- 23,800
- Philippines
Sorry, again?
The correct statement would be:
"Peak horsepower sells cars, average horsepower over the usable power band wins races."
2015 Ford Mustang - General Discussion
- Thread starter CodeRedR51
- 6,247 comments
- 422,311 views
Sorry, again?
The correct statement would be:
"Peak horsepower sells cars, average horsepower over the usable power band wins races."
ShobThaBob
Premium
- 2,651
- rosooftw
Easily the most misunderstood quote in the automotive world.
- 34,949
- Indian Falls, NY
- slashfan7964
- 8,191
- Southern Louisiana
- GTP_Kent
I'd say my fav misunderstood quote went something like...
"So many people think brakes are for slowing down
"+1 to anyone who can name the speaker.
- 19,700
- Alabamamania
He also was a spokesman in ads for Z-Max. Which costs money and adds nothing.
- 2,364
- Albuquerque, NM
- BloodDiamondPant
Granted if they do put a Turbo 4 in the next mustang I would love to get one. At our altitude (5000+ft above sea level) a turbo car might be more fun than a NA car of same rated HP.
- 2,523
- South Florida
- Organ-Donor
Pupik
I just stated his quote, nothing more nothing less.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
I don't see the big deal with the 4cyl, I'm sure people can see what they'd be reviving by doing this.
If no one else has said it yet (didn't see it)
If no one else has said it yet (didn't see it)
- 422
- Eastern MA
- Odin_Wednesday
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
The Turbo GT?
SVO you mean 👍
- 2,364
- Albuquerque, NM
- BloodDiamondPant
Oh hell yeah! As long as Ford doesn't make the same mistake as the orignal on pricing I will be waiting inline for one lol
- 422
- Eastern MA
- Odin_Wednesday
Check your batteries, your humor detector appears to be broken.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
- 4,209
- Wasilla, AK
You notice the grenade effect didn't come until 7500 ridiculous RPM. Down low that car did nothing - and that's just in second!
@Everyone: the correct answer is Mustang II.
- 11,908
- Marin County
I also have a Jeep Cherokee with the 4 liter AMC straight six engine. That engine has prodigious torque from basically idle, and when you pin the throttle it does accelerate pretty good...briefly, but then it's out of guts by 3,000rpm. But in the Jeep's case, the low RPM, lumpy straight six is really a gem, because it feels industrial and strong. Not only that, but it just works so well in a utility vehicle. Putting a sophisticated, high revving engine in the Jeep would be just as crazy as putting an all iron OHV I6 into a small lightweight sports car.
For a Mustang, IMO, the engine should fall somewhere in the middle. A Mustang engine should have strong midrange and a relatively free revving nature, but should also have a torque rich bottom end. The current 5 liter is pure gold. If you haven't driven one, you need to. It's really a fantastic engine.
For a Mustang, IMO, the engine should fall somewhere in the middle. A Mustang engine should have strong midrange and a relatively free revving nature, but should also have a torque rich bottom end. The current 5 liter is pure gold. If you haven't driven one, you need to. It's really a fantastic engine.
Last edited:
- 34,949
- Indian Falls, NY
- slashfan7964
This. +1
- 27,219
- United Kingdom
Yup. To be honest, I can't see any of the possible engines being anything other than right for the job. The V8'll be good, and modern turbo 4s are pretty good too - lag has been basically eliminated and they have a great mid-range.
- 8,191
- Southern Louisiana
- GTP_Kent
I hate to sound like an old fart but for some reason a turbo 4 just doesn't seem right in a Mustang.
Truth be told, I don't particularly like the idea of a turbo anything in a mustang. Superchargers seem ok but the old american muscle just doesn't seem to mix well with turbos.
Of course, with that said, I've never really cared for any mustang that wasn't running a V8.
Admittedly, I have a bias with this so I don't really expect to see Ford feeling the same way I do. By the end of the year we might be looking at turbo 4 mustangs using a beefed up focus St engine. Hopefully they will at least leave the sound tube out of the interior so we get real engine noise and not amplified engine noise. 👍
Truth be told, I don't particularly like the idea of a turbo anything in a mustang. Superchargers seem ok but the old american muscle just doesn't seem to mix well with turbos.
Of course, with that said, I've never really cared for any mustang that wasn't running a V8.
Admittedly, I have a bias with this so I don't really expect to see Ford feeling the same way I do. By the end of the year we might be looking at turbo 4 mustangs using a beefed up focus St engine. Hopefully they will at least leave the sound tube out of the interior so we get real engine noise and not amplified engine noise. 👍
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
If ford never made the SVO I might agree with you Kent, but they did...
- 4,209
- Wasilla, AK
It's still got enough kick to fool people into thinking it's fast, and it probably would be at least slightly so if it hadn't been badly neglected.
(I think part of the problem was water in the gas tank. I just about ran it out of gas the other day. After slight refeulling (I had very little cash on hand), it ran much smoother and doesn't seem to have gotten appreciably worse since. Now I just need to check the spark plugs (original to the car, circa 1993), transmission fluid (frequent gear grinding and gritty, unlubricated-feeling shifts, probably running low), and install new shock absorbers (also original to the car, and make it handle like a drunk buffalo when the pedal is down)).
I agree with this. A Mustang shouldn't have turbo whistle or BOV noise, and it shouldn't have anything less than 6 cylinders - for the poser not-quite-a-real-Mustang variants. If you want a force-fed Mustang, use a supercharger. Less lag, less peakiness, and spur-gear noise is one kind of whine I certainly don't mind. A roaring V8 with a supercharger screming away... man, that's musical.
- 12,389
- Betelgeuse
- Beeblebrox_237
While I wouldn't buy a V8 Mustang, I would consider a Turbo 4 'Stang with a manual gearbox. It would, in my eyes, be a somewhat cool car, unlike the retro V8 Mustang of today. And nobody really wants a V6 Mustang.
- 4,209
- Wasilla, AK
A turbo 4 cooler than a V8?
I'm actually speechless. What would even drive someone to think that?
Also, mufflers are evil. Watch this:
As you can see, not only do the mufflers cover up that throaty V8 rumble with something significantly smoother and more sedate (seriously, how much effort went into making that car sound boring? Serious question), they also block off those tasty backfiring noises.
Somehow, somewhere, there's a muffler design that cuts volume just enough to satisfy regulations without making the car sound too smooth.
I'm actually speechless. What would even drive someone to think that?
Also, mufflers are evil. Watch this:
As you can see, not only do the mufflers cover up that throaty V8 rumble with something significantly smoother and more sedate (seriously, how much effort went into making that car sound boring? Serious question), they also block off those tasty backfiring noises.
Somehow, somewhere, there's a muffler design that cuts volume just enough to satisfy regulations without making the car sound too smooth.
- 4,209
- Wasilla, AK
I didn't say it had to sound exactly like that, though it could provide an effective deterrent. However the stock mufflers on a Crown Vic are so sedate the car barely sounds like it has a V8. Most cars aren't much better. So the question still stands, how much effort is put into intentionally making cars sound boring?
- 12,389
- Betelgeuse
- Beeblebrox_237
The realisation that a turbo 4 would weigh less, making the car handle better, would get better fuel economy than a thirsty V8, and would make good low end torque.
I agree. It doesn't sound all that nice to me, just ridiculous and unrefined, not to mention immature.
- 11,908
- Marin County
You have to realize that the typical crown vic buyer was either a government agency, a fleet service, or an octogenarian.
