2015 Ford Mustang - General Discussion

[ShobThaBob]

Very few cars are actually that torque deprived these days. Even entry level economy cars come with decently torquey turbo engines. So what does it matter if you have to rev it? If you want to use the engine speed, hold the gear longer. No big deal.

You also say "just to get it going." We're not talking about 110lb/ft hondas here. We're talking about high revving 6cyl and V8s. This is a mustang thread. The mustang moves well throughout the RPM range but is at it's best over 5k RPM.

 

[Slash]

Very few cars are actually that torque deprived these days. Even entry level economy cars come with decently torquey turbo engines. So what does it matter if you have to rev it? If you want to use the engine speed, hold the gear longer. No big deal.

You also say "just to get it going." We're not talking about 110lb/ft hondas here. We're talking about high revving 6cyl and V8s. This is a mustang thread. The mustang moves well throughout the RPM range but is at it's best over 5k RPM.

Maybe so nowadays, but for the last, oh I don't know, 40 years or so, that wasn't the case. In fact in most, they died at 4,000.

 

[MrWednesday]

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.

Sorry, I was unclear about what I meant.

There's nothing special about any particular fixed RPM number outside of the context of a specific car's power curve, or one car compared with another. I absolutely agree that the RPM with peak power matters (although even more important is the power at the RPMs at both ends of a gear change).

Once you're done launching from rest, power is king. HP is HP is HP, no matter the RPM. 300 HP at 3000 RPM in one car is identical to 300 HP at 7000 RPM in another (provided that both are geared appropriately). The advantage, such as it is, to being able to rev is that it takes less torque to make the power---meaning less strain on the drivetrain from the crank to the transmission input, but I'm not sure just how advantageous it is, all things considered.

 

[Slash]

Sorry, I was unclear about what I meant.

There's nothing special about any particular fixed RPM number outside of the context of a specific car's power curve, or one car compared with another. I absolutely agree that the RPM with peak power matters (although even more important is the power at the RPMs at both ends of a gear change).

Ah ok, that makes more sense. 👍

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Can we all just agree that the Mustang will have plenty of torque, like most modern cars? You won't be towing anything in a Mustang.

 

[ShobThaBob]

Can we all just agree that the Mustang will have plenty of torque, like most modern cars? You won't be towing anything in a Mustang.

I dunno about you, but I see mustangs with trailer hitches fairly often in Houston. One local guy on another enthusiast forum uses his to tow his boat.

 

[Slash]

I dunno about you, but I see mustangs with trailer hitches fairly often in Houston. One local guy on another enthusiast forum uses his to tow his boat.

I wasn't even aware that they made hitches for Mustangs.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Wow, I stand corrected. That was unexpected.

 

[Tornado]

It's probably just a standard car hitch. They don't make dedicated hitches for a lot of cars, but damned if I haven't seen a Corvette towing something once.

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

It has no relevance because the question is how much did it cost to get one (RE: "affordable"). Not how much people spent on top of that.

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.

Dude. You came into this thread claiming that the GTO and Mustang were just continuing what the Fairlane Thunderbolt (which, by the way, was a handbuilt, nearly-4000 dollar drag car that they only made 100 of) started the year earlier, then switched arguments and claimed that the GTO wasn't an affordable muscle car because it cost more than a Porsche 356. It was only after I pointed out that, no, it didn't, did you actually know what the cost of the car was in the first place.

That you can't see the irony in claiming that my argument is the weaker one because I used the word "pedestrian" in response to the lesser Tempest and you saw a way to make yourself look right anyway even after I stated both the price of the car and how much the option package was (Were you seriously attempting to make the implication that I can't do basic math? I'm aware of what 2800 - 300 is) isn't really my problem; especially not when the original GTO is pretty well known for being exactly what Eunos_Cosmo said it was.

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.👍

Or I was going to bed and I didn't want to bother responding anymore at the time because of how out of your way you were stretching to get something you could claim to be right about.

 

[MrWednesday]

It's probably just a standard car hitch. They don't make dedicated hitches for a lot of cars, but damned if I haven't seen a Corvette towing something once.

If nothing else, people who track their car may want to tow a set of track-dedicated wheels and tires.

 

[ShobThaBob]

I've seen a Boxster with a setup like that. It looked very goofy.

 

[Tornado]

And who can forget this thing:

Though that one might have been a factory hitch. Can't remember.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Those were a factory option, yes.

 

[dkong40]

Heck, my grandfather still tows his camper with his '64 falcon----with a 289 and c4---exactly the same as an early mustang.

Fact of the matter is though, a mustang is neither intended nor built for towing, whether it works or not is a moot point.

I see no reason to worry about torque. Most cars nowadays have torque numbers very close, if not higher than HP numbers. So unless they plan on putting a 60 horse motor in there, there'll be plenty of torque

 

[Zenith]

Very few cars are actually that torque deprived these days. Even entry level economy cars come with decently torquey turbo engines. So what does it matter if you have to rev it? If you want to use the engine speed, hold the gear longer. No big deal.

Yes. The loads people are hauling haven't changed much, but the performance standard has increased.

 

[niky]

Once you're done launching from rest, power is king. HP is HP is HP, no matter the RPM. 300 HP at 3000 RPM in one car is identical to 300 HP at 7000 RPM in another (provided that both are geared appropriately). The advantage, such as it is, to being able to rev is that it takes less torque to make the power---meaning less strain on the drivetrain from the crank to the transmission input, but I'm not sure just how advantageous it is, all things considered.

This is basically the long and short of it. The obsession with torque in automobiles is misplaced. What really matters is average horsepower over the powerband. "Torquey" engines are simply those that make more horsepower at low rpm than "High revving" engines. Making the power more accessible, but not necessarily more.

Of course torque gets a car moving. But torque is just the potential. The description of the actual work the torque does over time is called horsepower. Peak torque tells you at which speed a car accelerates fastest in first gear. Peak power tells you at which speed a car accelerates fastest at any speed thereafter. If a car had infinite gearing, you want to keep it at peak horsepower all the way down the 1320. Here's a graph I did for work a while back:

But I'd add... making more horsepower at lower rpm is advantageous in terms of the lifespan of the reciprocating assembly... and makes it easier to keep an engine at best BSFC (the Ecoboost, for example, has a wide range of revs and loads at which BSFC is optimum, compared to the V6)... though yes, it does put some strain on the drivetrain if you actually use all that torque.

-

This is what makes the Ecoboost great... or would if they could get the drivetrain programming right. All that low-end power makes it more flexible than the V6. A 2.3 with 300 hp or more would be nice (2.5 would be even better, but the .3 was obviously chosen for marketing reasons), and would probably be the better engine for performance... or towing, if that's your thing... but I still can't see it being the low-cost option... not with the current price premium.

 

[Omnis]

Torque is also great for twisting your jimmies.

 

[White & Nerdy]

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

That's what I've been saying, and saying, and saying, with no success. To me, that aspect of getting slammed back in the seat from low RPM is an important factor in the driving experience, but I guess most of this site would rather have a technical, sophisticated car that's missing that aspect. I want a car that's brutal, not technical, and I think the Mustang should be one of the more brutal cars available.

 

[Crash]

Why can't a car have both? Technical and sophisticated, and can be brutal?

 

[Slash]

That's what I've been saying, and saying, and saying, with no success. To me, that aspect of getting slammed back in the seat from low RPM is an important factor in the driving experience, but I guess most of this site would rather have a technical, sophisticated car that's missing that aspect. I want a car that's brutal, not technical, and I think the Mustang should be one of the more brutal cars available.

Thank you, this is why I love cars.


@crash

It would work but the mustang has always been a simple car with better than average performance. Always.

 

[homeforsummer]

but I guess most of this site would rather have a technical, sophisticated car that's missing that aspect

This crap again? Seriously?

 

[Slash]

This crap again? Seriously?

To an extent I agree with him. So say what you will.

 

[Wolfe]

To me, that aspect of getting slammed back in the seat from low RPM is an important factor in the driving experience...

Because that's the only performance-ish thing your GM econobox can do?

...I guess most of this site would rather have a technical, sophisticated car that's missing that aspect.

Personally, between a fast car that tricks my brain into thinking it's quicker than it is, and a fast car that's quicker than that first car, I'll take the car that's objectively quicker. Because going fast is the point of a fast car.

 

[niky]

I guess most of this site would rather have a technical, sophisticated car that's missing that aspect.

LOLWUT?

-

Sorry. Can't hear you. Too busy hunting T.Rexes...

 

[homeforsummer]

To an extent I agree with him. So say what you will.

Agreeing with him on something incorrect doesn't automatically make it more correct. See: Flat-Earthers.

Don't fall into W&N's trap of assuming everyone dislikes old-school stuff just because they're open-minded enough to also like newer, more advanced cars.

 

[Joel]

This fixation with torque is getting a bit silly. It's a Mustang, not a 3 cylinder Fiesta. The torque will be fine. I don't see anyone here saying the Mustang should be more like a 3 series.


It just continues to demonstrate that he (W&N) is utterly miserable about everything and nothing short of a CTS-V with no driving aids or insulation will make him happy. Even then the damn thing will have leather seats. Pah, Liberals.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I also love the notion that a car with less at-the-motor torque cannot push you back in your seat. Torque at the motor is a meaningless number. Power & Gearing pushes you back in the seat. I remember riding in a naturally aspirated, bridgeport 12a powered first gen RX-7 with 5.15 rear axle ratio. You want brutal? That thing was as brutal as you can get. He pinned the throttle in 2nd gear at around 3,000rpm (which is where W&N's car starts running out of puff) and, as expected there wasn't a whole lot happening. It felt about like my stock 13b. The pace quicked at around 5,000rpm as the ports really started to work. At 7,500rpm it felt like a grenade went off and the tachometer exploded all the way to 10,500rpm in what felt like an instant. Accompanying this was this unhinged noise as the carefully tuned intake and exhaust began resonating, and a constant stream of fireballs popping out of the exhaust, as only a big-ported rotary can give you.

You can keep your lumpy-torque, meagerly-responsive, drowsy iron-block engine. I'll take the savage, relentless pursuit of the redline and electric feel & response that only a highly tuned 'sophisticated' engine can deliver.

 

[Organ-Donor]

"Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races" - Carroll Shelby

 

[Beeblebrox237]

"Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races" - Carroll Shelby

Formula 1, anybody?

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

"Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races" - Carroll Shelby