300HP? Thats It...Whats wrong with Ford

watch · Dec 18, 2004

Got to go. Why don't you go drive a 05 GT with some miles on it and see what it's like. I think you see what we like about this new stang.

z3r0c00l · Dec 18, 2004

Gloveperson said:
Boost has more to do with the stregnth of the bottom end then how the engine was built.

I am not modding my 300c btw. Nor would I want to.

You must be kidding. How many aftermarket companies make SC's for the 300c? Of course bottom end is important, but if you dont plan on making the engine modular then guess what... less options down the road. I'm modding my Mustang... that's part of the fun and mystery driving them.

watch · Dec 18, 2004

TO bad you have to wait till 06 ,but better late then never. Got 1800 miles on my 05GT and it feels stronger with every mile.

LET'S SEE 1966 gt350 1969gt350 1970gt500 2-1970 boss302's 1970mach 1 2001saleens281 2001cobra 2003 mach 1 2005gt and thats just mustangs

Dotanukie · Dec 18, 2004

WHEN WAS THE SOHC 427 FORD ENGINE BUILT WHEN ? TRY !1965 THE HONDA STARTED MAKING CARS IN 1970

Uh, hate to break it to you, but Honda began exporting their roadsters (the S600) to the US in 1965. They were building cars for their home market for quite a few years before that.

Also, OHC technology is not new, and certainly didn't originate with the japanese or the americans. There was a little race car built in 1954 you might have heard of, the Jaguar D-type. It won three Lemans in a row, and it had a twin over head cam straight 6. The predecessor of this motor was originally designed for the Jag XK120, and that was in 1948. My point is, the Brits and the Eurpoeans (Ferrari and Alfa especially) have been using OHC technology since the end of WWII.

Thunder Road · Dec 18, 2004

Pardon this newbies opinion, but isnt this the most horsepower a base GT has ever had? When you add in the looks, handeling, ride, AND price, Ford has outdone themselves. You want more power, there will be more powerful models available, or juat visit your local tuner store. Me, Im just extremely happy to see the first Mustang since 73 that when I look at it, it screams Mustang. Nothing wrong with those years inbetween, just wasnt what struck my fancy. This car did from the first time I saw it, and 300 ponies that sound like this is aone in my book.

Klay · Dec 18, 2004

i agree with you thunder road

tylers65 · Dec 18, 2004

gloveperson and watch

Settle down before you are both surfing a different forum.

Jon Do · Dec 19, 2004

"Can't name one SPORTS CAR WORTH A F--- .Let me help your camaro mind set. Acura? NO BMW? NO FERRARI? NOOOOO! HONDA? NO JAGUAR? no MERCEDES?NO NISSAN? NO PORSCHE?"

What about the Dodge Viper?

The European companies aren't going to use pushrod engines because their cars are subjected to taxes based on engine size... Besides that, cars like Ferrari and Porsche are made for strong top end. AMERICAN cars are tuned for low end and midrange torque.

The Mustang may have OHCs but its engine characteristics can easily be replicated on a pushrod engine. It only revs to 6,000 RPMs. Sports car companies like Porsche and Ferrari wouldn't dream about making a new car that revs to only 6K rpms. In fact even the LS2 pushrod revs to 6.5K rpms...

Beyond the engine characteristics, also look at the gearing in a Mustang. People on this forum frequently complain that is gear for lower-end acceleration in mind, and has weak top end...

Look, I am not saying that OHC engines don't provide any advantages... Because in some cases they do. But in an application such as the Mustang, a pushrod engine may do fine and actually even be ideal. The reason Ford uses OHC engines in this car is because they use modular designs for other applications. In fact the original Ford 4.6L V8 was initially based off of the Duratec V6 in the Ford Mondeo/Contour designed in Europe. Ford sticks with OHC engines in the Mustang because it saves them on technology overhead. However, if you look at the way it's tuned, a pushrod application would perform fine.

Cobra-Master · Dec 19, 2004

LS1=Piston slapping piece of crap

Klay · Dec 19, 2004

Correct me if I'm wrong (as I'm not trying to flame anyone) but didn't the 4.6L ford uses in the mustang have some bad problems too?
Maybe not recently but like from the 90's?
I'm not very ford savvy (yet) but i just want to know why you would make that comment about ls1's when i heard mustang engines had problems of their own. (again no flame intended just curious)

nortcheez · Dec 20, 2004

Wsmatau said:
If you were the expert you claim to be you would recognize that the reason the Mustang has been around for 40+ years is that it is flexible and can be tailored to the owners desires. The Camaro died because it was inflexible. The Ford Mustang is the only "Muscle" car that has stood the test of time. Ford have their share of flaws, but marketing is one of their strong points.
As several of the previous posts have stated, if you want bigger horsepower, wait for the Mach /Boss or the Cobra. But being the expert you claim to be I'm sure you recognize that these models are not what keeps the nameplate alive, it's actually the 6 cylinder sales (Over 60% of Mustangs sold). If Ford were to opt for these bigger engines they would eventually price themselves out of their target audience.
Don't act like you are an expert, stir the pot, and then criticize people for flamespraying you.

Tough guy...I will repeat...Ford should make these bigger engines an option at the start not later....repeat an option, so they won't price themselves out of the market if it were an option.. I know it somes out later on every model, what I am asking is why not do it up front. You guys are ridiculous.

nortcheez · Dec 20, 2004

MichMash said:
You don't have to bash him for his opinion, and this is not the first time someone has had this complaint.

I agree that in this day and age of increasing horsepower they went too low - you shouldn't have to bolt on and void your warranty to keep up. As already been pointed out, it is all about cost with Ford, and I think we all undertand that they have to save room for the cobra.

That still doesn't change the fact that it is disappointing for some who who want and can afford more out of the box. 300 hp may be plenty for most, but everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Some want the best mustang possible - not the best mustang $25,000 can buy.

Thank you..Thank you...Thank you...Someone finally gets my point and is mature enough to reply politely.

nortcheez · Dec 20, 2004

holler said:
You do realize Ford owns Jaguar right?

No crap...thats why it pisses me off that they have a better motor in the Jag then in the stang

mystein · Dec 20, 2004

Perhaps the "reduced" amount of engine options is one of the big reasons Ford has been able to hold the bottom line so well with the '05 Mustang GT's price. It just seems to me that if there were a couple of higher powered V8 options available for the GT, the design work behind more camshaft profiles, different pistons & rods etc to sustain a 350 horsepower 4.6 NA engine, the production of those parts by vendors, and the stocking of same would have to add up to more dollars in the bottom line. Then throw in the changes necessary to put a 5.4 liter engine in the Mustang's engine bay and the bottom line to support keeping the capability to put that engine in the car goes up even more.

I think what we're really discussing here is do we want these power options "Turnkey" from the Factory and have higher pricing due to same OR is it better to have fewer factory options but have a huge Aftermarket that supports making the car the way you want it? Either way, the person that WANTS it has to pay but with the way Ford is doing it now; it's only the person that wants it...not those that just want the Mustang for what it is.

Bob Cosby · Dec 20, 2004

Some of you people wouldn't be happy with 350 HP....or 400 HP....or 500 HP. And if you were, you'd find something else to complain about - mainly because you are trolling a Ford Forum looking for flame bait.

When was the last time Mustang GT had an engine option? Come on...I'm sure one of you really smart folks knows.

300 HP is a logical, evolutionary step up from 260 HP (99-04), which was a logical step up from 215-225 HP (94-98), etc. The Cobra or other Special Edition will have an evolutionary increase in power also.

Those that wish to compare it to the LS1 or even LT1 F-body can do so all they wish. The 3V is somewhat more powerful than the LT1, somewhat less powerful than the LS1. That's life - if you can't deal with it, I suggest finding a used, low-mileage LS1 F-body for yourself. You'll be happier. I would also suggest that www.ls1.com might be a better place for you to troll, if you catch my drift.

BTW - right now, Mustang has no direct competitor. There is nothing in its target market. The 05 GTO is close, but it is a step up in most categories (certainly in price).

The Jag is in a way different class than anything that says "Mustang", and thus it should come as no surprise at all that the drivetrains might not be the same.

ThunderRoad....agree 100%.

Klay...there were issues with the 99 Cobra DOHC engines - mostly, they were just over-rated as delivered. Beyond that, and so long as you don't try and boost them (at least not much), the 4.6 holds up pretty well to abuse.

nortcheez · Dec 20, 2004

I love how people are judging others intellect by the number of posts they have on a website....and they were asking me if I work for a living. when they are the ones who sit on the net all day and post threads....

TomServo92 · Dec 20, 2004

nortcheez said:
No crap...thats why it pisses me off that they have a better motor in the Jag then in the stang

I'm not sure if you ever noticed, but Jags cost alot more than Mustangs. I'm sure if you were willing to pay a Jaguar price, Ford would be willing to put a Jag engine in your Mustang.

BTW, I would consider the last gen Cobra engine superior to any Jag engine and the next gen Cobra should be even better.

nortcheez · Dec 20, 2004

Late Model Mustang vs. Camaro
V8 Horsepower Comparison
Model Year Mustang Camaro
1979 140 170
1980 119 170
1981 120 170
1982 157 165
1983 175 190
1984 175 190
1985 210 215
1986 200 215
1987 225 225
1988 225 230
1989 225 240
1990 225 245
1991 225 245
1992 215 245
1993 235 275
1994 240 275
1995 240 275
1996 305 305
1997 305 305
1998 305 320
1999 320 320
2000 260 320
2001 320 325
2002 260 325
2003 390

http://home.pon.net/hunnicutt/history_mustVScam.htm

Cobra-Master · Dec 20, 2004

Klay said:
Correct me if I'm wrong (as I'm not trying to flame anyone) but didn't the 4.6L ford uses in the mustang have some bad problems too?
Maybe not recently but like from the 90's?
I'm not very ford savvy (yet) but i just want to know why you would make that comment about ls1's when i heard mustang engines had problems of their own. (again no flame intended just curious)

I used to be an LS1 guy before I converted to Ford. My LS1 (and almost anyone I knew that had one) had piston slap issues... GM claimed it to be normal and wouldn't do jack about it. Every morning it sounded like gravel was in the engine... how that is normal is beyond me.

After I got about 30K miles on my LS1, it started burning and using oil like crazy... it would smoke like an 18 wheeler in the mornings and the engine only had 30,000 miles on it. Took it back to GM and they say its normal, blah blah blah.

I bought a 95 Cobra with 110K miles in addition to my LS1 and found that I liked driving it 10 times more than my Z28. So, I sold the Z28 and bought the 03 Cobra I have now.

As Bob says, the 99 4.6L DOHC's were a bit over rated, but never had issues like I had with my LS1. I know guys with similar LS1's are crap stories, and amazing to me they are still driving them and trying to keep them running. I don't know much about the LS2 or LS6 though, hopefully they got the piston slap under control?

nortcheez · Dec 20, 2004

Listen,

I like Ford Mustangs, they are a good looking car, but that can't explain why a 1999 Z28 or a 99 trans am came with 305 HP base. Then with a Ram air package 327HP. "13.5 in the 1/4"

I might mention that you could buy a base Z28 for 20K from 1999 till 2003. And if my memory serves me right, The mustangs in them years were complete "red rider sleds" only putting out 240-260hp for the past 10 years". I don't care how much you Drop on aftermarket goodies at a speed shop,you void your warranty, thats not the point here.

Ford is way behind in HP, and from the looks, it always will be unless they change there outlook on a Production level. The new GTO will blow the trunk off a GT mustang. What am I saying, a 1999 Trans AM- RamAIR will smoke the new Mustang. We can only hope that ford Steps up, and takes GM out. Till then we will all be Aftermarket Hookers trying to make our Mustangs break a 14 Second run in the 1/4.

Latter

300HP? Thats It...Whats wrong with Ford

watch

New Member

z3r0c00l

New Member

watch

New Member

Dotanukie

New Member

Thunder Road

New Member

Klay

New Member

tylers65

I've got your tool right here!

Jon Do

New Member

Cobra-Master

New Member

Klay

New Member

nortcheez

New Member

nortcheez

New Member

nortcheez

New Member

mystein

Bob Cosby

nortcheez

New Member

TomServo92

New Member

nortcheez

New Member

Cobra-Master

New Member

nortcheez

New Member

Similar threads

300HP? Thats It...Whats wrong with Ford

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

I've got your tool right here!

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency