2015 Ford Mustang - General Discussion

[McLaren]

Technically, not right at the beginning, but Ford joined the HP war soon enough. The Mustang actually sort of started the muscle car trend along with the Pontiac GTO, from a slightly different angle though.

The muscle car era was already in effect before the Mustang was even conceived, and Ford's Thunderbolt was their effort into it a year beforehand.
In no way did the Mustang even remotely start the muscle car trend when it was actually coining the term Pony car.

Now, do you actually look into anything you post, or do you just let your brain slump in the back of your head & let whatever your fingers pound out do the talking?

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

The muscle car era was already in effect before the Mustang was even conceived, and Ford's Thunderbolt was their effort into it a year beforehand.
In no way did the Mustang even remotely start the muscle car trend when it was actually coining the term Pony car.

Now, do you actually look into anything you post, or do you just let your brain slump in the back of your head & let whatever your fingers pound out do the talking?

I have yet to see a thread where you are anything less than a complete ass.

The Mustang and the GTO helped to start an affordable performance-oriented car typology in the US, which is effectively what W&N was trying to articulate. There were other cars, like the Fairlane TB that came before, but they had not nearly the same impact as the Mustang and GTO.

 

[dkong40]

Technically, not right at the beginning, but Ford joined the HP war soon enough. The Mustang actually sort of started the muscle car trend along with the Pontiac GTO, from a slightly different angle though.

The Mustang actually started the "pony car" craze and did not really become a full fledged muscle car until '68, with the exception of Shelby's tuned versions previous to that model year.

Its all up to personal perspective. In fact, I don't see the GTO as the first muscle car at all--i would award that to the early 60s Chevy's packing the 409s.

Regardless, I see this next Mustang as sort of bringing back the "pony car"--a slightly smaller, sportier, more nimble, yet vaguely brutish car, in contrast to what I see as the only remaining muscle cars, i.e. camaro zl1's, the v8 challengers and chargers, Shelby gt500s, and that new v8 caprice Chevy developed for police.

 

[McLaren]

The Mustang and the GTO helped to start an affordable performance-oriented car typology in the US, which is effectively what W&N was trying to articulate. There were other cars, like the Fairlane TB that came before, but they had not nearly the same impact as the Mustang and GTO.

The same question goes to you; did you at all dig a little bit before you listed the GTO as something with any sort of relevance to the affordable performance car, let alone helping start it?
$2,600 was the average cost of a new car in 1964; the GTO was $4,500, not far off double. For comparison, a 1964 Jaguar E-Type was around $6,000. A Porsche 356 was $4,000. A Ferrari 330GT was around $10,000.

In what way did the GTO help at all to start the affordable performance car, when the Porsche was cheaper & a Jaguar E-Type was only $1,500 more? In today's world, the GTO was basically the equivalent of a Corvette Z06. Not ungodly expensive, but not exactly within' the reach of those looking for performance on a budget.

 

[Tornado]

The same question goes to you; did you at all dig a little bit before you listed the GTO as something with any sort of relevance to the affordable performance car, let alone helping start it?
$2,600 was the average cost of a new car in 1964; the GTO was $4,500, not far off double.

Um... no it wasn't. The GTO was originally a $300 option package on the Tempest, and could be had for well under $3000.

 

[McLaren]

Um... no it wasn't. The GTO was originally a $300 option package on the Tempest, and could be had for well under $3000.

The price I had gotten appears to be fully loaded with the 4-speed manual, more powerful carb., better brakes, performance, etc. The base price for a GTO seems to be $2,800 which is not what I could call "well under" $3,000, but I'll concede I was wrong on that. Seems most GTOs were spec'd to around $3,500 though.

Regardless of that, the car in no way was the "affordable" performance car when it was worth more than the average new car of the era unlike the Mustang.

 

[Tornado]

Regardless of that, the car in no way was the "affordable" performance car when it was worth more than the average new car of the era unlike the Mustang.

It was less than $200 above of the average new price figure of a car of the era that you provided. It was literally only $300 away from the completely pedestrian Tempest. Even taking inflation into account, that seems pretty damn affordable to me; and nothing at all like the original argument you were making (nor does the Fairlane Thunderbolt mean anything for this discussion considering what it was).

 

[McLaren]

It was less than $200 above of the average new price figure of a car of the era that you provided. It was literally only $300 away from the completely pedestrian Tempest. Even taking inflation into account, that seems pretty damn affordable to me; and nothing at all like the original argument you were making (nor does the Fairlane Thunderbolt mean anything for this discussion considering what it was).

The average new car price does not equal affordable; it was what the average cost of a new car was. Today's average is $30-35,000; the affordable car is more around $20-25,000.

And it was not. The GTO was built on a Le Mans optioned Tempest, which was the top-of-the-line trim for a Tempest. The average sticker price for most GTOs in 1964 was $3,200-$3,400; base price was $2,852 which meant a Tempest Le Mans was already $2,500. So, again no, it was not $300 from a "completely pedestrian" Tempest; $2,200. It was double that.

 

[Tornado]

The average new car price does not equal affordable; it was what the average cost of a new car was. Today's average is $30-35,000; the affordable car is more around $20-25,000.

So how come you get to dictate what is "affordable" separately from what the average prices of a car were? The goal posts are moving a lot here.

And it was not. The GTO was built on a Le Mans optioned Tempest, which was the top-of-the-line trim for a Tempest. The average sticker price for most GTOs in 1964 was $3,200-$3,400;

Who cares what the average sticker price was for most GTOs? It has no relevance to this discussion, which is about what the minimum number required was to get your ass into one.

base price was $2,852 which meant a Tempest Le Mans was already $2,500. So, again no, it was not $300 from a "completely pedestrian" Tempest; $2,200. It was double that.

I honestly don't get what your problem is, but if you're going to start ripping apart figures of speech to try to prove your point even after your original argument so obviously self-destructed, I think we're done here.

 

[McLaren]

So how come you get to dictate what is "affordable" separately from what the average prices of a car were?

I don't but if you think the average cost of a new car translates to the most affordable car, there's your problem.

And who cares what the average sticker price was for most GTOs? It has no relevance to this discussion, which is about what the minimum number required was to get your ass into one.

It does have some relevance because that's what most GTOs sold for. Regardless, I posted the base price following it.

I honestly don't get what your problem is, but if you're going to start ripping apart figures of speech to try to prove your point even after your original argument so obviously self-destructed, I think we're done here.

I think the bottom line is you didn't have any clue about the Tempest price & trims, yet you went ahead & acted like the $300 GTO option was something they threw on top of whatever the base price Tempest a sold for & that made the GTO affordable. Your argument self-destructed with that, not mine; you said the GTO was only $300 from a Tempest while attempting to use words that basically said, "bone stock/basic" to describe it. But, it wasn't $300 from a Tempest. It was $652. That's not my fault you attempted to say the GTO was affordable for that incorrect figure.

Thanks for letting me know we're done, though after you responded to anything but what I posted. I believe in the rules of the internet, that's how people try suddenly wrap up their argument & then throw in a last word. I'll applaud your efforts.👍

 

[Beeblebrox237]

From a third party view, I think Tornado's points make sense and that he won the argument. The GTO is widely credired with starting the muscle car craze, and while it was more a product of the general direction of American cars at the time, it did help start the trend of affordable and quick cars.

 

[KinLM]

I don't but if you think the average cost of a new car translates to the most affordable car, there's your problem.

He never said MOST affordable car. He said affordable.

And it is affordable. If it's the average price, it means most people can afford it. If it wasnt affordable then the average would be lower. There's your problem.

 

[Crash]

He never said MOST affordable car. He said affordable.

And it is affordable. If it's the average price, it means most people can afford it. If it wasnt affordable then the average would be lower. There's your problem.

Without judging or siding in the GTO argument itself, I want to point out that average alone doesn't really tell you enough information.

The average may not be truly representative depending on the outliers. Say market consists of the following: car A is $10,000, car B is $20,000, car C is $30,000 and car D is $1,000,000, and each car is sold once. The average price of the vehicles of that market is $265,000. If I take out the million dollar car, suddenly, the average becomes merely $20,000. Notice the big difference in averages just by taking out that one number? Because the $1,000,000 car skews the average so far, it would be wrong to assume that the average automatically equals affordable without a thorough analysis that includes information about median and variance.

To truly get a good idea of how good the average really is "average", you'll need to know at least the median also. In this case, the median would probably give you a better idea of what the "average" vehicle sold for.

 

[White & Nerdy]

For all intents and purposes, the coyote is most easily built into a normal sports car engine. It doesn't have obscene amounts of torque and loves to rev. The bosses are going to 7600 and NA builds regularly see 8100 to 8300.

I don't really consider insane amounts of torque to be a bad thing. More pull always = better right?

The muscle car era was already in effect before the Mustang was even conceived, and Ford's Thunderbolt was their effort into it a year beforehand.
In no way did the Mustang even remotely start the muscle car trend when it was actually coining the term Pony car.

Now, do you actually look into anything you post, or do you just let your brain slump in the back of your head & let whatever your fingers pound out do the talking?

I think Eunos_Cosmo has it here. Other muscle cars may have come before, but they didn't have the same impact.

 

[Slash]

Let's also not forget that Ford has a reputation for keeping its engines around for a very long time. The modular 4.6 had been in use for nearly 15 years and was just replaced for 2011MY. It also saw the introduction of the 3.7. They're not going to scrap the 3.7 after a few short years of use.

Not only that but look at other engines as well. The 302 was put in production cars for at least 40 years and is still produced as crate engines. Realistically though, the Windsor family engines starting with the 221 in I want to say '62 or '63 was in production cars as a 221, 255, 260, 289, 302, and 351 from those years until 2001 when the last vehicle to have it was the Explorer. Why fix what isn't broke?

 

[dkong40]

I don't really consider insane amounts of torque to be a bad thing. More pull always = better right?

However, light sports car+too much torque=frame wear and eventual deformation, and too much stress on the trans, diff and rear axle if not built heavy enough for the torque.

The 94-96 impala ss's had a similar, but far more minor issue--the transmission, same as in standard caprices and road kings, was not adequate for the increased torque of the SS, and often experienced failure at around 100,000 miles.

 

[ShobThaBob]

I don't really consider insane amounts of torque to be a bad thing. More pull always = better right?

No. Torque is pretty meaningless unless you have revs to turn it into power. I'd rather have 350lbft at 8500rpm than 600lb/ft at 2500.

 

[Slash]

No. Torque is pretty meaningless unless you have revs to turn it into power. I'd rather have 350lbft at 8500rpm than 600lb/ft at 2500.

No in the slightest. Torque gets you moving. Just like the 300 I6, lots of torque at idle...everyone who has ever owned one will tell you it will pull a house down. Equal torque to a lot of older V8s.

 

[MrWednesday]

No. Torque is pretty meaningless unless you have revs to turn it into power. I'd rather have 350lbft at 8500rpm than 600lb/ft at 2500.

That's fine if you're road racing and living at higher RPM where you can take advantage of the mechanical advantage from your transmission (so HP is king), but less applicable to situations where you're accelerating from a stop.

 

[Slash]

That's fine if you're road racing and living at higher RPM where you can take advantage of the mechanical advantage from your transmission (so HP is king), but less applicable to situations where you're accelerating from a stop.

Exactly which is why I prefer low end torque. Easier to get going from a stop and on the street, most engines aren't going to see 8,500rpm. Hell most are lucky to see anywhere from 4-6.

 

[ShobThaBob]

That's fine if you're road racing and living at higher RPM where you can take advantage of the mechanical advantage from your transmission (so HP is king), but less applicable to situations where you're accelerating from a stop.

Anything more than 300 or so lb/ft is really kinda overkill on the street the way you're describing. If you're in a position to really miss having loads of torque like that, you're either hauling something or driving in a manner that's more suited to the track.

 

[Wolfe]

Personally I've never been able to understand what's so "difficult" about getting going on the street that you need a big wave of low-end torque to make it "easier." I drove a 60hp Renault one summer, and I didn't even have to rev it out in order to outpace every other car in traffic. Street driving is slow, by the definition of the law. And if you want to go fast -- to shoot up an onramp, for example -- why not use the available rev range?

Extra low-end torque never helped my parents' V6 Blazer to pick up its fat ass and make a pass on a two-lane. If there's no power, there's no go.

 

[Slash]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't torque make horsepower? Torque gets you to the speed you want quickly, and horsepower keeps you there. Torque is what throws you back in your seat when you step on the gas.

I think this article sums it up pretty nicely.

https://secure.drivers.lexus.com/lexusdrivers/magazine/articles/Vehicle-Insider/Horsepower-vs-Torque

 

[ShobThaBob]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't torque make horsepower? Torque gets you to the speed you want quickly, and horsepower keeps you there. Torque is what throws you back in your seat when you step on the gas.

I think this article sums it up pretty nicely.

https://secure.drivers.lexus.com/lexusdrivers/magazine/articles/Vehicle-Insider/Horsepower-vs-Torque

Yeah, it makes power the more revs you have as long as torque doesn't drop. The H1 Hummer came with over 400lb/ft of torque and less than 200hp. Torque doesn't make you go fast unless it comes at a respectable RPM. So you actually have it backwards. Low end torque is what allows a car to sustain cruising speed at low RPM. Horsepower is what gets you to that speed quickly.

 

[Slash]

Yeah, it makes power the more revs you have as long as torque doesn't drop. The H1 Hummer came with over 400lb/ft of torque and less than 200hp. Torque doesn't make you go fast unless it comes at a respectable RPM. So you actually have it backwards. Low end torque is what allows a car to sustain cruising speed at low RPM. Horsepower is what gets you to that speed quickly.

Torque comes before horsepower....under I believe 5250 (or close) RPM. I can have a 150hp V8 but it has 300+ lb-ft of torque just off of idle, and it will spin them with absolutely no problem just feathering the throttle. Depends on the car but it still stands.

 

[ShobThaBob]

Right, but that doesn't mean that it's going to get to speed fast, it just means that it's capable of throwing you back in the seat. After that shove, you're not going anywhere anytime soon.

 

[Slash]

Right, but that doesn't mean that it's going to get to speed fast, it just means that it's capable of throwing you back in the seat. After that shove, you're not going anywhere anytime soon.

If it launches you in your seat, then surely your accelerating quickly because the force pushing you back is G-force.

 

[Wolfe]

In a foot race between a weight lifter and a track runner, you don't bet on the weight lifter. But you might prefer to ask him to help you move a refrigerator.

 

[MrWednesday]

Torque comes before horsepower....under I believe 5250 (or close) RPM.

Sorta kinda, I guess. Power = torque * angular velocity. 5250* is the conversion factor for power in HP, torque in ft-lbf, and angular velocity in rpm. But there's nothing really special about any particular RPM number.


* Actually, 5252.1 (with lots of additional places, it's an irrational number 33,000/τ**)

** http://tauday.com/

 

[Slash]

But there's nothing really special about any particular RPM number.

If their is nothing special about a particular RPM number where peak power figures are made, lets say torque as this is what the conversation is about, why would it be more important for it to be down low in the RPMs versus high RPMs in a boat of a car? Because obviously it needs the power to move in the first place. So that is invalid. No one wants to (unless you are a car enthusiast) have to wind an engine up high just to get going.