MPG?

↓↑report

Poulton: WTF? I'll say this slowly, and I'll say it just once. There isn't a single person alive today, in any of the 50 states, the District of Columbia or Canada, that is interested in purchasing any high performance crate motor that gives a piss about the MPG.

Okay all things are not for everyone, and obviously you should have skipped over this particular topic. This is so way over your head.

↓↑report

Who said fast cars can't be friendly to environment & provide more miles per gallon? If "Auto-Makers" were too busy by accomodating OIL Importers, We, the people, would have a car that can actually run fast without hurting our future. Horsepower war is over. It IS time for the car companies to assist the consumer. But you are rich & ignorant, so you won't understand.

↓↑report

Pluton: I will guess that it gets a stunning ZERO miles to the gallon. This is because it's a crate engine, and has no means of moving itself.

And yes, the automakers are sitting on the cheap, fast, 100 MPG car, because they want to make sure the oil companies are making enough money. They don't need to worry about their bottom line, and the boatloads of profit that car would generate.

↓↑report

Poulton: Ever heard of Autoblog Green?

The HP war is not over, it will just go back to being guerilla warfare all over again.

Why do you think that all major US manufacturers offer "Crate Engines"? They'll sell you the CAFE approved weakling at the showroom, and if you so desire you can purchase a full factory warrantied crate motor, that turns it into a beast. .....and there is nothing that you or the federal can do about it.

BTW: if you want a fuel efficient buy the V6 'Stang. If you want one of these beasts, it can be had at a price. Fuel efficiency is a part of that price.

Not rich yet, still working at it though.

↓↑report

poor pluton, a simple little parrot with no cracker.

he doesn't understand economics and blames oil companies for his woes.... one day, when he grows up, I heard he wants to be responsible!

↓↑report

Well Said Mr. Oak!!

↓↑report

I was wondering if one could be shoehorned into a new Ranger?

↓↑report

Wow, you took the thoughts right out of my head!

↓↑report

Ariel Atom

'nuff said

↓↑report

You know ford won a sportscar mfct championship in 2005 (and 2nd in 2007) on this exact RWD chassis and suspension,eh? That was against 997s, M3s, and your precious Nissans, which btw have never been in the top 3 in points. look it up. Koni Challenge.

↓↑report

For peat's freakin sake.

We've been through this. It is a bullcrap excuse and attempt at justification.

Any tuned car can do pretty well, or even very well on a pool table smooth track. That is the only place, aside from under a TRUCK, that a solid axle does well.

I don't drive on a freakin' track. I don't RACE to work. I drive to work, on some pretty uneven broken pavement surfaces, and that isn't going to change.

An independent axle does better over real-world streets. No two ways about it. BECAUSE IT IS FREAKIN INDEPENDENT!!!!

Most of the more powerful mustangs push the scales from 3600lbs to north of 4000lbs. That is not light for a two door coupe. In an era of ever increasing hysteria over fuel mileage, why are light cars such an anathema to the market? (gov't safety regs are part of it)

People could keep horsepower and torque, and would gladly give up weight. Why are the muscle-car triplets so heavy, with no real 2+2 alternative from the "big 3"? Solstice targa 2 seater is the most compelling performance car in quite some time from any of them.

I don't begrudge people their taste for nostalgia in the Mustang's styling. I like looking at mustangs, but I wouldn't buy one. I liked the Grand Canyon, too, but that doesn't mean I want to live in it.

My precious nissans??? I like the G37 because it looks good, and drives from the correct end, both at the same time. Unfortunately, it is just as heavy as the Mustang, but nicer inside and out for the weight, and price, and happens to have about as much horsepower out of a 3.7 V6 that the Shelby GT has, upgraded from the GT, with a liter and two piston advantage.

The Mustang's fit, finish, ride quality, and design have nothing on the Infiniti. Ford could do it, but they chose not to. I would like a Mercury just as much or more than the Infiniti, if Ford would build a mercury that looked as good as the G37 does.

As of now, I am most enthused about the forthcoming potential of an AWD Subaru coupe, that WILL be relatively light weight, and have more traction with better handling than a production Mustang could dream of. We have yet to see what it will look like, though.

Funny, all of the other cars you mentioned, M3, Nissan Z, Porsche, are all 6-cylinder cars. Mustang has two more cylinders and a liter of displacement advantage. Probably to overcome the balance and weight problem that the mustang has, compared to the others.

I would drive ANY of those other cars over a Mustang on the street. I have driven an S197 Mustang on the street, and was not impressed. Nice, but not impressive.

The engine they describe is a nice engine, and I like the ford modular engine in general. But the Mustang isn't all that. It is just what it is, and what it is, is a live-axle, big, heavy two-door car. Not everybody wants that, I hope you realize.

↓↑report

@mk

Not that I disagree with everything you've just said, but perhaps you should reconsider putting a crate motor into your daily driver. Just trying to stay on topic here.

↓↑report

Properly installed, a crate engine should not be any different than a
factory installed engine, (granted, no warranty) if the engine and
chassis are compatible, including the ECU. Most Ford Modular motors
are quite cross compatible.

But still, even a weekend warrior with a crate engine, would still
spend far more time on the street than on any track.

But you are right, this is about engine, not about chassis or body.
Although about the only Ford car to put this in would be an older
ford, or a current Mustang or truck. With Saleen, I would figure this
would be sold as an engine upgrade option for modular engine fitted
Mustangs, with their benefits and drawbacks.

Money and availability not being an issue, I would consider the same with the mentioned Subaru coupe that is forthcoming... and transplanting in a current or near future STI-grade 300+ hp turbocharged flat-4, if the car isn't available as such from the factory. Subaru engines are also quite modular and cross-compatible.

↓↑report

"The Mustang's fit, finish, ride quality, and design have nothing on the Infiniti."

Note to MK dude: Infiniti is a luxury car. It better have a nicer finish and interior.

As for "any tuned car...". How come you clowns always forget the other cars racing are tuned, and are supposed to be "true" sportscars. The 350Z tuned and 997 tuned and M3 tuned got their lunch fed to them by S197 stangs regular for 3 years. In 2005 it was TOTAL dominance. Why don't you read up on Koni specs before saying more jackass coments? The S197 is an exceptional platform, and best of all its cheap.

↓↑report

@mk,

Did you happen to catch the outcome of the Speed World Challenge GT race at Long Beach?

That's right, a road track (that's real world roads closed off for the weekend and turned into a race track) won by get this- a solid axle Mustang, up against Porsche GT3s (turbo 6), Corvettes (V8), Vipers (V10), CTS-Vs (V8) and other assorted cars in the field. The driver is also competing in his first full year in the series and was up against factory drivers and previous series champions.

Also for the record, most tracks are not pool-table-smooth, and a good driver uses the rumble strips to get that few feet extra of track space to keep as high a corner speed as possible.

I will grant you that IRS does help in the bumps around turns, but not as much as you claim it does. It's much more for comfort than performance. I'm not saying that the Mustang shouldn't get IRS, though I've never needed it (on track or on the street), but it was obviously a decent choice and setup in that car.

↓↑report