Go Back   Sports Car Forum - MotorWorld.net > Automotive Brands Forum > American Cars

American Cars Area dedicated to American Cars from Classic, Muscle, to Modern!



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-28-2004, 01:00 PM   #61
graywolf624
Regular User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hellaware USA
Posts: 3,865
Default

"lot. But it would be cool if they used the GT engine when they switched to the 5.4L, 550hp muahahaa!
"

That engine is too heavy for a mustang. The engine itself is 700 lbs.

"It's gonna be a big boy; it'll have straight line speed like a Viper and handle damn near as good as a C6 with the new chassis. Not to mention it will still be a whole lot cheaper "
Ummm. With that suspension it won't compete with the c6 ever in handling. You also must take into account that the c6 weighs alot less then this new mustang.

"this was true when the concept was revealed; however over the last year, ford engineers discovered there wasnt enough room for the engine, and transmission for the stang, among several other issues. from this, they built a new chassis based on the lincoln ls/ t-bird/ jag, but having completely different demensions including wider, and shorter in length.
any other questions, i have VERY reliable sources for all things Ford
"
Somewhat true but not completely. The front suspension is an all new piece. The major issue is that instead of the ls sla the front is mcpherson with the rear live rear. While I've long been a proponent here that a suspension system is qualitied by the sum of its parts, a great multilink/independent is superior to a great mcpherson/live rear. As such the mustang doesn't have much of a chance on the track. The other thing we come to is the styling of the car. I don't like it. To clear a misconception the new vette is not a retro design it just holds some former design references. This is important because the mustang is a retro design. Which means it has the aerodynamics of a brick.

It's going to be fast but it wont compete with the vette.

"Why would they only bump the new Cobras HP up only 10 horses? 400 horses doesnt sound right.
"

Why would they leave a huge gap in between the gt and the cobra. They wouldnt. The cobra would be near 400 hp.
graywolf624 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2004, 04:22 PM   #62
nthfinity
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Detroit
Posts: 9,929
Default

the live rear axle is one of the reasons for the modification in chassis; it is cheaper to build, and therefor sell. dont forget, even the 2002 T/A WS6 had a live rear axle (if my memory serves me) all that really means is at the limit, the vehicle isnt quite as predictable due to axle hop. if im wrong about the ws6, sorry ill ask my mate about it later today.
__________________
www.nthimage.com
Car photography website
nthfinity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2004, 04:28 PM   #63
graywolf624
Regular User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hellaware USA
Posts: 3,865
Default

the live rear axle is one of the reasons for the modification in chassis; it is cheaper to build, and therefor sell. dont forget, even the 2002 T/A WS6 had a live rear axle (if my memory serves me) all that really means is at the limit, the vehicle isnt quite as predictable due to axle hop. if im wrong about the ws6, sorry ill ask my mate about it later today.
The ws6 does have a live rear axle in it. (considering my iroc has an 02 SS rear in it. same car). The ws6 had sla though. Also as I said. While a rear axle and mcpherson strut isnt a guarentee that it will be beat by a multilink/independent, overall potential of the multilink is higher. Furthermore, similar quality in design means the multilink will be better. (note i said similar quality. this doesnt mean a fwd car will beat a camaro or mustang)
The corvette has a superior setup. Has for quite some time.

The 03 mustang cobra had a multilink. The issue was it was done poorly. To the point where road racers swapped back the live rear axle.
graywolf624 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2004, 04:45 PM   #64
nthfinity
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Detroit
Posts: 9,929
Default

the biggest problem with the multilink in the cobra was wheel spin was to heavy. the live rear could be easily/cheaply modded with lockers to get both spinning at the same rate thus producing faster 1/4th times. and i agree that the mutilink was done poorly.
news flash for the previous gen mustang was it wasnt designed in a wind tunnel either. cirtainly the looks of any car arent liked by everyone; its just opinion on a per person basis.... like music. the c/d is supposedly .32 it may be a brick, but a smaller brick then an suv. the only time aero comes in with cars is when traveling in excess of 120mph.... where on supercars like the 360 challenge, the d/f is only in the area of 200 lbs.... this is cirtainly better then 0, or a coefeiciant of lift. just by general car disign, there is inherent lift if there is airflow of significant nature on the underside. this is why there is usually some sort of front spoiler, and rear bonet or spioler to negate, or reverse the lift effects.
__________________
www.nthimage.com
Car photography website
nthfinity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2004, 04:58 PM   #65
graywolf624
Regular User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hellaware USA
Posts: 3,865
Default

faster 1/4th times.
I'm talking about road racing. I couldn't care less about the 1/4.

c/d is supposedly .32 it may be a brick, but a smaller brick then an suv. the only time aero comes in with cars is when traveling in excess of 120mph
Please remember that c/d means nothing without accounting for the cars frontal area.
Drag = 1/391 x Cd x A x Vsquared

this is cirtainly better then 0, or a coefeiciant of lift. just by general car disign, there is inherent lift if there is airflow of significant nature on the underside. this is why there is usually some sort of front spoiler, and rear bonet or spioler to negate, or reverse the lift effects.
How did we go from talking about the cars high drag to lift? I'm criticizing drag not lift vs downforce..
It isn't as high as 120 mph either. Around 40-50 mph aerodynamics begin to have an effect. Does it make it a poor road car? No. But it does mean that it's got yet another disadvantage versus the vette. Yes
I'm not critcizing the car. The mustang has never been a car that put performance ahead of style(what I prefer). I'm just trying to correct this notion that it'll have a shot in hell against the corvette. Ford doesn't want it to compete with the vette either. That isn't the point of the car.
graywolf624 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2004, 05:07 PM   #66
nthfinity
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Detroit
Posts: 9,929
Default

~~~~~i never said it competes with the vette..... just the svt will against the standard modle c6 in a straight line. the drag you are describing is parasitic drag
How did we go from talking about the cars high drag to lift?
i guess i see something i want to contest in a thread sometimes, and attempt to refute it with my carnal knowlege
__________________
www.nthimage.com
Car photography website
nthfinity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2004, 05:14 PM   #67
graywolf624
Regular User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hellaware USA
Posts: 3,865
Default

i never said it competes with the vette..... just the svt will against the standard modle c6 in a straight line. the drag you are describing is parasitic drag
It was directed at the guy who likes to use slang for mustang in his name, not you.
He was comparing the 2.

And what type of aerodynamic problem did you think I would be discussing? You can't tell a cars lift and down force just by looking at a few pictures. You can tell that the front is shaped like a brick. Thats more then obvious.

Don't take things so personal, I refuted about 4 different people in one post and then gave my opinion on the design.
graywolf624 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2004, 11:38 PM   #68
vegetoxx
Regular User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6
Default

I hope to see this car modified by Saleen and Rousch.
[/quote]

I agree. I can't wait to what these guys do to the new platform. The basic lines to the car a ok. But future models should be a little more aggressive. The 05 looks a little to clean for me. However, all this can be quickly over looked if they make the new 06 Mustang Cobra with the Shelby Concept V10. HINT...HINT 8)
vegetoxx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2004, 09:19 AM   #69
kn7671
Regular User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: DFW, TX USA
Posts: 2
Default

I have to say I am glad that for redesigned the Mustang after another long 10+ years on the current Mustang, but this car is becoming more and more of a niche product and is losing sales quickly. GM saw the light, why can't Ford.

Ford needs to Focus on real cars for real people. If you are 25-35 years old, what current Ford car would you buy if you wanted to go fast. The Focus is a joke with the engines and drivetrains available here is the USA, and the Mustang still has a solid rear axle, underpowered V8 engine. It has to be one of the more INefficient V8's on the market today. Almost every other car manufacturer can make V8's of 4.2L or larger make over 300HP, and Ford is just now stepping to that mark. On top of that, the Mustangs fuel mileage is one of the poorest of all current V8 equipped cars in America. The Corvette ZO6 gets much better mileage, and it makes more power and is a larger engine.

Come on Ford, get with it. Make some advancements in this car. I want honest to goodness suspension on all Mustangs, drop the solid live axle. Improve the dampers, the Mustang rides harsh and wants to bump itself off the road. Give us a real V6 making 250+hp, then offer a nice 350+hp V8 as standard GT level. The Cobra should be a 425+HP engine using a NA 5.4L engine, not a SC 4.6L.

What a weak factory effort. I would be embarresed to buy a Mustang Cobra with a SuperCharger from the factory. Here is a company that has heritage of making the V8 popular, and racing history with high-powered NA V8's, but to have to result to SC'ing from the factory, horrible.
kn7671 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2004, 12:50 PM   #70
hanasand
Regular User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Stavanger, Norway
Posts: 33
Default

OMG it's nice, but the concept had some details like the air intakes I would pay much to see on the final model...
__________________
- Hanasand
hanasand is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump