2015 Ford Mustang - General Discussion

[Omnis]

See, but I'm not talking about materials. I'm talking about design. It doesn't need to be upholstered in premium Horween horse's ass. It just needs to not be such a retro ****up.

 

[Keef]

Yeah, Mustang interiors are pretty boring. Maybe the next one will be the pioneering departure we actually want.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I can't think of a single Mustang that has had a good looking interior.

64-66

67-68

69-70

71-74

74-78

79-86

87-93

94-04

05-14(05-09 cars were slightly different)

The 67/68 probably gets the closest to 'right' but none of them are particularly nice. I actually happen to like the first generation fox interior (79-86) but I doubt anybody else would.

 

[Slash]

The 67-70, 74-78 and 79-86 are my favorites.

 

[Adamgp]

I like them all.

 

[Slash]

I like them all.

As do I, but I like some more than others. It comes down to color combinations as well. Some of those, like the 1971-73, look terrible in that color. A better example would be something like this:

The MII also had several different variations.

 

[Keef]

They've all been very upright, more like a minivan than a proper sports car. Even in the latest models the driving position just ain't right.

 

[Tornado]

I always liked the SN-95 ones. If they weren't made of shoestring and gum they wouldn't have been so bad. The SN-95 in general did a really good job of being "retro" without being obnoxious, or even particularly obvious about it.





And 120mph speedometer on the Pinto.

 

[Slash]

And 120mph speedometer on the Pinto.

It's not exactly hard to get to that speed with the V8, especially with the gearing they were offered with. I've seen the stock 4 cylinder go over 100.

They've all been very upright, more like a minivan than a proper sports car. Even in the latest models the driving position just ain't right.

This isn't a Ferrari. It never has been, and it has never tried to be.

 

[Tornado]

Lot's of cars can go 100mph when you drive them off a cliff. The Pinto was no exception:


(Nazi language warning.)

 

[Slash]

I don't know why it's so hard for you to believe that it won't do anything over 100. The car weighs practically nothing, it had highway gears and the V8 had adequate power to get you to 130 if you pushed it hard enough. My friends mild 302'd Cobra has been up to 145, and it was still pulling. I would know, I was with him the last time we had it out. It's not particularly hard. It does not take a lot of power to get that car to go.

Here's a 2.3L Fox pegging the speedo without issue. Weight is about the same, power about the same. Not going to win any races getting there though, that's for sure.




The V8 can and will do it a lot easier, and it will go much faster. My friends 305 pickup truck will do 110 like it's nothing. Been there, done that.

 

[Tornado]

I don't know why it's so hard for you to believe that it won't do anything over 100.

Because you still refuse to learn anything in regards to your assumptions about what an atrocious car even by mid-1970s standards is capable of; to the extent that simply joking about how awful they were seems to cause you to go on these whiny tangents. Presumably Because 5.0.

The car weighs practically nothing,

Weight has practically nothing to do with top speed. The fact that the front of the Mustang II looks like a Pinto that someone beat with a stick in a vaguely Camaro-ish shape, resulting in this:

Does.

it had highway gears and the V8 had adequate power to get you to 130 if you pushed it hard enough.

If you pushed it with a Ferrari, sure. The fastest car made in America you could get in the mid-70s, the SD-455 Trans Am, could not go that fast. Again, no way in hell that a car with less than half as much horsepower would.



Put another way:

Claimed horsepower for the stock 302 was 134 hp. No stock car has been officially timed to 60 mph faster than 10 seconds.... lending credence to the number. Most of the V8 Mustang IIs have been timed to worse than that... in the mid- to low- 11s.

A 134 hp car, with a coefficient of drag of over 0.50, is not going to hit 130 mph on a level road, not in your wildest dreams, no matter how long your gearing (and the longer the gearing, the less power you're putting down...). And the aero addenda on the Cobra and the King, the ridiculous air dam and the wing, make it more brick-like than the stock Mustang II.

My friends mild 302'd Cobra has been up to 145, and it was still pulling. I would know, I was with him the last time we had it out. It's not particularly hard. It does not take a lot of power to get that car to go.

I'm fairly certain a mildly modified Mustang II would not have a top speed higher than a BMW M635CSi, as one example of a car going into production at around that time.

Here's a 2.3L Fox pegging the speedo without issue. Weight is about the same, power about the same. Not going to win any races getting there though, that's for sure.

It's pegging the 85 MPH speedometer, meaning it's pulling 95. Ooh boy.

The Fox in that video also looked like this:

I don't think there should be any argument over which one is more aerodynamic.

The V8 can and will do it a lot easier, and it will go much faster. My friends 305 pickup truck will do 110 like it's nothing. Been there, done that.

110 is not 120. It sure as hell isn't 130. I can personally attest that a stripper Chevrolet Colorado will do (a scary as hell) 110. It also has 40 more horsepower than the best engine you could get in the Mustang II.

 

[niky]

And this is still not taking into consideration that between the speedometer error inherent on most production cars and the differences in standard and replacement tire sizes (even if the tires have the same numbers on the sidewall, they can vary by a whole lot).

The speedometer is the worst way of figuring out how fast you're going. Unless you have a completely stock Mustang II doing 130 mph on the V-Box, then there's no story there.

 

[Slash]

Because you still refuse to learn anything in regards to your assumptions about what an atrocious car even by mid-1970s standards is capable of; to the extent that simply joking about how awful they were seems to cause you to go on these whiny tangents. Presumably Because 5.0.

How awful they were...I'll give you they aren't the best Mustang off that lot, that's a given, but they aren't awful. I can think of many cars out there much, much worse.

Weight has practically nothing to do with top speed.

I will stop you right there. Yes, it does. It has a very big impact. You can't possibly sit there and tell me that if I took one car that had X amount of horsepower and is Y heavy, and clocked a top speed of 140mph, and then took the same car and gave it Z weight (significantly more) and left the power, the the top speed wouldn't be lower? Right....

That's why fast cars weigh umpteen thousand pounds and are sooooo heavy...

The fact that the front of the Mustang II looks like a Pinto that someone beat with a stick in a vaguely Camaro-ish shape, resulting in this:

Does.

I will agree, it isn't the most aerodynamic car in the world.

If you pushed it with a Ferrari, sure. The fastest car made in America you could get in the mid-70s, the SD-455 Trans Am, could not go that fast. Again, no way in hell that a car with less than half as much horsepower would.

Really, because I'm reading here that an SD-455 Trans Am will do 165mph.

http://smoothprimo.s5.com/custom.html

I'm fairly certain a mildly modified Mustang II would not have a top speed higher than a BMW M635CSi, as one example of a car going into production at around that time.

When you consider that stock Foxes will do 138 without issue (they start getting jumpy though), I'd say 145 is entirely doable if not higher, and has been done. I was in the car when it happened. You are also forgetting it's not the original engine, but one out of a 1984 Fox (not that it matters anyway, smae engine). I will say the car was getting increasingly unstable however.

It's pegging the 85 MPH speedometer, meaning it's pulling 95. Ooh boy.

So what? The V8 will pull a lot harder, stronger and longer than that measly pile of poop.

The Fox in that video also looked like this:

I don't think there should be any argument over which one is more aerodynamic.

Even still. The change in drag coefficient isn't extremely significant from one car or another, believe it or not.

110 is not 120. It sure as hell isn't 130. I can personally attest that a stripper Chevrolet Colorado will do (a scary as hell) 110. It also has 40 more horsepower than the best engine you could get in the Mustang II.

It also weighs about 3,000 lbs MORE. Still going to tell me that weight doesn't play a role? It is not aerodynamic whatsoever. It is a brick with an open bed. And it was still pulling, with ease. Unfortunately, it's electronically limited so I couldn't tell you how fast it will really go. I think the Mustang has the advantage, by a long shot.

And this is still not taking into consideration that between the speedometer error inherent on most production cars and the differences in standard and replacement tire sizes (even if the tires have the same numbers on the sidewall, they can vary by a whole lot).

My friends happened to be identical to stock. It admittedly was getting squirrelly.

 

[1241Penguin]

That's why fast cars are soooo heavy...

Yes, yes they are.

Anyway weight doesn't affect top speed. It only affects acceleration. I'll have to check with some other GTP members for the physics behind it, but to my knowledge, aerodynamics and gearing are what affects top speed.

 

[Slash]

Yes, yes they are.

Anyway weight doesn't affect top speed. It only affects acceleration. I'll have to check with some other GTP members for the physics behind it, but to my knowledge, aerodynamics and gearing are what affects top speed.

I'd beg to differ. More weight means more pressure on the wheels/tires and more contact to the ground, therefore increasing rolling friction with the ground, thus slowing the car from reaching a higher potential top speed. More friction means it takes more power to turn them, when that power could easily be applied to getting it moving faster in the long run. The Veyron is heavy yes, but I'd argue it might go faster overall if they shaved some weight off it.

Weight can be a good thing as long is it's not too much and doesn't cause extreme traction issues. It can be good for acceleration over the driven wheels, but it will ultimately hurt top end. This is why weight distribution is important. You see this with ATV's. Take a Banshee that does in the mid 80s stock and put it's motor into a heavy utility quad and watch that drop rapidly. Make that same utility quad as aerodynamic as the Banshee and it will still be slower. A 500cc utility quad that makes 38 horsepower will get SPANKED by a 250R with the same power. Why? Because it's LIGHTER. The utility will barely make it to 55mph. Meanwhile, that 250R will be up in the mid 70s.

 

[niky]

For an automobile that isn't sitting on four squashy off-road balloons pumped with air just above ambient pressure, weight isn't a domineering factor in determining a car's top speed. Yes, it has an effect on whether you can get there before you run out of road, but aerodynamics matters more.

My car, stock, tops out at about 130 mph. With just 135-140 hp. My car's coefficient of drag is a lowly 0.33. A Mustang II clocks in at well over 0.40... and should require about 180-200 hp to hit the same speeds.

And as my post, that Toronado quoted, points out... the Mustang II's tested 0-60 times suggest that it had nowhere near 180-200 horsepower.

 

[Doog]

It also weighs about 3,000 lbs MORE. Still going to tell me that weight doesn't play a role? It is not aerodynamic whatsoever. It is a brick with an open bed. And it was still pulling, with ease. Unfortunately, it's electronically limited so I couldn't tell you how fast it will really go. I think the Mustang has the advantage, by a long shot.

A base Colorado weighs about 3800 lbs, so unless a Mustang II only weighs 800 lbs...

 

[Slash]

For an automobile that isn't sitting on four squashy off-road balloons pumped with air just above ambient pressure, weight isn't a domineering factor in determining a car's top speed. Yes, it has an effect on whether you can get there before you run out of road, but aerodynamics matters more.

My car, stock, tops out at about 130 mph. With just 135-140 hp. My car's coefficient of drag is a lowly 0.33. A Mustang II clocks in at well over 0.40... and should require about 180-200 hp to hit the same speeds.

And as my post, that Toronado quoted, points out... the Mustang II's tested 0-60 times suggest that it had nowhere near 180-200 horsepower.

My uncles old 375hp brick of a Challenger made it up to 160 without issues, I can't see why a II can't get at least 125.


You can coax some of that power back by turning the distributor cap and advancing the timing. These engines had very retarded timing. Given that its internal specs are a bit hotter, especially the cam, than the Foxes for the most part it's not hard to regain what it lost at the factory. You want to know how they got that power back in the Foxes until the mid 80s with the introduction of the HO 302 with a roller cam? They advanced the timing. That's all other than the addition of a duraspark distributor sometime in the 70s which is on par with MSD systems. Turn it and bam instant horsepower. Even better if you recurve it. The heads didn't change until the late 80s with E7TEs and those aren't even the cream of the crop.

You are also forgetting it had a somewhat decent amount of torque being put down as well. Maybe 120 would be a better number. But I still think it can do better, especially since we had my friends as high as I've said with not a lot done to it. It is very easy to make these cars fast. Especially since it has the exact same engine as the Fox.

I love how you guys make it sound so god awful when the previous 71-73 cars that had the same 302 were actually slower by 2 full seconds and hardly made any changes to the engine itself, but somehow it sucks because Mii. That makes no sense. Thats like saying all 302s suck. No. They just dropped the big blocks for the II.

A base Colorado weighs about 3800 lbs, so unless a Mustang II only weighs 800 lbs...

A mustang II weighs 1,000 lbs less on average. They range from 2,650-3,000 base on engine and body style. Most sit around 2,850, similar to the Fox.

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

What matters more is which part of the RPM band the torque and power are made. If the peak torque and power are made under 5k RPM, where as reaching the theoretical top speed of 120mph+ would require the engine screaming at 6500RPM at top gear.. It just won't be happening. The motor won't have power and especially no torque at those revs which would be needed to overcome the exponentially increasing drag.

 

[Kent]

Took a moment to look at previous replies and so few seem to be related to this thread.

The new mustang has better style than most others.
The engine options (rumored) are great... And the numbers will be published by reputable companies.
I see no reason to complain about the newest version of the mustang.

That said...
"My uncle's" anything has no bearing on the subject. Every car is different and to act like any company building off an established platform should need to conform to unique guidelines is ridiculous.

To suggest tuning, or changing any setting, is again ridiculous.
Once I got a golf cart over 30mph... Does that mean GCs can go 30? Heck no.
When we start talking about different cars, or even different cars that have been modified I see no reason to make comparisons. It's foolish and contemptuous.

I'd beg to differ. More weight means more pressure on the wheels/tires and more contact to the ground, therefore increasing rolling friction with the ground, thus slowing the car from reaching a higher potential top speed. More friction means it takes more power to turn them, when that power could easily be applied to getting it moving faster in the long run. The Veyron is heavy yes, but I'd argue it might go faster overall if they shaved some weight off it

You lost your credentials at the word "easily."
Weight, drag, power, it's a combination of many factors and if you think shaving a few pounds, or easily shaving weight off the veyron will yield a higher top speed then you clearly missed out on the top engineering position at VW/Audi. :unimpressed:

All that said, whoever said fast cars are heavy is also mistaken (imho).
Fast is a relative term so it's not easy to define. However, "most" fast cars are not heavy. F1, Nascar, WRX STI , Corvettes, Ferraris, even cars like the GTR are not heavy compared to the Veyron, the veyron is the exception to the rule, not the standard.

Cars considered heavy by the industry like the GTR come in under 3600 lbs. ... the Veyron is over 4100 lbs. All that weight is for luxury and tech to make it go fast. Batteries, radiators, etc...

Please understand that being heavy is not a goal for fast car, it's a bi-product of the equipment necessary to make SOME cars go fast.

 

[niky]

My uncles old 375hp brick of a Challenger made it up to 160 without issues, I can't see why a II can't get at least 125.

What a Challenger can do with over twice the horsepower, or what modifications you can make to a Mustang has no bearing on how fast a stock Mustang with 136 hp can do. Ergo, just because you can tune a Civic to 500 whp and a top speed in excess of 160 mph, doesn't mean it makes sense to give the stock car a speedometer that goes anywhere beyond 120 mph.

136 hp is barely enough to get a car with a drag coefficient of 0.30 up to 120 mph. In a car with a drag coefficient of 0.44 (Mustang II), it's not even remotely close to enough.

And that's all there is to it. Thus, to say Oh Em Gee, El Oh El upon seeing that a Mustang II's speedometer goes up to 120 mph isn't so far out there.

 

[ildd]

My 163hp, .27 dr CO car can go 143 without the limiter. And 5 gears, but that's less relevant.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Please stop feeding. Please.

 

[Omnis]

The important thing to note here is that those people that said they liked those interiors have forever ruined their credibility.

 

[Slash]

What matters more is which part of the RPM band the torque and power are made. If the peak torque and power are made under 5k RPM, where as reaching the theoretical top speed of 120mph+ would require the engine screaming at 6500RPM at top gear.. It just won't be happening. The motor won't have power and especially no torque at those revs which would be needed to overcome the exponentially increasing drag.

Tire size, transmission and axle gearing will tell you what RPM the engine is revving at what MPH. It makes power at 4,000 and torque at 2,200. With a factory 2.79 highway ratio and either 4 speed or 3 speed it would have to spin to 4,800 to get to 130, and that's not exactly hard to get it to spin that high (800rpm higher), wether it makes a ton of power or not. With a 3.55 ratio it would spin 1,000 higher. Top speed on this car is entirely dependant on your axle ratio. Torque still gets applied, but not nearly as quickly as say the 3.55 gears. That's why people swap them for acceleration.

120 mph would require it spinning at 4,500. Still totally doable.

modifications you can make to a Mustang has no bearing on how fast a stock Mustang with 136 hp can do.

Except you aren't replacing anything to gain power. You are using entirely stock parts. It is still 100% stock. I don't consider anything a "mod" until you start replacing parts, and considering how the factory themselves did this on engines DURING the production run of the II, I'd say it's not a mod at all.

136 hp is barely enough to get a car with a drag coefficient of 0.30 up to 120 mph. In a car with a drag coefficient of 0.44 (Mustang II), it's not even remotely close to enough.

Maybe on paper, but see above. It spins just barely higher than peak power to get to 130mph.

You guys are also forgetting that just because it was rated 140hp at 4,000rpm does not mean it won't continue to increase in power as the RPM rises. You see this on older motors, their gross rating of 375hp was at a specific RPM, yet at a higher RPM, more power was made. Not uncommon.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

This thread:

 

[Tornado]

Except the Mustang II was a net rating, so implying that the "they rated it at a lower rpm" concept that had no basis in reality to begin with (even when manufacturers were already outright lying about horsepower) applies in this case is a complete load much like every other misconception you've continued to spread about the car in the face of actual information to the contrary.

 

[Slash]

Except the Mustang II was a certified horsepower rating, so that's a complete load much like every other misconception you've continued to spread about the car in the face of actual information to the contrary.

Have you ever even toyed with one? They do pull past their rating @ rpm, maybe not a lot, but they do. I'm not saying in stock form it's a screamer, that's definitely not true. Anyone who has had any experience with any 302 will tell you that. Especially when you actually look at the technical specs of the engine itself all the way down to PTV clearance, cam specs, and valve lash. The only thing heavily restricting that thing from making somewhat decent power are the heads (tiny valves/ports) and timing.

 

[Tornado]

Have you ever even toyed with one?

Have you ever read any post on this subject the multiple times in the past you've made a fool of yourself parroting nonsense info you've heard on muscle car forums with no basis in reality?

Because at this point I can only assume that you are intentionally spreading false information, because no one can possibly say the same nonsense and be corrected that many times and not have it take.

They do pull past their rating @ rpm, maybe not a lot, but they do.

An engine spinning past its power peak? Fascinating. Do explain.