This is one hot Mustang. I like this front facia MUCH better than the stock GT. 375hp 5.0L "stroker" 3V V8 is damn nice too. Too bad the dealer markup on this will probably make even that of the GT500 look reasonable.
http://www.saleen.com/saleen-parnellijones.htm

Bascho... why the hell doesn't Ford put this "stroker" 5.0L 3V V8 in the 2007 or 2008 Mustang GT? Don't tell me that they are going to use it in a "special edition" model like the Bullet, Mach1, etc. It's too late for that. That model needs the N/A version of the 5.4L from the GT500 (aluminum block please... that car REALLY needs a diet).

Speaking of which... there are rumors on the Mustang forums about there benig crank/pulley problems because of the S/C on the GT500... On another related subject... why the hell did Ford reuse the same flimsy con rods in the 3V engine that they used in the Mach1? Only good for about 450whp.

 

very nice. just wish they would do something to the rear... looks like a billboard..

beers

 

and the interior - still looks like a POS Ford.

 

The 5.0 is simply a stroked 4.6...

Why would put a stroked motor in a production car when they can make their own 5.0. The motor in the current GT is a-plenty.

 

Wow, i was just watching this show on TLC where they where reproducing Parnelli Jones' Maurader stock car, weird..

 

Mehhh, I like other body kits they make with their S version mustangs.

While, I can't fault the sweet engine that's for sure.

 

The Saleen version is just about the best looking Mustang I've ever seen. That PJones version is pretty cool, never seen that before. As far as the stroker engine goes.....there is really no need for Ford to hurt fuel economy with a 5.0 stroker version of the 4.6 3V right now. The Mustang has no competition to warrant that change.......now, if the Camaro and Challenger come out, that is a different story.

Not sure what the thoughts were regarding the connecting rods.....but 450whp is a lot of power. If you want more you should definitely be changing internals anyway.

 

here is an old pic of my GT (saleen kit)



Its currently being painted oxford white and getting the rims powder coated

gonna look like this soon enough. (not as bright)



I still would rather have a 94-04 Saleen then those new retro ones, yuck! That thing probably weighs 4000lbs too.

 

^ I am a huge fan of the SN95 version Saleen Mustangs......actually, I'm a huge fan of all the Saleen Mustangs. I thought about making a S351 Speedster replica out of a 1998 Cobra Conv.....in fact I still might do that once my lease is up. I originally wanted to get the GT500.....but as gas prices keep climbing....it is more and more obvious that I will need to get two cars, an economical daily commuter and a weekend toy. Kenne Bell has s/c kits for the 1996/1998 Cobra that push output to 440hp. That is a nice neighborhood to be in

 

Very sexy. The new bodystyle is just leaps and bounds over the last.

I've always been impressed by Saleen offerings for their performance w/warranty but I can't justify such a high price tag for a Mustang. No disrespect to the Mustang fans but I can find better cars to drive at the Saleen pricepoint.

Oh and btw, I'd be worried of I were Saleen/Rousch once the GT500 comes out.

 

Uh Mr. 6 posts... Just FYI....

The pushrod 302cid (5.0L) used in the Mustang GT from 1982 (I believe) until 1995 or 1996 is infact the original 289cid V8 used in the 1964 Mustang. The 302 is a "stroker" 289. The 351 "Windsor" (as opposed to the "Cleveland" engines) is also built from the same block design only with taller heads to accomodate an even longer stroke.

The 5.0 "Cammer" engine that Ford uses in racing presently is a "stroker" of the 4.6 MOD V8 with high flowing 4 valve DOHC heads.

I never said Ford should purchase the engine from Saleen. I said that they should build one like it.

 

Hey we're Mustang guys... there is no such things as too much power...

Fuel economy... weeelll....

The Chrysler "Hemi" cars are somewhat competiton and other similarly priced sports cars that might (likely) be cross-shopped against the MUstang. These others are grabbing more ponies every year...

Just that it's the weak link in the motor. If they was stronger, then topping the GT500's hp won't be anything special...

 

The SN95 Mustangs weren't any Lotus Elise either!

Hate the retro look if you wish (although sales say that it's popular)... personally I like it... just not EXACTLY how Ford did it.

 

Sooooooo true

True, but I think some of the SRT owners would take a little less power for a little more mpg.......not all, but I'm sure there are some. I would love to see Ford offer the 5.0 Cammer as a factory option.....but they sell that engine for $15K....might as well just get a GT500.

I agree.....if Ford wants to start offering a Mach1, etc with higher power levels than the GT, they should definitely shore up any weaknesses in the lower end.

 

I continue....Mehhhh, lol.

Bascho...are you guys ever going back to the tried and true pushrod? Smaller...lighter, can make more power and (IF...for your sake, lol) the fuel economy numbers are true it's more fuel-efficient.

Also, is there a particular reason why the new Mustang weighs 3,500 pounds let alone what the GT500 will weigh? Does Ford even really care about weight like Mazda does?

Just think about a 3,300 pound Mustang…faster and a bit more fuel efficient.

Saleen is a good company, but I agree that (and no offense) at the Saleen prices I’d rather have a Vette or something different. Heck…for that price I can put a 3-rotor turbo in my 8 and blow the doors off of most cars on the road.

 

I doubt it.....but you never know.

I think it's the size of the Mustang that makes the difference. The Mustang is bigger than the RX8.....and a V8 is not light, even when cast in aluminum. It's not hard to lighten a Mustang though......the aftermarket on these cars is argueably the largest of any car . Also, I wouldn't expect the GT500's weight to be much different than the GT.

I could not agree more. I love the Saleen products.....but building a cheap replica is as close as I would get to buying one.......they are waaaay to expensive for a Mustang. I would definitely get a C6 Vette, E46 M3, AMG product before getting a $50-60K Mustang.

 

Yeah true, it's significantly bigger...with that said, then why are the back seats worse in the Mustang? I for one, if I ran Ford, would REFUSE to put back seats in a car if they were not useable.

It just adds weight...no sense if you can't really use it for a normal adult. Even the 8 is not great, but they are better than the run of the mill 2+2.

 

IMO, 2+2 is not about fitting 4 full sized adults frequently. It's about having the optional room to fit children to allow the family man to still drive a car he's excited about driving. To appease the wife, lol. It's become more about storage space for me personally. I love the fact that I can easily throw things in the back whenever I need to without opening the trunk. The back seats on a Mustang are not comfortable for adults but still usable.

 

^yeah but...yeah but, I want it all......lol

 

What's with the early 80's rear glass louvers?

 

Ain't no replacement for displacement... argh! argh! argh! argh!

Gas mileage is the kinda thing that would keep me from the RX-8 (and torque and modability) or a new Mustang GT (and I don't REALLY like the front facia).

The 5.0 Cammer... Man I've been dreaming of one of those in a Stang ever since I first saw an ad for the crate motor in a Mustang magazine. Too bad Ford is raping people for $15,000. Get a GT500?! Hell.. might as well get a GT, add suspension package (like Saleen, Rousch or FRPP), full exhaust, and a Saleen or Kenne Bell S/C. Cost you much less, probably get better gas mileage, probably lighter and it lays down the same power.

I just wonder what they will do for upgraded power in those cars. Chrysler and the Challenger were a done deal the last time I checked... which means Ford is going to need more power in the GT for 2008.

I doubt it... development costs in the current envrionment?! The MOD engine is like the VQ... Ford uses it everywhere, so the costs are better amortized.

Bascho... what about a narrow angle V8? Try something like VW. Won't help with the extra weight of the heads, but it should help with packaging... which is certainly an issue with DOHC.

And where is Ford using all the space?! Tiny backseats (the fox body probably had more usable ones) and the front doesn't look THAT spacious to me (it wasn't in the fox body or SN95). The tunk isn't so huge and it isn't ALL engine...

Cars needs to be made lighter. Lighter will help with fuel economy and performance. Crash standards can be helped by forcing SUV's to do the same (requiring better gas mileage, rasing the gas guzzler tax and such). If the biggest thing you're going to hit on the road is more comparable in size and weight... the accidents won't be as bad... is my thought at least.

And the Mustang IS too heavy no matter how you look at it.

My sentiments exactly.

 

80's.......try late 60's early 70's, which is why the PJones version has them.