[quote]PimpBot5000 wrote:
I’m in the market for a new car, and have been giving serious thought to a 2011 Mustang (leaning towards GT, but even the V6 looks pretty good at 305hp).
I drive a lot for work, and need a car that I can put some serious miles on. Previously I’ve owned Accords, Volvo S60’s, etc. These cars are about as exciting as steamed rice however, and I’m looking for something I can actually enjoy driving.
As a guy who knows dick-all about cars, how have Mustangs historically held up in regards to longevity? (assuming regular maintenance and care)
[/quote]
Well, that’s tough to say realistically if you are driving a lot for work, don’t get something you’ll totally love because it’s going to get totally ruined. The 2011 Mustangs with the real 302’s they put in them are awesome, brand new engines from the ground up. 412 HP? Nothing to argue with there. They’d hold up pretty well and they are built pretty well, but I don’t know if it’s a car you want to live in for hours a day. They seem comfortable enough but it just seems like an awful waste of a cool car. I donno, I am a little torn by your predicament. It just seems that a GT mustang isn’t something you want to put 35,000 miles a year on. But, if you can only get one car and you want it to be cool, get it.
The mileage isn’t actually bad on them either, but if you get an automatic, back away and get another accord or something.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
I will say only this. A V-6 in a Mustang, Camaro, or Challenger is an abomination. God kills a baby turtle for every V-6 “Muscle Car” that rolls off the line.[/quote]
That’s absolutely true. And he’s going to start with puppies when the new CAFE crap gets rammed down our throats in 2016…
[quote]PimpBot5000 wrote:
I’m in the market for a new car, and have been giving serious thought to a 2011 Mustang (leaning towards GT, but even the V6 looks pretty good at 305hp).
I drive a lot for work, and need a car that I can put some serious miles on. Previously I’ve owned Accords, Volvo S60’s, etc. These cars are about as exciting as steamed rice however, and I’m looking for something I can actually enjoy driving.
As a guy who knows dick-all about cars, how have Mustangs historically held up in regards to longevity? (assuming regular maintenance and care)
[/quote]
Well, that’s tough to say realistically if you are driving a lot for work, don’t get something you’ll totally love because it’s going to get totally ruined. The 2011 Mustangs with the real 302’s they put in them are awesome, brand new engines from the ground up. 412 HP? Nothing to argue with there. They’d hold up pretty well and they are built pretty well, but I don’t know if it’s a car you want to live in for hours a day. They seem comfortable enough but it just seems like an awful waste of a cool car. I donno, I am a little torn by your predicament. It just seems that a GT mustang isn’t something you want to put 35,000 miles a year on. But, if you can only get one car and you want it to be cool, get it.
The mileage isn’t actually bad on them either, but if you get an automatic, back away and get another accord or something. [/quote]
For the record, I agree with this. I hate driving my car around town because people actually TRY to fuck your shit up. I am looking into buying a piece of shit for daily drives to work and back.
[quote]gmantheman wrote:
With all things being equal, a 2011 Mustang V6 will not beat a 2005-2009 Mustang GT. Yes the 2011 V6 has 305 crank hp or 265-275 rwhp compared to the 2005-2009 mustang gt’s 300 hp or 260-270 rwhp, but the other factor is torque. The 2011 V6 has 280 lLB feet of tq but the 2005-2009 has 315.[/quote]
Yeah, but the displacement difference and the fact that both are natural breathers, personally I would rather have the new ground up design of this year’s V-6, than that 279 V-8 dinosaur. Everything about these new motors are better. But if I am going mustang, I want the new BOSS 302 orange on black. I’d rather have the BOSS than the Shelby, that’s saying a lot.
[quote]Marzouk wrote:
I’ve said it before and i’ll say it again.
There is a replacement for displacement. It’s called brains and technology.
400bhp from a 5.0 V8 is inefficient as hell.
2012 Nissan GTR makes any american muscle car look like an 8 yr old boy in a tutu. [/quote]
There IS no replacement for displacement.
Your turbocharged V6 is just getting the displacement from increasing air pressure.
Differnt way to the same end.[/quote]
It’s funny because you just described how displacement is replaced.
Mitsubish Evo. 2.0 4 cylinder. Yes turbo charged, but also has never seen the tail lights of any muscle car. [/quote]
There isn’t a replacement for displacement, because you can bolt a turbo on a V8 too. You can add forced induction and tuning and technology to ANY engine. You cannot just add displacement to any engine.
[/quote]
Are you talking a stock EVO? 'cause a stock EVO will see tail lights. It’s a great car, and off the line initially you may get a jump, but 400 HP will catch you no problem. The EVO has one Achilles heal and that’s turbo lag. It has it pretty bad, you can’t help it pumping 19 lbs of boost.
That being said, there is one tiny problem with boosting the Mustang and Camaro is that you can’t get the power to the ground. Hennesey built an 800 HP Camaro and it’s barely faster and a hell of a lot more dangerous than stock. The tires just won’t stick.
And 400 HP from a naturally aspirated 302 is incredible. You cannot compare boost to naturally aspiration, it’s just not the same thing.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
All I know is, it has the best interior design of any car in its class. That was one of its main selling points for me. My rims match the interior lighting. It looks cool as hell at night.
The camaro isn’t even close in that regard and their interior and sterring wheel sucked for real.
Handling? Please. It handles way better than both the Camaro and Challenger. This has been well documented.
I would like for my next car to be a vette…but let’s not kid ourselves by acting like Ford didn’t do a bad ass job this year.
The Camaro didn’t put the same heart into it and it shows especially on the inside of the car…and they had way more publicity.[/quote]
I agree with the Camaro interior being garbage. For all the time they had to get it “right” I think they let a lot of people down. I haven’t driven the Challenger, but I’ve been inside of one and again not impressed.
I can say that I was in a new Fusion and Taurus SHO and I loved the interiors. Very clean and well laid out.
[/quote]
I disagree with Ford being way better than GM. Though, if I had to pick between the 2, I’d probably go for the 5.0 mustang. I just wish they’d quit with that stupid live axle, but that’s a small sacrifice.
Now, if I could get a Cadillac CTS-V coup, I pick that over both. I love that fucking car. If I sold my kids, I could afford one.
[quote]Marzouk wrote:
I’ve said it before and i’ll say it again.
There is a replacement for displacement. It’s called brains and technology.
400bhp from a 5.0 V8 is inefficient as hell.
2012 Nissan GTR makes any american muscle car look like an 8 yr old boy in a tutu. [/quote]
when they state given horse power is always horse power at the crank, not at the wheels. They will always give you the much bigger number. Horse power at the wheels is always much lower.
[quote]pat wrote:
I disagree with Ford being way better than GM. Though, if I had to pick between the 2, I’d probably go for the 5.0 mustang. I just wish they’d quit with that stupid live axle, but that’s a small sacrifice.
Now, if I could get a Cadillac CTS-V coup, I pick that over both. I love that fucking car. If I sold my kids, I could afford one. [/quote]
You had me nodding right along until this. Every GM I’ve driven in the past 10 years has been awful- trucks included. Now that it’s Gov’t Motors, nothing has changed but it smells worse.
I hope you have better taste in women because that CTS-V Coupe is BUTT.UGLY
I concede that the Corvette is the premier vehicle and I may very well sell my soul for one (except for 4th gens 83-mid 90’s-- they just kind of sucked).
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
I will say only this. A V-6 in a Mustang, Camaro, or Challenger is an abomination. God kills a baby turtle for every V-6 “Muscle Car” that rolls off the line.[/quote]
Purist.
You’re right though, nothing beats the sound of a V-8.
Except maybe a large displacement V-8.
I’m hoping to get my car stuff out of the divorce by spring.
I have a Pontiac 400 sitting on an engine stand I’d like to put into something to drive around with.[/quote]
Toss a 572 big block in that bitch…[/quote]
I want a Pontiac engine and I don’t have the bucks for the IA raised deck block.
I do have the parts to build a 469 from my 400 block.
The Lancer Evolution FQ-360â??s performance underlines its reputation as the most affordable supercar on the road. This is a practical, five-seater saloon car that can sprint from 0-60mph in just 3.9 seconds
I know there’s no magic, there’s EVO.
[/quote]
Which gets smoked by the Viper or Vette from 0-60, 1/8, 1/4, around the 'Ring, etc.
There isn’t a replacement for displacement, because you can bolt a turbo on a V8 too. You can add forced induction and tuning and technology to ANY engine. You cannot just add displacement to any engine.
[/quote]
I know how an engine works, but my point is that you don’t NEED a V8 5.0 litre to have performance and speed. A 2.0 can work and beat bigger cars. Its irrelevant weather forced induction is present or not.
Just look at pretty much any Japanese performance car.
Toyota Supra
Celica gt4 (2.0) which hits 60 in less than 5.5 seconds. Aftermarket turbo and it’l do it in 4.
Honda NSX
Integra Type
The list goes on and on.
[/quote]
Is that why the list of cars around the 'Ring is dominated by cars with more than 2L? Why the lowly Dodge Viper, with all its useless displacement trumps the Evo by more than 30 seconds?
Did you ever wonder why NHRA has limits on engine displacement?
There isn’t a replacement for displacement, because you can bolt a turbo on a V8 too. You can add forced induction and tuning and technology to ANY engine. You cannot just add displacement to any engine.
[/quote]
I know how an engine works, but my point is that you don’t NEED a V8 5.0 litre to have performance and speed. A 2.0 can work and beat bigger cars. Its irrelevant weather forced induction is present or not.
Just look at pretty much any Japanese performance car.
Toyota Supra
Celica gt4 (2.0) which hits 60 in less than 5.5 seconds. Aftermarket turbo and it’l do it in 4.
Honda NSX
Integra Type
The list goes on and on.
[/quote]
Is that why the list of cars around the 'Ring is dominated by cars with more than 2L? Why the lowly Dodge Viper, with all its useless displacement trumps the Evo by more than 30 seconds?
Did you ever wonder why NHRA has limits on engine displacement?[/quote]
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
I will say only this. A V-6 in a Mustang, Camaro, or Challenger is an abomination. God kills a baby turtle for every V-6 “Muscle Car” that rolls off the line.[/quote]
Purist.
You’re right though, nothing beats the sound of a V-8.
Except maybe a large displacement V-8.
I’m hoping to get my car stuff out of the divorce by spring.
I have a Pontiac 400 sitting on an engine stand I’d like to put into something to drive around with.[/quote]
Toss a 572 big block in that bitch…[/quote]
I want a Pontiac engine and I don’t have the bucks for the IA raised deck block.
I do have the parts to build a 469 from my 400 block.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
I will say only this. A V-6 in a Mustang, Camaro, or Challenger is an abomination. God kills a baby turtle for every V-6 “Muscle Car” that rolls off the line.[/quote]
Purist.
You’re right though, nothing beats the sound of a V-8.
Except maybe a large displacement V-8.
I’m hoping to get my car stuff out of the divorce by spring.
I have a Pontiac 400 sitting on an engine stand I’d like to put into something to drive around with.[/quote]
Toss a 572 big block in that bitch…[/quote]
I want a Pontiac engine and I don’t have the bucks for the IA raised deck block.
I do have the parts to build a 469 from my 400 block.
since we are all way off topic now, if you wana just get a nice car to drive and enjoy just buy a used BMW M3… great handeling, more then enough power, rides nice, great interior… done, done and done…
[quote]Ratchet wrote:
since we are all way off topic now, if you wana just get a nice car to drive and enjoy just buy a used BMW M3… great handeling, more then enough power, rides nice, great interior… done, done and done… [/quote]
I agree, bit of german engineering. Can’t go wrong.
I can buy a new 2012 Mustang GT in the U.S., have it shipped to Australia by sea freight … converted to right hand drive, registered and insured and it still would be costing me less than an equivalent Aussie built Ford straight from factory.
