problem with their cars generally do not post. So lurking on a Mustang board, what do you expect to hear? I'm not standing up for Mustang quality but their trucks (F150/Ranger) don't need to be defended. To a degree you do get what you pay for. Mustangs have always been inexpensive. I figure mediocre build quality is part of the package.
As far as build quality, don't you think someone looking to buy a S2000 might assume they have bad build quality after reading the various complaints here? Bulletin boards like this one are used to point out defects. People who have no problem with their cars generally do not post. So lurking on a Mustang board, what do you expect to hear? I'm not standing up for Mustang quality but their trucks (F150/Ranger) don't need to be defended. To a degree you do get what you pay for. Mustangs have always been inexpensive. I figure mediocre build quality is part of the package.
03-14-2005, 09:45 AM
#54
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by brockLT1,Mar 14 2005, 01:54 AM
First of all, adding a cold air intake will add horsepower, I dont know of high volume air sucking car that wouldnt benefit from a better source of AIR. If you can find me one, I will eat my hat. Second of all, we all know that adding a catback exhaust is a great way to add some ponies, I highly doubt ford added a super flowing catback, if they did, the stang wouldnt be as quiet as it is. Loud generally means free'er flowing. Again, find me a V8 that has never generated a few ponies from a cat back swap. Above that, *headers* generally add a considerable amount of horespower. If you look at the stock exhaust manifolds, an unstrained eye could compare them to a set of shorties, mids, or longtube headers, and see the clear differance. Finally, if you are telling me headers wont add HP to this car, I will send you a crisp 20$.
An S2000 is a horrible example because its tuned as much as it can be tuned from the factory to get that magic 240 HP number. V8 guys can do that in their sleep and FORD is clearly not scrounging for HP. They have been making a considerable amount of HP from the 5.0 for years with Saleen, Steeda, Roush, and Cobra...the past mimics the future. They did it again with the weak ass 4.6, all the aftermarket companies swapped out the minor bolt ons to add some hp. An S2000 is the anomaly in this bunch, and shouldn't be compared with an easy breathing V8 that is generally at 50% potential or less from the factory.
I highly doubt that Ford added a better catback and intake setup to reach the special 300hp number, they clearly redesigned the intake manifold as well as the cylinder and I am sure the list goes on. Having an extra exhaust valve as well as better upper and lower intakes should give it 40 extra HP, not from a slightly better air intake or exhaust, nope, sorry.
I got done reading that article today and I think it is completely off base. I generally dont like reading Road and Track because of the inconsistency of the track times. If I really wanted to know what all of these Mustangs actually ran, I would go to the drag strip and watch. I would go to mustang forums and see what times people are reporting. I would stay far far away from a Road and Track that got its hands on a factory freak mustang, that is running conistently better than any 05 stang that I have researched. Road and Track bad, actual real world data, good. Ignore what they found.
The 2000 mustang was actually known for dynoing less than it should and running worse times than the earlier 96-98 cobra. This was a result of a defective intake manifold from what I remember.
Pretty much I am willing to bet with you that the 3V 4.6 will respond just as well, if not better to mods than all the other previous mustangs. Sooner or later time will tell, but the past guides the future, and if you add headers, intake, catback, y pipe and gears, chances are the mustang will respond very well to all of those bolt ons, end of discussion like all the other mustangs have and will in the future.
An S2000 is a horrible example because its tuned as much as it can be tuned from the factory to get that magic 240 HP number. V8 guys can do that in their sleep and FORD is clearly not scrounging for HP. They have been making a considerable amount of HP from the 5.0 for years with Saleen, Steeda, Roush, and Cobra...the past mimics the future. They did it again with the weak ass 4.6, all the aftermarket companies swapped out the minor bolt ons to add some hp. An S2000 is the anomaly in this bunch, and shouldn't be compared with an easy breathing V8 that is generally at 50% potential or less from the factory.
I highly doubt that Ford added a better catback and intake setup to reach the special 300hp number, they clearly redesigned the intake manifold as well as the cylinder and I am sure the list goes on. Having an extra exhaust valve as well as better upper and lower intakes should give it 40 extra HP, not from a slightly better air intake or exhaust, nope, sorry.
I got done reading that article today and I think it is completely off base. I generally dont like reading Road and Track because of the inconsistency of the track times. If I really wanted to know what all of these Mustangs actually ran, I would go to the drag strip and watch. I would go to mustang forums and see what times people are reporting. I would stay far far away from a Road and Track that got its hands on a factory freak mustang, that is running conistently better than any 05 stang that I have researched. Road and Track bad, actual real world data, good. Ignore what they found.
The 2000 mustang was actually known for dynoing less than it should and running worse times than the earlier 96-98 cobra. This was a result of a defective intake manifold from what I remember.
Pretty much I am willing to bet with you that the 3V 4.6 will respond just as well, if not better to mods than all the other previous mustangs. Sooner or later time will tell, but the past guides the future, and if you add headers, intake, catback, y pipe and gears, chances are the mustang will respond very well to all of those bolt ons, end of discussion like all the other mustangs have and will in the future.
First, the intakes I've seen so far are a replacement of the filter and air box. The intake from the air box to the manifold seems to be stock.
Second, I don't know what the headers look like on the stock car as I haven't seen one, but I do know that for some applications, shorties make as much or even more power than long branch headers. The long branch headers in most applications make more power on cars with more aggressive cams.
Third, quiet doesn't have to mean slow and louder doesn't have to mean fast. I have heard some loud systems that lose power, especially bottom end torque. There are some stock systems that are hard to improve on and others that only require replacement of the rear muffler to get the available gains.
Fourth, I guess the absolute conclusions you reach that the bolt ons will add power isn't really my point. If I have to pay 1,500 to 3,000 for some bolt ons that add 10 to 20 hp to a 300 hp engine, then I would say the factory stuff was pretty good and the engine doesn't respond well to mods. If I can bolt on that same 1,500 to 3,000 worth of stuff and pick up 40 to 60 hp, I'd say the car does respond well to mods. The Steeda car supposedly picks up over 60 hp with bolt on mods and an engine managment recalibration. That sounds pretty good, but I wonder if that isn't just some inflated claim since the Steeda was really no faster than the stock car. So yeah, I won't take your bet that the bolt on stuff will add some power. The question is, will it be worth it. For the record, I don't think any of the bolt on N/A stuff for the S2000 is really worth it.
As for Road and Track, I'll just disagree with you on that score. I like their tests and their approach to testing that stops just short of trying to get every last tenth out of a car by driving it in a way that you would only use at a drag strip. They mentioned the unusual performance of the stock car enough times to make the point that there could be something unusual about it.
03-14-2005, 09:56 AM
#55
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 4,535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by honda606,Mar 14 2005, 10:23 AM
I'd like to see any of the V8 boys come anywhere close to 240hp with 2.0L.
Big displacement V8s on the other hand, tend to make far less power than they are capable of when modified. Just because they are big displacement, but make what is in your opinion low power doesn't mean they're technologically-challenged. Granted the MPG argument from that point is then perfectly acceptable to ask, but since a 5.7 liter Chevy V8 can make far more HP after being modified some, one could say that its potential power is a sign of its engineering heritage. I doubt many Supra lovers here and elsewhere would disagree with that angle.
How's this for turning your argument on its head:
Instead of focusing on how much HP the F20c makes, how about we focus on how little torque it makes. Let's see Honda get 350 lbs of torque from 2 liters from the factory in a road car (none of this using a race-only engine to prove a point bullcrap).
03-14-2005, 09:59 AM
#56
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pittsburgh..south side..
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by honda606,Mar 14 2005, 01:23 PM
I'd like to see any of the V8 boys come anywhere close to 240hp with 2.0L.
I guess the 2.0L 240 hp boys can't come anywhere close to a V8 then, since they haven't yet....
03-14-2005, 10:00 AM
#58
Registered User
Originally Posted by Slamnasty,Mar 14 2005, 12:56 PM
How's this for turning your argument on its head:
Instead of focusing on how much HP the F20c makes, how about we focus on how little torque it makes. Let's see Honda get 350 lbs of torque from 2 liters from the factory in a road car (none of this using a race-only engine to prove a point bullcrap).
Instead of focusing on how much HP the F20c makes, how about we focus on how little torque it makes. Let's see Honda get 350 lbs of torque from 2 liters from the factory in a road car (none of this using a race-only engine to prove a point bullcrap).
You may want to brush up on Physics 101.
03-14-2005, 11:09 AM
#59
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HOly crap..... I think we should have a weekly ford vs honda topic to get the board all Worked up 
, anyways, bill here is a link on stangnet that discusses some problems....... and anyone that thinks the new mustang doesnt have problems is WRONG, it does and should be expected from a brand new platform http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=549909,
Someone mentioned the new stang not responding to mods well here is one of MANY links showing how well the new stang responds to mods http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=551875
this statement belongs on civic SI or some other board, WHO CARES! does it help you sleep at night? I love my s2k not because it has 240 hp with 2 liters but because it is fun as hell to drive and handles like a dream, if this can be accomplished with a 400000 liter engine that makes 240 hp then I would still love it, this figure is simply a number insecure honda owners throw out to defend accusations made by insecure Ford owners... LIKE my mustang makes 280 hp I will smoke your sorry 4 banger, when in reality this is not likely the case. No need to rebuttle this ignorant statement just let him think it until he gets beat by a "4 banger" and has to rethink his ignorant thinking.
my 2 cents
, anyways, bill here is a link on stangnet that discusses some problems....... and anyone that thinks the new mustang doesnt have problems is WRONG, it does and should be expected from a brand new platform http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=549909, Someone mentioned the new stang not responding to mods well here is one of MANY links showing how well the new stang responds to mods http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=551875
I'd like to see any of the V8 boys come anywhere close to 240hp with 2.0L.
my 2 cents