|
I just saw a 5.0 on the way home, in Grabber Blue. Goddamn they look good. Shame it was on the freeway with no opportunity to goad the driver into an acceleration test.
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2010 03:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 01:09 |
|
|
Yup, that's the color - or a weak approximation of it, it just does not photograph properly.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2010 05:40
|
|
|
frozenphil posted:Even 4.56 gears will only spin 2554 RPM in 6th at 70mph. Absolutely true, but how short is first? I get the feeling 4.56 behind a stick would be very hard to launch without absolutely smoking the rears.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2010 16:16
|
|
|
kronix posted:If you plan to daily drive your car, I can't understand using anything but all seasons. From what I understand summer tires are completely useless in the rain as well, who wants a car that can't get you home in a flash rainstorm? Huh? What summer tires are you running? They aren't the absolute best in the rain but they're certainly safe and drivable, as opposed to when things get snowy.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2010 18:08
|
|
|
How am I, a self-professed lover of LS1s and hater of the 4.6, the first to post the final press-embargo-lifted info on the Boss 302? 440hp, by the way - earlier rumors were 420-430. Jalopnik posted:The car features a quad exhaust layout with two traditional outlets going out the back and a set of side pipes that aren't just for show. On the road, most of the exhaust stream goes out the back, with the side pipes doing auditory duty for the most part. On the track however, where noise restrictions aren't so stiff, you can remove the attenuation discs and drop in a bypass spacer for full-on side pipe action. The system's even sized for aftermarket electronic bypass valves, you know, just in case you have an off-road application for it. Wink, wink. The end result is 440 hp and 380 lb-ft of torque, not a bad upgrade over the stock 5.0-liter's 412 hp, though that's 10 lb-ft less in the torque department. Remember, this car's designed to be wrung out on the track, not raced stoplight to stoplight.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2010 17:26
|
|
|
CombatWombat posted:I'll wait until they offer the Boss upgrades in a non-terrible package... which will be about 6 months, tops, knowing Ford. If they don't put out 18 or more special editions in a model's lifecycle it's a FAILURE. They got that from the part-ownership of Mazda during the NA/NB Miata era. Nothing tops the Miata; I think some years there were multiple different special editions.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2010 23:51
|
|
|
You're raising that boy right.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2010 23:55
|
|
|
The only real disadvantages with DI are the cost (which is coming down as they get more common) and the fact that with no fuel going past the intake valve anymore, they can get pretty loving crusty.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2010 17:17
|
|
|
My only experience with DI has been with my MS3, but I thought the injectors themselves aren't a major limiting factor on many DI engines? You'll definitely need to upgrade the high-pressure fuel pump but (and I could be entirely wrong on this) I don't recall seeing many people upgrading the injectors themselves, even on cars pushing 400hp+ with much larger than stock turbochargers (stock power levels are 260hp on a K04 turbo)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2010 17:48
|
|
|
frozenphil posted:Makes sense. I wasn't aware that DI used such high pressure. You've got to overcome the combustion chamber pressures, 60PSI isn't going to do that. It does allow for some crazy goddamn compression ratios and timing combinations with boost. I don't see the aftermarket (or their customers) reacting negatively to the idea of safe 11:1+ compression ratios with high boost on 91 octane.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2010 17:55
|
|
|
Skyssx posted:I was thinking of this the other day. What's to stop you from seafoaming your DI car once a year? Problem solved? Maybe, but I've heard that it doesn't work that well - it's the backside of the intake valve, not the side in the combustion chamber.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2010 21:30
|
|
|
No, it's not a proper manual, but I have a strange desire to drop that in my truck. Goddamn that's cool. I would be curious to read any reviews on how much of a delay there is between hitting a shift button and getting the shift, though. I know the 6L80 in all its various forms has a pretty annoying one. Edit: Apparently it's a 4L80E with a custom gearset and some funky use of the overdrive clutch pack to get more effective ratios out of the gearbox. IOwnCalculus fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Sep 6, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2010 17:39
|
|
|
frozenphil posted:I wonder how Ford gets away with this? Skipshift is purely a CAFE thing as far as I know - the conditions where it forces you to do 1-4 are entirely within the CAFE drive cycle. I think it actually does little to nothing for emissions or the kind of things CARB bitches about.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2010 17:28
|
|
|
frozenphil posted:Right, and CAFE is a Federal thing, unlike CARB which is a California state thing. You wouldn't think Ford could ignore a Federal standard, but I guess since it is an aftermarket tune it doesn't apply. Yeah - as far as I know CAFE only needs to apply to the car as it is sold by Ford itself. The day it's sold you no longer need to worry about passing a CAFE test or anything like it; otherwise there'd be almost no aftermarket parts support from manufacturers since drat near everything you can do to a car can be construed as loving up its CAFE rating.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2010 17:38
|
|
|
Skyssx posted:But if the manufacturer offers a kit and installs it, that's really skirting legal trouble. The only thing they've got going is being able to say "oh we didn't sell the skip-shift kit on the same invoice, see, it's different..." It doesn't have any effect unless the guys calculating CAFE decide to recalculate Ford's average mileage with this aftermarket part installed and it brings the whole company's average down to the point that Ford gets fined with CAFE penalties. It's not like the car is incomplete without this Ford Racing part, or anything other than a minority of customers will get this part.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2010 19:38
|
|
|
Imperador do Brasil posted:My buddy Matt has skipshift in his '02 T/A WS6 and he says it's absolutely terrible. The Shelby doesn't have it and still manages to avoid the gas-guzzler tax, I wonder why the vanilla GT's have it at all?? Tell him to get his rear end under the car and unplug the solenoid, it's the easiest thing ever to disable. Presto posted:When I test drove a new GT I didn't notice the skip shift. Was I just driving outside the envelope where it functions or what? If you were driving it like you should (i.e. flogging it), yes.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2010 20:28
|
|
|
Imperador do Brasil posted:Seriously, manufacturers, let me shift how I want to shift. Sometimes (most times) second gear is still appropriate to use even if you're not using full throttle. Thank God I don't have to deal with it on the GT500. If it weren't for that $20 solenoid that can be disabled in five minutes, a lot of cars with skip-shift would have gas guzzler penalties in the range of $1000+. I'll take skip-shift all day long over the guzzler tax.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2010 15:06
|
|
|
Nait Sirhc posted:I'm sure if you smash it into second hard enough you can break something. It's basically the same mechanism they use to do reverse lockout at speed (hell, I think the solenoids have the same part number)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2010 20:02
|
|
|
I admit to being slightly surprised this story isn't gaining more attention: Bill Ford confirms future Ecoboost Mustang As long as this SVO means we don't have to deal with a naturally-aspirated Pinto-powered S197, we're in good shape.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2011 01:46
|
|
|
shodanjr_gr posted:How so? Edumacate me please! By its very nature, a live axle cannot have adjustable camber and toe. The axle shaft running from the center section of the differential out to the hub where the wheel bolts is a single rigid piece of metal; it is perpendicular to both the rear wheel and the pinion shaft on the differential. Essentially a live axle can only attempt to have zero toe and zero camber. Reality is it will have very small amounts of both due to manufacturing tolerances, but the only way to 'adjust' it is to bend the axle housing itself, and attempting anything other than zero toe / camber usually results in massive wear to bearings.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2011 08:10
|
|
|
Every time I look at the Boss 302, I realize it's probably a bad idea for a car that I will commute 25k miles a year in. I still really, really want one.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2011 20:24
|
|
|
A.o.D. posted:Cars are meant to be driven. I don't disagree, I'm putting 25k miles a year on my MS3. But the vast (and I do mean vast) majority of those miles are just puttering along in straight line freeway traffic between 40 and 80 MPH. For that, a Boss 302 is a bazooka to a knife fight; and yet I still want it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2011 20:35
|
|
|
Owsla posted:http://www.quicktimeperformance.com/QTEC/index.php My dad had one of these on his '01 Z28, absolutely loved it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2011 22:14
|
|
|
Das Volk posted:So does the new Boss have IRS or is it still the solid axle setup? Still solid, but this time so good people are having a hard time even bitching about it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2011 02:36
|
|
|
kronix posted:Better fuel economy and more performance. All the go of the GT but higher tech and better fuel economy and sell it at 40k MSRP and move it up market. Who wouldn't want a more refined mustang twin turbo V6 and 30+ MPG? Mustang owners who want their V8 (the SVO was not exactly a hot seller in its day).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2011 18:49
|
|
|
kronix posted:At some point, when gas gets even more expensive, the V8 won't be able to compete. It's one of the reasons the RX-8 is on it's way out the door. Fair enough, but the RX8 is out the door because its fuel consumption is so atrocious that it can't meet modern emission standards. On top of that low-for-a-V8 fuel economy, it doesn't even make enough power to keep up with Mazda's own turbo four cylinder, which also gets better mileage and has better reliability (sorry RADL). There's nothing more Mazda can really do to the 13B to make more power naturally aspirated and still stay emissions compliant, and we all know how well turbo rotaries do in daily life. With a tuned-up Ecoboost V6 versus a Coyote V8, I really doubt we're going to see the V6 post both higher fuel economy and higher power levels than the V8. The Coyote is at a point in its lifespan where Ford can bump power levels at almost no increase in production cost, much like GM did with the LS2 to the LS3 (+30hp, no difference in cost to build). There's also the fact that of the under-25 demographic, while a lot of them may be all for buying a turbo V6 Mustang...how many of them can afford to? I don't see how Ford could possibly make the turbo V6 cheaper than the GT; I could see it slotting in somewhere between the GT and the Boss, but that's not going to be a price point you see many 20-25 year olds buying new.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2011 19:19
|
|
|
kronix posted:Agreed, the RX8 is kind of a weird example but it's definitely getting hurt by it's bad mileage. This years 15 mpg could be 20 mpg in 5 years. That's where my Mustang sites right now. With $5 a gallon looking realistic by this summer, who knows? This is true. It's just that the RX8 is such an outlier when it comes to MPG vs performance - I really like the idea of the car and have thought about getting one several times, but every time I do I come back to the fact that both the purchase price (used to used) and ongoing maintenance (especially fuel consumption) are right about the same as a C5 Corvette...and no way, no how is a RX8 hanging with a C5 performance-wise. I can definitely see the proposition for an Ecoboost Mustang, but I would have an extremely hard time picking one up over a Coyote V8.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 00:22
|
|
|
I think it seems to line up with the idea that for whatever reason, whoever has the genuinely faster car will sell less of them between the two. From 1993 through 2002, the Z28/SS had the GT pretty soundly beat with regards to performance out of the factory, yet the SN95 outsold the fourthgen big time.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2011 19:51
|
|
|
frozenphil posted:Stainless Works They really do make nice headers at the least. I'm 90% sure the headers my dad has on his C6 are Stainless Works, and they're practically a work of art. If they aren't, then the ones he had on his '01 Z28 were the SW parts instead and were also a work of art  Really make some nice power, too.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2011 00:53
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:I didn't even see that post, Jesus. You need a Saturn V to break a 'glide. To be fair, the TH400 will hold up to about a Delta IV Heavy.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2011 00:21
|
|
|
Holdbrooks posted:Here is a good look at the underside of the new BOSS, pretty cool. Is that four exhaust outlets, with one on each side coming out of an H-pipe? No wonder that thing sounds godly.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2011 19:17
|
|
|
CombatWombat posted:It's not uncommon for a car to be well-put-together stock, but still have pretty good potential for easy power gains. The Mazdaspeed3/6 have an INSANELY restrictive intake, and I know the SN95 had a similar thing due to including a 'silencer' to meet sound emission standards. Pull that silencer out and you got some actual power gains, and I think it even improved MPG. To be fair, a lot of those restrictions may have other purposes as well. The MS3 intake is indeed horribly restrictive, but after you do it, you're pretty much only one or two mods away from needing a tune and upgraded fuel pump to keep the engine together. The Camaro historically had some terribad parts too (like the exhaust) which served both to be built to a low cost, and keeping power down from the same powerplant in the Corvette. Speaking from experience with a LS1, X-pipes are the way to go.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2011 21:54
|
|
|
It's not like a physically smaller Mustang is that foreign of a concept. The Fox ('93 LX 5.0 Coupe) is 8.5" shorter in overall length and 6.6" shorter in wheelbase, 5.6" narrower, and 3.6" shorter in height, than a Boss 302. It's also about 600lb lighter, but I'd peg most of that on the increase in features and safety in the past 20 years. Interestingly the 302 has about a foot smaller turning diameter than the Fox, but the GT coupe claims a 7' smaller turning diameter than either!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2011 18:43
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:I was gonna use that one, but I figured you might lose with different heads or pistons, etc. Can't speak to blue ovals, but the heads on a 4.8L Vortec V8 are pretty much the same weight as the ones on the 7.0L LS7
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2011 23:57
|
|
|
gently caress you Phil, I already have one truck with a retarded engine swap, I don't need two. Or do I...
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2011 00:00
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:Actually gently caress it, how do the physical dimensions compare to a small block Chevy? I'll cram one in a 944 and piss off my buddy who put an LS1 in his. I'm 95% certain the LS1 is pretty close dimensionally to the 5.0 of yore, but I'd be shocked if a 5.0 vs 5.0 side by side didn't look more like this:  I'm pretty sure the LS1 in a 944 is a damned tight fit.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2011 05:29
|
|
|
sanchez posted:It sounds like a baby LS2 Ha, it really does kinda. Also, you will almost never see start/stop implemented on non-hybrids until the EPA fuel economy test is updated to account for it in ratings. Even though it does result in a significant real-world improvement, manufacturers don't want to spend the money on it because no improvement in MPG on the sticker = no improvement in sales.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2011 00:28
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Are there no full stops in the current EPA cycle? I think there are but they're required to keep the engine running, regardless of whether start/stop is installed. The EPA test is loving asinine.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2011 05:14
|
|
|
It's not just honoring warranty work - it's full on warranty cancellation according to the flowchart in that doc. Seems like a bit of an about-face from their previous mod-friendly stance when originally only people with increased rev limits were having clutch issues. Shame that assholes who mod their car, blow the engine, and expect Ford to cover it are ruining it for everyone, though.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2011 20:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 01:09 |
|
|
frozenphil posted:Eh, Magnusson-Moss won't let them ditch the entire warranty. True, but let's face it, with this they could pretty easily cancel the entire powertrain warranty.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2011 21:55
|
|