BMW Werkz banner

1 - 20 of 71 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,907 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
http://www.fordvehicles.com/2005mustang/
http://www.stangnet.com/2005fordmustang/
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/review...0-mustang_x.htm

In order to keep costs down, they put a solid rear axle in. I love how car and driver said it... (they actually quoted Thai-Tang, the designer or whoever - apparently someone important over in ford's mustang dept) "That’s mainly to keep down costs, says Thai-Tang. It’s also partly because the majority of Mustang owners don’t know or care what kind of rear suspension they have, he says, and partly to serve street racers and quarter-milers who love a live axle’s simplicity and cheap interchangeability."

Well there you have it. They are aiming for the cheep people who aren’t willing enough to want to learn how a suspension system helps power to be applied to a road. Live axle? You mean solid cheep POS axle? Independent suspension can handle just as much torque as a solid axle if it's built right, which isn't that hard to do.

"I've got 300 hp, much more than your wimpy BMW"
Yah well, I'm a little less predictable and more dynamic than your one-dimensional acceleration world.

I'm not bashing the car, it was built for a different purpose than BMW's, but I still don't like these guy's design decisions.

The design dosn't look that bad... It's no M3 by far :) The front end where the headlighs are is ass ugly to me though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,637 Posts
actually it handles very well...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
233 Posts
I don't care what they did to the rear end....thats is an awsome car. Redesigned for 05 its lighter and handles better than its predecessors. Personally...its the best looking Mustang since the late 60s'. As an Old Guy I can appreciate the retro styling bringing back the late 60s' fast back look.

YES...its no Bimmer. But, for what it is it is awsome and will kick my bimmers ass!

Whatched a show the other night where they built one up for racing. I have to say I almost messed myself.

As far as keeping the cost down...our auto makers have to do what they can to influence YOUNGER american buyers. Its still the best selling american sports car and it will cost much less to mod than our Bimmers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,665 Posts
some of you guys gotta stop hattin on ford, ya they arnt as good as BMW but your not paying as much

and if your gunna compare hp atleast use comparable engines
the M engine isnt comparable sorry.
but the 4.4 with 325 hp and the vs fords 4.6 with 300 is more realistic. i mean if u want to compare an M to a ford compare it to a gt40

4.4l v8 with 500 hp
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
233 Posts
Originally posted by Hoppy's535i@Oct 5 2004, 02:21 PM
some of you guys gotta stop hattin on ford, ya they arnt as good as BMW but your not paying as much
[snapback]205394[/snapback]​

THANK YOU!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
359 Posts
A few things to say:

The mustang is not a "sports car". The Corvette is a sports car. You can get it with more performance, but it isn't a true sports car.

Yes it will handle better, and well, but with a solid rear axle you better have a road smooth as a babbies ass if your cornering.

I think the design is phenominal. Best looking mustang i've ever seen, even better than the 66-70 years in some ways(IMO). The car desperately needed this update, and i'm glad Ford decided to keep it around. Even with the solid rear axle the redigned chasis some give a much better ride quality in general. And BTW, the Cobra should have IRS.
 

·
Retired administrator
Joined
·
5,996 Posts
First of all, just to educate you all on american engineering:

1. The beloved corvette Z06 has leaf springs. It also handles as well as an M3 around the track. The upcoming C6 handles BETTER than an M3 CSL!!! on LEAF SPRINGS. Don't doubt american engineering, there are reasons for everything.

2. Solid rear axles keep costs down, if the mustang had independent rear suspension as standard, it would cost alot more and require a much more exotic suspension setup to get the same performance in a straight line. Remember, Ford is a greedy money grubbing whore. The Cobra and concept GTR both have exotic independent rear suspension setups. It is rumored that the GT will have it as a cost option.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,637 Posts
1. The beloved corvette Z06 has leaf springs. It also handles as well as an M3 around the track. The upcoming C6 handles BETTER than an M3 CSL!!! on LEAF SPRINGS. Don't doubt american engineering, there are reasons for everything.

Actually this isnt true. The z06 has faster track test times than the CSL. it does not actually have better Cone Index. The reason is because it has so much more power, it will pull like shit through the back end of a turn and the straights. The driver still has to slow down and powerslide through most turns, not taking the inside of the turn.

Either way its fast on any track. Straight or Real
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
146 Posts
i think the new stangs are nasty. The look like the old Shelby's to me. Id love to have one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
621 Posts
ford lightning all the way!!!! if i were to get a truck. i like the style of the new stangs, BUT its still a stang, i cant wait to see a tricked out one. as for the new corvette it is still on leaf springs like u all said but id like to see the sources for it being better than the CSL.. not saying ur lying id just like to read it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
820 Posts
Originally posted by Hoppy's535i@Oct 5 2004, 04:21 PM
some of you guys gotta stop hattin on ford, ya they arnt as good as BMW but your not paying as much

and if your gunna compare hp atleast use comparable engines
the M engine isnt comparable sorry.
but the 4.4 with 325 hp and the vs fords 4.6 with 300 is more realistic. i mean if u want to compare an M to a ford compare it to a gt40

4.4l v8 with 500 hp
[snapback]205394[/snapback]​
I believe that the comparison was more intune to the design vs power output of thier respective engines. But since your going to campare the GT40 now, the GT40 isn't a comparable vehicle either. Your right about the 4.4 vs 4.6, thats relatively close in displacement, but when you compare a near $150k "Race Car" to a $60k M, both of which have COMPLETLEY different engines, I'm sorry, that's still not a "good" comparison. BTW, the Ford GT40 has a Supercharged 5.4L V8 with 550HP and 500lbft vs the current M3's 3.2L N/A with 333hp. I could be wrong, but this information is from Ford GT40. However, the M5 (with a V8) would match closer to your comparison, BUT, the M5 (2003) doesn't have a S/C and isn't anywhere near the GT40's displacement. The M5 had a 4.9L V8 N/A with 394hp and 369ft-lbs. So S/C the M5 and stroke it up to 5.4L, if even possible, and we'll see how it performs in power. Maybe the GT40 would still beat it in that reguard... who knows. Unless there's an M6 comming out that M is willing to do that to (doubtful).

Mind you I'm not trying to bash you, I'm just making sure that we compare the same type of engines/cars, just like you said.

Dough :cheers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,665 Posts
Originally posted by doughboyea+Oct 23 2004, 01:28 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(doughboyea @ Oct 23 2004, 01:28 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Hoppy's535i@Oct 5 2004, 04:21 PM
some of you guys gotta stop hattin on ford, ya they arnt as good as BMW but your not paying as much

and if your gunna compare hp atleast use comparable engines
the M engine isnt comparable sorry.
  but the 4.4 with 325 hp and the vs fords 4.6 with 300 is more realistic. i mean if u want to compare an M to a ford compare it to a gt40

4.4l v8 with 500 hp
[snapback]205394[/snapback]​
I believe that the comparison was more intune to the design vs power output of thier respective engines. But since your going to campare the GT40 now, the GT40 isn't a comparable vehicle either. Your right about the 4.4 vs 4.6, thats relatively close in displacement, but when you compare a near $150k "Race Car" to a $60k M, both of which have COMPLETLEY different engines, I'm sorry, that's still not a "good" comparison. BTW, the Ford GT40 has a Supercharged 5.4L V8 with 550HP and 500lbft vs the current M3's 3.2L N/A with 333hp. I could be wrong, but this information is from Ford GT40. However, the M5 (with a V8) would match closer to your comparison, BUT, the M5 (2003) doesn't have a S/C and isn't anywhere near the GT40's displacement. The M5 had a 4.9L V8 N/A with 394hp and 369ft-lbs. So S/C the M5 and stroke it up to 5.4L, if even possible, and we'll see how it performs in power. Maybe the GT40 would still beat it in that reguard... who knows. Unless there's an M6 comming out that M is willing to do that to (doubtful).

Mind you I'm not trying to bash you, I'm just making sure that we compare the same type of engines/cars, just like you said.

Dough :cheers
[snapback]216793[/snapback]​
[/b][/quote]


oh i was unaware it was s/c
my mistake
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
14,727 Posts
With the new Mustang you either really love it or hate it. I can see they meant to bring back the look Mustang had in the 60s. And I guess most Mustang owners don't care about the live axle. :deal
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Originally posted by witeshark@Nov 1 2004, 06:52 PM
With the new Mustang you either really love it or hate it. I can see they meant to bring back the look Mustang had in the 60s. And I guess most Mustang owners don't care about the live axle. :deal
[snapback]222633[/snapback]​

i really like 'em. yeah, they're no 'stang from the 60's, but i think they did a fairly decent job reverting back to the retro design. either way, they're better looking then those god-aweful 4th gen. bodies.
:puke
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
382 Posts
I like the new Stang. It's miles behind a '71 Mach I in my book, but still a dang nice ride.
 
1 - 20 of 71 Posts
Top