Gearbanger 101 said:That, or you may have just stumbled upon a factory freak now, or a mediocre car before.
I don't buy into this thinking. These motors are mass assembled. Where does this 'factory freak' factor come into play? I mean, where is the horsepower hidden?Gearbanger 101 said:or you may have just stumbled upon a factory freak
Tell that to the guys with the Fox bodied coupes that were cracking low-14's/high-13's right off the showroom floor back in the day.twogts4us said:I don't buy into this thinking. These motors are mass assembled. Where does this 'factory freak' factor come into play? I mean, where is the horsepower hidden?
Why would you trade a 2001 with only 22,000 miles for a 2004? All you're doing is eating the depreciation to get a car no better than the one you had.page90lx said:I have tried to take most everything said into account . but i take care of my cars and the 2001 only had 22,000 on it when traded and the 2004 is faster than the 2001 and it was stock at the time. somtimes you just find a car that has a little more to it than the others a.k.a. lucky. thanks for the help guys i know now i didnt miss anything
This has nothing to do with the question, but more to do with driving style. (How to drive it like you stole it - 101) I'd guess you are referring to different magazines reporting different ETs. Some mags will drive it like they own it while others will drive it like a rental. Guess who got the low-14's/high-13's?Gearbanger 101 said:Tell that to the guys with the Fox bodied coupes that were cracking low-14's/high-13's right off the showroom floor back in the day.
The assembly line tolerances? Especially with modern engines, it is essentially set in stone. There is little that one assembler can do to make it better than another. Changes is materials? The only significant change in the 99-04 Gen2 SN95 run that significantly affected performance was the change from the T-45 to the TR-3650. Product suppliers? Same answer...no significant changes. Quality care. I think you'd find more issues with interior fit and finish, body work and issues with exterior trim pieces than anything else. And, IMO, it is highly doubtful that you find any of the above on a Ford that was above par. And you certainly wouldn't find an above par motor...maybe a below par one, but not above. Again, all just my opinion...not trying to argue with cha Gearbanger...just a friendly difference of opinion.Gearbanger 101 said:Assembly line tolerances, changes mid-year in materials, product suppliers, quality care can all have a large impact on how a vehicle performs.
jimfitzgerald said:Why would you trade a 2001 with only 22,000 miles for a 2004? All you're doing is eating the depreciation to get a car no better than the one you had.
Have you never heard the term…..twogts4us said:This has nothing to do with the question, but more to do with driving style. (How to drive it like you stole it - 101) I'd guess you are referring to different magazines reporting different ETs. Some mags will drive it like they own it while others will drive it like a rental. Guess who got the low-14's/high-13's?
The assembly line tolerances? Especially with modern engines, it is essentially set in stone. There is little that one assembler can do to make it better than another. Changes is materials? The only significant change in the 99-04 Gen2 SN95 run that significantly affected performance was the change from the T-45 to the TR-3650. Product suppliers? Same answer...no significant changes. Quality care. I think you'd find more issues with interior fit and finish, body work and issues with exterior trim pieces than anything else. And, IMO, it is highly doubtful that you find any of the above on a Ford that was above par. And you certainly wouldn't find an above par motor...maybe a below par one, but not above. Again, all just my opinion...not trying to argue with cha Gearbanger...just a friendly difference of opinion.
twogts4us said:Changes is materials? The only significant change in the 99-04 Gen2 SN95 run that significantly affected performance was the change from the T-45 to the TR-3650.
True, but you already had one.page90lx said:(
somtimes its not about depreciation its about what you want!!!
Gearbanger 101 said:Have you never heard the term…..
“I’ll take any car you’ve got, but the one that was built on a Monday or the Friday before a long weekend”?
…..I don’t mind a friendly difference in opinion, but there’s more to it than driving style. How else do you explain the multiple instances when we used to take out Taurus’s, Contours, Focus’s and other gutless wonders, line them up from a dead stop, nail the pedals at the same time, achieve no wheel spin with either car, and still have one repeatedly pull significantly harder than the others. No, it wasn’t always like this and for the most part they all perform relatively the same, but it does happen. Maybe one was broke in a little differently than the other, maybe the parts in one engine were of a little higher quality, or assembled with a little more care than another, maybe one cars MAF and/or computer was calibrated just a little more aggressively than another because of a drop or raise in temperature that day. The point is, is that it still happens. As far as changes in materials…it can go a lot deeper than just the model of transmission the particular year car used (but yes, that is a good point). Maybe the assembly line that knocked off the 4.6L pistons that day had a little higher silicone content allowing for quicker expansion and better sealing? Maybe the plan where they pour the head castings used a different set of moulds than they did the day before. We already know that core shift can have a huge effect on how a head flows (remember the instances of raised compression because of the casting flaw the ’01-up heads had over the ’99 and ’00 models?) ….and they’re not that perfect with today’s engine because I just removed a ton of casting flash from the 2001 Romeo heads I just ported. Yeah, all of these differences may be minor and insignificant on a normal basis, but obviously the make some difference, otherwise we wouldn’t have such inconsistent performers. I mean…a bad tank of gas here and there is one thing, but I’ve seen far too many Mustangs (and cars in general) that have been fire breathers or dogs right off the showroom floor to just chalk it up to coincidence.
But that’s cool…..I can easily see it as being a few sub-par vehicles adding to the masses. I’m sure it works both ways.
jimfitzgerald said:True, but you already had one.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?