Clarkson Dumps on Mustang/Solstice
#126
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Cambridge, MA
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Japan8
And the Fairlady Z (which looks crappier instead than a mustang!) can't keep up with the Mustang. That V6 is what? 3.5L DOHC? THe Mustang's is 4.6L V6 SOHC with 3 valve heads? Come on... let's talk apples to apples. The modular V8 is hardly utter ****... while I agree with the General and the results they have gotten with OHV V8's, the Ford GT runs an all aluminum modular V8 DOHC with dry sump setup and the twin screw s/c... good for 500hp or so. The upcoming Shelby GT500 is making 450+. All of this from a FACTORY 4.6L V8. Remember... the General is using a much much larger engine in their cars...
Don't get me wrong here, I like the new generation of Ford's mod engines (though I do wonder why they limit themselves to relatively low rpm, since revving is one of the advantage OHC engines have over their OHV counterparts) and agree with most of what you posted, but it's quite misleading to compare them to OHV engines in terms of displacement only. The Ford engineer that was talking to us about the development of the GT admitted that the 5.4L S/C engine and the modular V8 in general was quite large compared to Ford's old OHV engines and Chevy's small block when someone asked why the GT's engine was so big compared to the Z06's even though it displaced far less.
#127
Registered
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: los angeles, ca
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PoorCollegeKid
Did he really say that he thought the Mustang wasn't as fast as it should have been? From what I've heard, the new GTs are running slightly faster 1/4 mile times than the 300hp 350Zs, despite the Z's weight advantage (which is the advantage of a bigger, torquier engine and a live rear axle). Of course, he didn't like the Z either IIRC, but that doesn't change the fact that the Mustang is running right with other 300hp cars, despite its fairly hefty weight compared to some of those others.
"On first impressions you won't be bowled over. Particularly if you're used to European cars. Take the engine for example, it's a 4.6 liter v8. That sounds like a lot, but it's not German. You get just 300 horsepower. That's hardly pushing the boundries of what's possible. On paper the figures look good; naught to 60 in just under 6 seconds, but it just doesn't feel rapid. Mind you that's not such a bad thing because it's also got the most basic suspension this side of a stage coach."
"The engine is a bit asthmatic and the interior is all plasticy and american."
He did seem to really like the car inspite of that stuff though. Clarkson also says in the episode that it has the "X-factor" and puts it under "cool" on the Cool Wall.
#128
Int'l Man of Mystery
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PoorCollegeKid
Larger in terms of displacement, yes, but the OHV SBC-derived engines are quite a bit smaller and lighter than their OHC counterparts. In fact, a SBC isn't much bigger or heavier than Nissan's V6, even though it puts out far more power in LS2 or LS7 form. I had the privilege of seeing then engine bays of both a Z06 (dry sump 7.0L OHV V8) and a Ford GT (dry sump 5.4L DOHC V8 S/C) a couple of weeks ago, and the Ford's engine was huge compared to the Z06's. The added size seemed to be all in the heads, because although the Ford engine looked to be a little shorter (length-wise) than the Chevy one, it was much, much taller and appeared to be a little wider. Of course, that's the advantage of the OHV layout. Your power:displacement ratio tends to be less than that of an OHC setup, but your power:weight and power:size ratios tend to be much better than that of an OHC engine because the OHV heads allow much more displacement to be crammed into a given space than the bigger, bulkier OHC heads do.
Don't get me wrong here, I like the new generation of Ford's mod engines (though I do wonder why they limit themselves to relatively low rpm, since revving is one of the advantage OHC engines have over their OHV counterparts) and agree with most of what you posted, but it's quite misleading to compare them to OHV engines in terms of displacement only. The Ford engineer that was talking to us about the development of the GT admitted that the 5.4L S/C engine and the modular V8 in general was quite large compared to Ford's old OHV engines and Chevy's small block when someone asked why the GT's engine was so big compared to the Z06's even though it displaced far less.
Don't get me wrong here, I like the new generation of Ford's mod engines (though I do wonder why they limit themselves to relatively low rpm, since revving is one of the advantage OHC engines have over their OHV counterparts) and agree with most of what you posted, but it's quite misleading to compare them to OHV engines in terms of displacement only. The Ford engineer that was talking to us about the development of the GT admitted that the 5.4L S/C engine and the modular V8 in general was quite large compared to Ford's old OHV engines and Chevy's small block when someone asked why the GT's engine was so big compared to the Z06's even though it displaced far less.
#129
Int'l Man of Mystery
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by map
I'm going by what Hammond said on Top Gear 12/12/04
"On first impressions you won't be bowled over. Particularly if you're used to European cars. Take the engine for example, it's a 4.6 liter v8. That sounds like a lot, but it's not German. You get just 300 horsepower. That's hardly pushing the boundries of what's possible. On paper the figures look good; naught to 60 in just under 6 seconds, but it just doesn't feel rapid. Mind you that's not such a bad thing because it's also got the most basic suspension this side of a stage coach."
"The engine is a bit asthmatic and the interior is all plasticy and american."
He did seem to really like the car inspite of that stuff though. Clarkson also says in the episode that it has the "X-factor" and puts it under "cool" on the Cool Wall.
"On first impressions you won't be bowled over. Particularly if you're used to European cars. Take the engine for example, it's a 4.6 liter v8. That sounds like a lot, but it's not German. You get just 300 horsepower. That's hardly pushing the boundries of what's possible. On paper the figures look good; naught to 60 in just under 6 seconds, but it just doesn't feel rapid. Mind you that's not such a bad thing because it's also got the most basic suspension this side of a stage coach."
"The engine is a bit asthmatic and the interior is all plasticy and american."
He did seem to really like the car inspite of that stuff though. Clarkson also says in the episode that it has the "X-factor" and puts it under "cool" on the Cool Wall.
The car doesn't feel fast? Well it turns a damn good 1/4 mile stock. Wanna see better? Pick up a cat-back, intake, better tires, springs and the SCT ECu re-flasher. For $2k of bolt-ons you'll drop the 1/4 to the low 12's. How slow is that? You want more? Grab a Vortec S/C or ProCharger for $3-4k and up your power to over 400hp. Want still better? Wait for a Kenne Bell S/C to come out for this engine... those always seem to produce some of the fastest cars.
German cars? For f&%$'s sake... what kind of a price difference are we talking about for any of the German V8 cars? BMW... 5 series. Audi? A6. Mercedes? S class. Not cheap cars. The Mustang is NOT competing with these cars. So it doesn't have variable valve timing or as high quality an interior. On ther other hand the 3 series gets eaten for much less money and even the 5 (not counting M). Handing complaints? You're paying about half the price... cheapskate. Go buy some coilovers, strut tower braces, rims and tires. Come back and tell me how badly it handles now. You still have plenty of change for a FI too.
Antiquated suspension? I bet he complains about the GM LS engines still be OHV instead of OHC. Marketing, cost and effectiveness... live axel is best for drag racing. Much of the Mustang core uses it for this. Cost. live axel is needed to keep the cost inline for the V6 Stang to be affordable. Effectiveness. Ford had originally promised to changed the live axel to IRS on the next SVT Mustang... quotes from the VP himself. The SVT Shelby GT500 keeps the live rear axel. Why? It's proven itself in racing situations on the current platform. So if it's winning races, why change it?
#130
Bummed, but bring on OU!
Originally Posted by Japan8
Ford had originally promised to changed the live axel to IRS on the next SVT Mustang... quotes from the VP himself. The SVT Shelby GT500 keeps the live rear axel. Why? It's proven itself in racing situations on the current platform. So if it's winning races, why change it?
They also surveyed Mustang owners, who had a fit over the rumored IRS for the '05 model. They gave the customers what they wanted.
A little on the rear suspension:
A lightweight, tubular Panhard rod is parallel to the axle and attached at one end to the body and at the other to the axle. It stabilizes the rear axle side-to-side as the wheels move through jounce and rebound. It also firmly controls the axle during hard cornering.
Constant rate coil springs and outboard shocks are tuned for a firm, yet compliant, ride. The shocks are located on the outside of the rear structural rails, near the wheels, reducing the lever effect of the axle and allowing more precise, slightly softer tuning of the shock valves.
The GT version of the car incorporates a separate rear stabilizer bar to reduce body lean further.
Previous Mustangs used a simplified rear suspension linkage that acted on composite force vectors. By using separate longitudinal and lateral links in the all-new Mustang, engineers could isolate the forces acting on the rear axle and tune the bushings accordingly. As a result, the axle is more precisely controlled throughout its range of motion. Road shocks are isolated and damped, and the solid lateral control of the rear axle reduces body sway and improves control and stability over mid-corner bumps.
The solid rear axle offers several other advantages that play to Mustang’s strengths. It is robust, maintains constant track, toe-in and camber relative to the road surface, and it keeps body roll well under control.
Constant rate coil springs and outboard shocks are tuned for a firm, yet compliant, ride. The shocks are located on the outside of the rear structural rails, near the wheels, reducing the lever effect of the axle and allowing more precise, slightly softer tuning of the shock valves.
The GT version of the car incorporates a separate rear stabilizer bar to reduce body lean further.
Previous Mustangs used a simplified rear suspension linkage that acted on composite force vectors. By using separate longitudinal and lateral links in the all-new Mustang, engineers could isolate the forces acting on the rear axle and tune the bushings accordingly. As a result, the axle is more precisely controlled throughout its range of motion. Road shocks are isolated and damped, and the solid lateral control of the rear axle reduces body sway and improves control and stability over mid-corner bumps.
The solid rear axle offers several other advantages that play to Mustang’s strengths. It is robust, maintains constant track, toe-in and camber relative to the road surface, and it keeps body roll well under control.
And the variable cam timing:
The Mustang VCT system allows up to 50 degrees of cam variation in relation to the crankshaft angle. Ford’s "dual-equal" variable cam timing design shifts timing of both the intake and exhaust valves together, with one camshaft per cylinder head. This provides all the benefits of, but creates far less complexity and adds less weight than, VCT systems that actuate the intake and exhaust valves separately.
The cams operate both sets of valves using low-profile roller-finger followers, helping reduce friction and keep the overall engine height – and thus, hood line – low. Cam position is controlled by an electronic solenoid that modulates oil pressure to advance or retard the cam timing based on input from the engine’s electronic control computer.
The cams operate both sets of valves using low-profile roller-finger followers, helping reduce friction and keep the overall engine height – and thus, hood line – low. Cam position is controlled by an electronic solenoid that modulates oil pressure to advance or retard the cam timing based on input from the engine’s electronic control computer.
#131
Int'l Man of Mystery
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
therm8, thanks for the info. I actually did know details about the suspension changes on the '05 Mustang, but that's good info for others to see. I also agree with you. The '90 Mustang wasn't the greatest handling car, but coming from an '89 Prelude Si and a '91 Sentra SE, I felt it handled much better than I expected. Sure the rear end would get crazy during high speed trailing braking, and because in wet weather (or snow), but on normal days... I couldn't complain much. Of course you also had to love the sound of the V8 with a cat-back on it... and that rush of torque. Passing was never more fun.
Speaking of engines... I probably have read the VCT info before, but forgot. Thanks for the correction.
Speaking of engines... I probably have read the VCT info before, but forgot. Thanks for the correction.
#132
I still think Ford should have stuck with the 351 and 302... just refined them further.
#135
Int'l Man of Mystery
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As much as I'm a "Ford man"... you really do have to love that Chevy V8.
BaronVonBigmeat... yep.. Ford is being run by some fools. Imagine if a new 305 or 351 was in the 2005 Mustang instead of the 3valve 4.6. Lighter, cheaper, smaller and the 351 would definitely put out more than 300hp N/A. Instead of $25k for a base GT with 300hp... $20-22k and 400hp? The Shelby GT500... S/C 351 or bore it up... 550hp? $40k? Oh well.
There was this one article I read about a "toy" that the engineers built in the back room. They made a "modular" V10 from a couple engines and dropped it in the body of the last gen Mustang. It ran a custom dual ECU (one for each cylinder bank) and both the engineers and the magazine guys LOVED it! The sound and performance was awesome.
Ford has engineering potential. It's just managed by idiots.
BaronVonBigmeat... yep.. Ford is being run by some fools. Imagine if a new 305 or 351 was in the 2005 Mustang instead of the 3valve 4.6. Lighter, cheaper, smaller and the 351 would definitely put out more than 300hp N/A. Instead of $25k for a base GT with 300hp... $20-22k and 400hp? The Shelby GT500... S/C 351 or bore it up... 550hp? $40k? Oh well.
There was this one article I read about a "toy" that the engineers built in the back room. They made a "modular" V10 from a couple engines and dropped it in the body of the last gen Mustang. It ran a custom dual ECU (one for each cylinder bank) and both the engineers and the magazine guys LOVED it! The sound and performance was awesome.
Ford has engineering potential. It's just managed by idiots.
#136
Originally Posted by RX-8888
Jeremy Clarkson from Times on-line and Top Gear says America still can't make a sports car.......
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/art...4313_1,00.html
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/art...4313_1,00.html
Though, maybe I misunderstood you.
#137
Originally Posted by rx8wannahave
You just gotta love that Chevy V8!!!
But Clarkson is pretty funny, and his show is very entertaining. Just sit back and enjoy it, but don't take it too seriously.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post