4.6l 400hp Bullitt mustang ENGINE a NO-GO!!!?!!???

[White99GT]

I did the math using your numbers and I get $10,280...not including a harness or the specially calibrated ECM, another $1,500 I'm guessing, plus sundries, and you're at $12K.

 

Seriously, get a blower. New shortblock at $4K and the blower stuff at another $4K and you're money and power ahead.

 

You can reuse factory the PCM and harness with a tune. SCT XCal 2 is $300, dyno tune $300. You'll need a rpm activated window switch to operate the intake butterflies (long & short runner actuation).

 

This engine with decent headers would lay down 420+ rwhp n/a or about what your typical blown 3V (with a safe tune) makes with a $5,000 centrifugal blower kit and a stock bottom end. The Cammer would likely last longer doing it, run better times and love the spray with that compression.

 

I would take 420-430 n/a rwhp over 420-430 s/c rwhp anyday.

 

There are other, cheaper ways, to make this power with a 4V. If only Ford would make an aluminum version of the FR500 intake to make a build like this more viable.

[eddiehaskell]

**Ahem**

 

M-6007-T50EA*

The 5.0L DOHC 4-valve “Cammer” engine is an upgraded variant of the 4.6L DOHC 4-valve Mustang Cobra engine, with numerous changes for improved power and durability. This engine is completely electronically managed. As part of the “Cammer” crate engine program, a stand-alone harness and engine management computer will be available separately. This will allow the engine to be used for many applications.

 

With proper headers (not included) and low restriction air intake and vehicle exhaust systems, the engine will exceed 400 Bhp and have a very broad torque curve, peaking over 365 ft./lbs.

Your point being? The crate engine is rated at 400hp - bottom line. What are "proper headers" anyway? Longtubes? Low restriction exhaust? Would that be an off road midpipe and aftermarket catback? All of which will not be found on a stock Mustang.

[eddiehaskell]

:reading:

Edited January 30, 2007 by eddiehaskell

[Blueblood]

Blah, blah, blah. Why don't you go look up the bore and stroke for the BMW M3 I-6, the Honda S2000 I-4 or the Ferrari 360 Modena V-8 before talking about tiny bores not making power n/a. Seriously, educate yourself.

 

Multivalve tech allows for plenty of power n/a from small bores. The problem is FORD wasn't WILLING to develop an engine from scratch to make a high performance engine for a Mustang only application. They would probably need to design cylinder heads, an intake, and cams specific to the application, and they would probably need trick likes VVT on both sets of cams to make 400 emissions legal hp from a 4.6. Actually, all of the above is available straight from the FRPP catalog but those FR500 cams probably wouldn't meet emissions so they'd need to find 20 horsepower somewhere else.

 

Regardless, the engines will do it Ford just isn't willing. The aftermarket has proven these engines will EASILY eclipse 400 flywheel horsepower n/a. There are 530-540 horsepower 5.0 Cammers running around.

 

Obviously you don't know what you're talking about, it'sall about airflow, and if you think a motor with small bores can pass as much air as a big bore motor you are seriously ill-informed..

 

Go do your homework..

[White99GT]

Your point being? The crate engine is rated at 400hp - bottom line. What are "proper headers" anyway? Longtubes? Low restriction exhaust? Would that be an off road midpipe and aftermarket catback? All of which will not be found on a stock Mustang.

 

How is that the bottom line when Ford clearly states it will EXCEED 400 hp. Feel free to admit you're wrong at any point.

Edited January 31, 2007 by White99GT

[White99GT]

Obviously you don't know what you're talking about, it'sall about airflow, and if you think a motor with small bores can pass as much air as a big bore motor you are seriously ill-informed..

 

Go do your homework..

 

You're right, I don't have a clue, and apparently neither do all of the Asian and European high-performance engine manufacturers.

 

I'm such a nice guy I did your homework for you:

 

- 2004 Ford Mustang Mach 1 - 3.55" x 3.54" (bore x stroke), 310 hp, 4.6 liters, V8, 67.39 hp/liter (just a little memory refresher for you)

- 2004 Ferrari 360 Modena - 3.35" x 3.11" (bore x stroke), 400 hp, 3.6 liters, V8, 111 hp/liter

- 2004 Honda S2000 - 3.43" x 3.57" (b x s), 240 hp, 2.2 liters, I4, 109 hp/liter

- 2004 BMW M3 - 3.43" x 3.58" (b x s), 333 hp, 3.2 liters, I6, 104 hp/liter

- 2004 Lamboghini Gallardo - 3.25" x 3.65" (b x s), 500 hp, 5 liters, V10, 100 hp/liter

- 2004 Toyota Celica GTS - 3.23" x 3.35" (b x s), 180 hp, 1.8 liters, I4, 100 hp/liter

 

Gee whiz, those small bores are really killing these engines. Isn't it funny that the most volumetrically efficient, naturally aspirated, automobile engines in the world have smaller bores than the Modulars? See what happens when you show up to class without having completed your homework assignments?

 

Blueblood, in all seriousness, I never said a small bore will move the amount of air a larger bore will, HOWEVER, when you compare a small bore multi-valve engine to a two-valve large bore engine the small bore multivalve engine isn't NEARLY as handicapped by bore size/spacing as most would think.

 

The Mods bore doesn't look so bad when you recognize what Honda, BMW, Ferarri, Lambo, etc. are doing with even smaller bores. Like I've been saying all along, the Mods will easily make the power, Ford just isn't willing to make the investment. The Mods have just as much potential as any of the above engines, there is nothing "magical" about those darn FoRIN engines. Despite popular belief, BMW and Ferarri do NOT employ FAIRY DUST to make their numbers.

Edited January 31, 2007 by White99GT

[Sizzler]

You're right, I don't have a clue, and apparently neither do all of the Asian and European high-performance engine manufacturers.

 

I'm such a nice guy I did your homework for you:

 

- 2004 Ford Mustang Mach 1 - 3.55" x 3.54" (bore x stroke), 310 hp, 4.6 liters, V8, 67.39 hp/liter (just a little memory refresher for you)

- 2004 Ferrari 360 Modena - 3.35" x 3.11" (bore x stroke), 400 hp, 3.6 liters, V8, 111 hp/liter

- 2004 Honda S2000 - 3.43" x 3.57" (b x s), 240 hp, 2.2 liters, I4, 109 hp/liter

- 2004 BMW M3 - 3.43" x 3.58" (b x s), 333 hp, 3.2 liters, I6, 104 hp/liter

- 2004 Lamboghini Gallardo - 3.25" x 3.65" (b x s), 500 hp, 5 liters, V10, 100 hp/liter

- 2004 Toyota Celica GTS - 3.23" x 3.35" (b x s), 180 hp, 1.8 liters, I4, 100 hp/liter

 

Gee whiz, those small bores are really killing these engines. Isn't it funny that the most volumetrically efficient, naturally aspirated, automobile engines in the world have smaller bores than the Modulars? See what happens when you show up to class without having completed your homework assignments?

 

Blueblood, in all seriousness, I never said a small bore will move the amount of air a larger bore will, HOWEVER, when you compare a small bore multi-valve engine to a two-valve large bore engine the small bore multivalve engine isn't NEARLY as handicapped by bore size/spacing as most would think.

 

The Mods bore doesn't look so bad when you recognize what Honda, BMW, Ferarri, Lambo, etc. are doing with even smaller bores. Like I've been saying all along, the Mods will easily make the power, Ford just isn't willing to make the investment. The Mods have just as much potential as any of the above engines, there is nothing "magical" about those darn FoRIN engines. Despite popular belief, BMW and Ferarri do NOT employ FAIRY DUST to make their numbers.

 

 

This is just perpetuating a common myth: that all HP are equal. Your examples are proof only that the faster you CAN spin an engine, the more HP it will EVENTUALLY put out. Your examples are all high-rpm, low vehicle weight examples. Yeah, sure, if you narrow the bore, you can use a lighter piston which lets you spin the rotating assembly more, but in the real world Ford needs to satisfy, people don't want to listen to their Taurus spin at 10,000 rpm and replace/service the engine more frequently just to listen to it whine. The S2000 isn't doing too well sales-wise, why? because at the stoplight to stoplight level, it doesn't have the grunt to get it's lightweight butt going. It's owners will whine and beg for rolling starts, or 45mph starts, all to mask the basic lack of oomph from its tiny little bore.

 

Saying 400HP might be satisfying on some level, knowing that it's 400HP at 9,000 rpm doesn't, at least to someone who knows a little sumtin'. Push a car off a cliff and drive another one down the road to the base; yeah the cliff-jumper'll be going faster and get there quicker, but at the end of the race, when it's time to go home, stopping to pick up some groceries first, which car would you rather be driving?

[NickF1011]

This is just perpetuating a common myth: that all HP are equal. Your examples are proof only that the faster you CAN spin an engine, the more HP it will EVENTUALLY put out. Your examples are all high-rpm, low vehicle weight examples. Yeah, sure, if you narrow the bore, you can use a lighter piston which lets you spin the rotating assembly more, but in the real world Ford needs to satisfy, people don't want to listen to their Taurus spin at 10,000 rpm and replace/service the engine more frequently just to listen to it whine.

 

We're not talking about a Taurus engine. We're talking about a Mustang engine. I'd be pretty thrilled to have a 9000 rpm V8 in my Mustang. :happy feet:

[White99GT]

This is just perpetuating a common myth: that all HP are equal. Your examples are proof only that the faster you CAN spin an engine, the more HP it will EVENTUALLY put out. Your examples are all high-rpm, low vehicle weight examples. Yeah, sure, if you narrow the bore, you can use a lighter piston which lets you spin the rotating assembly more, but in the real world Ford needs to satisfy, people don't want to listen to their Taurus spin at 10,000 rpm and replace/service the engine more frequently just to listen to it whine. The S2000 isn't doing too well sales-wise, why? because at the stoplight to stoplight level, it doesn't have the grunt to get it's lightweight butt going. It's owners will whine and beg for rolling starts, or 45mph starts, all to mask the basic lack of oomph from its tiny little bore.

 

Saying 400HP might be satisfying on some level, knowing that it's 400HP at 9,000 rpm doesn't, at least to someone who knows a little sumtin'. Push a car off a cliff and drive another one down the road to the base; yeah the cliff-jumper'll be going faster and get there quicker, but at the end of the race, when it's time to go home, stopping to pick up some groceries first, which car would you rather be driving?

 

A 4.6L with a horsepower peak at ~6,800 rpm and setup to handle 7,500 rpm upshifts would be more than enough to make 400 horsepower, 9,000 rpm just isn't necessary. The Mach 1 and pre-'03 Cobra engines make peak horsepower below 6,000 rpm and suffer from a severe case of asthma after 6,300 rpm.

 

Get past the truck mentality, this would be a Mustang ONLY engine with a manual trans. With a variable intake and VVT it would make more than enough power down low, throw in a set of 4.56s and go beat down '03 Cobras.

 

Currently I run around with a short runner intake n/a 4V -- with a 5 speed, enough gear, and a light enough curb weight you never miss the lack of low end.

[Blueblood]

You're right, I don't have a clue, and apparently neither do all of the Asian and European high-performance engine manufacturers.

 

I'm such a nice guy I did your homework for you:

 

- 2004 Ford Mustang Mach 1 - 3.55" x 3.54" (bore x stroke), 310 hp, 4.6 liters, V8, 67.39 hp/liter (just a little memory refresher for you)

- 2004 Ferrari 360 Modena - 3.35" x 3.11" (bore x stroke), 400 hp, 3.6 liters, V8, 111 hp/liter

- 2004 Honda S2000 - 3.43" x 3.57" (b x s), 240 hp, 2.2 liters, I4, 109 hp/liter

- 2004 BMW M3 - 3.43" x 3.58" (b x s), 333 hp, 3.2 liters, I6, 104 hp/liter

- 2004 Lamboghini Gallardo - 3.25" x 3.65" (b x s), 500 hp, 5 liters, V10, 100 hp/liter

- 2004 Toyota Celica GTS - 3.23" x 3.35" (b x s), 180 hp, 1.8 liters, I4, 100 hp/liter

 

Gee whiz, those small bores are really killing these engines. Isn't it funny that the most volumetrically efficient, naturally aspirated, automobile engines in the world have smaller bores than the Modulars? See what happens when you show up to class without having completed your homework assignments?

 

Blueblood, in all seriousness, I never said a small bore will move the amount of air a larger bore will, HOWEVER, when you compare a small bore multi-valve engine to a two-valve large bore engine the small bore multivalve engine isn't NEARLY as handicapped by bore size/spacing as most would think.

 

 

And there you have it, multi-valve engines are able to move more air due to the valve area, not one of those engines is a 2 valve. Yes you can make the numbers, but at what cost? And none of those engines would work in a truck. How much room is there to grow naturally aspirated? Not much.. I don't think I've ever seen a head not pick up cfm on a larger bore. And isn't that what it's all about? Yea you can make exotic high revving engines belt out 500 horsepower from 5.0 Liters with small bores, but can you cheaply do it and do it better than a big bore engine? I've never been impressed with what Ford has done with the mods naturally aspirated, sure they can make huge numbers on boost, but not every F-150 and Mustang is gong to come from the factory with a blower. And Ford isn't going to put engines that redline at 9000 rpm in them either. So larger engines that have room for future expansion and larger bores just make sense. I see no reason to handicap an engine like the mod.

 

The Mods bore doesn't look so bad when you recognize what Honda, BMW, Ferarri, Lambo, etc. are doing with even smaller bores. Like I've been saying all along, the Mods will easily make the power, Ford just isn't willing to make the investment. The Mods have just as much potential as any of the above engines, there is nothing "magical" about those darn FoRIN engines. Despite popular belief, BMW and Ferarri do NOT employ FAIRY DUST to make their numbers.

 

 

In spending the cash to improve the mods Ford has done the right thing in just going with an all new engine built right from the beginning. Not only will the larger bores make the required numbers on atmospheric pressure alone, they will have room to grow in the future as they have more meat around the cylinders, and they will have wider bearing surfaces. On top of that, they will have the ability to rev much higher without the insane piston speeds that the 5.4 would see with it's king kong stroke. With a stroke as long as the 5.4, it should have displaced at least 400 inches, what a waste of space that motor is. As big and (heavy)? as a SOHC 427 but only a 331.

 

I cant wait to see pics and numbers for the Hurricane/BOSS!!!

Edited January 31, 2007 by Blueblood

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Something else to think about, especially for the S2000 and the celica GTS. Much better VVT systems than the non-existent VVT system on the 4V mods of that era. The Ferrari and the Lambo give no hints at even trying to be fuel efficient. And the BMW may have one of the most sophisticated engine and charge control systems that was contemporary to its introduction date. So, this isn't exactly an apples to apples comparison in that regard.

 

That being said, as you throw money and parts at the mod, they do make power. But, most of those mods that make big power also spin big numbers to make that power. I have always felt that if Ford had provisioned the mobs for GDI with they came up with the 3V heads, it would have made for a fairly fantastic setup, especially if they had also done an aluminum 5.4L block. Remember, the power numbers that the mods are seeing right now are with regular unleaded. Taking them to the next two logical levels of power upgrades that are factory doable, you get the following chart...

 

block 4.6 3V 5.4 3V

Measure HP TQ HP TQ

Current 300 320 300 360

with GDI 320 345 330 390

with Premium fuel 330 350 335 395

With Both 355 380 365 430

 

That's assuming that they attempt to balance the efficiency gains of the GDI with power and fuel economy while favoring power and also assuming that they raise the compression ration and tune the cams of the engines to match the capabilities brought by both improvements. Those numbers aren't pie in the sky as they represent rather conservative tuning modifications for both plants. Most of the aforementioned engines are all tuned and setup with premium fuel in mind from the factory. The current crop of mods, the GT500 plant not withstanding, are setup for regular unleaded.

[Hugh]

Something else to think about, especially for the S2000 and the celica GTS. Much better VVT systems than the non-existent VVT system on the 4V mods of that era. The Ferrari and the Lambo give no hints at even trying to be fuel efficient. And the BMW may have one of the most sophisticated engine and charge control systems that was contemporary to its introduction date. So, this isn't exactly an apples to apples comparison in that regard.

 

That being said, as you throw money and parts at the mod, they do make power. But, most of those mods that make big power also spin big numbers to make that power. I have always felt that if Ford had provisioned the mobs for GDI with they came up with the 3V heads, it would have made for a fairly fantastic setup, especially if they had also done an aluminum 5.4L block. Remember, the power numbers that the mods are seeing right now are with regular unleaded. Taking them to the next two logical levels of power upgrades that are factory doable, you get the following chart...

 

block 4.6 3V 5.4 3V

Measure HP TQ HP TQ

Current 300 320 300 360

with GDI 320 345 330 390

with Premium fuel 330 350 335 395

With Both 355 380 365 430

 

That's assuming that they attempt to balance the efficiency gains of the GDI with power and fuel economy while favoring power and also assuming that they raise the compression ration and tune the cams of the engines to match the capabilities brought by both improvements. Those numbers aren't pie in the sky as they represent rather conservative tuning modifications for both plants. Most of the aforementioned engines are all tuned and setup with premium fuel in mind from the factory. The current crop of mods, the GT500 plant not withstanding, are setup for regular unleaded.

I agree that the Modulars still have life in them if you invest. I am getting the feeling (My thoughts not specualtion or rumor) that the Modulars are on their way out. With the potential of the new Duratec/MZI family and the Boss, it seems logical.

I am sure modifications and parts for Modular fans will be around for quite a while. I personnally think there's nothing wrong with them. The original comments for the 4.6 2v in the Town Car were great (C/D 1991?).

[NickF1011]

I am sure modifications and parts for Modular fans will be around for quite a while. I personnally think there's nothing wrong with them.

 

With the hundreds of thousands of modular Mustangs out there, I'm sure the aftermarket for them will be sound for several decades. After all, the venerable "5.0" was used in the Mustang for about the same amount of time (82?-95) as the modular has (96-09+) and we know the aftermarket for them isn't going away anytime soon.

[jlsaylor]

We're not talking about a Taurus engine. We're talking about a Mustang engine. I'd be pretty thrilled to have a 9000 rpm V8 in my Mustang. :happy feet:

 

Hmm, I don't know about that. I wouldn't mind an insane revver in a Boss 302 revival, but in the modern era the value of torque has been vastly under-rated more often than not. Mercedes is the perfect example of deft execution in motors which seldom blow you away with their hp rating, and yet the cars almost always posses great acceleration. This is because Mercedes kills their competitors with torque.

 

A 9000rpm V-8 is likely be a strictly high rpm show, and that just in't appealing to me. I'm not advocating a return to low rpm, huge cube big blocks that are out of breath by 4500rpm mind you. But I do like a nice mix of torque and hp in my mills with just a bit of emphasis on low end torque. The Boss V-8 seems likely to provide just that.

Edited January 31, 2007 by jlsaylor

[eddiehaskell]

How is that the bottom line when Ford clearly states it will EXCEED 400 hp. Feel free to admit you're wrong at any point.

Why don't they rate it over 400hp? Feel free to admit you're wrong at any point.

[White99GT]

Why don't they rate it over 400hp? Feel free to admit you're wrong at any point.

 

Because they clarify the rating a bit in the literature. I'm still waiting... :reading:

 

Also, Ford has in the past listed 440, 430, 425, 420, and 400 horsepower ratings for the Cammer. Based on what I've seen from similar combos in the real world I'd say all are conservative estimates unlike their pushrod crate engine hp numbers which are more on target or even optimistic.

Edited January 31, 2007 by White99GT

[eddiehaskell]

Because they clarify the rating a bit in the literature. I'm still waiting... :reading:

Why would the clarify in the literature? Why not just rate it at more than 400hp? I'm still waiting... :reading: Edited January 31, 2007 by eddiehaskell

[White99GT]

Why would the clarify in the literature? Why not just rate it at more than 400hp? I'm still waiting... :reading:

 

Ford has in the past listed 440, 430, 425, 420, and 400 horsepower ratings for the Cammer. Based on what I've seen from similar combos in the real world I'd say all are conservative estimates unlike their pushrod crate engine hp numbers which are more on target or even optimistic.

[eddiehaskell]

Also, Ford has in the past listed 440, 430, 425, 420, and 400 horsepower ratings for the Cammer.

Who cares? It's now rated at 400hp.

 

GM's LS1 crates are rated at 350hp - If they put in fine print somewhere that the engine will exceed 350hp with longtube headers, off-road y-pipe, and free flowing aftermarket catback -- that DOES NOT mean the engine is rated over 350hp. Let's be serious here

[White99GT]

Who cares? It's now rated at 400hp.

 

GM's LS1 crates are rated at 350hp - If they put in fine print somewhere that the engine will exceed 350hp with longtube headers, off-road y-pipe, and free flowing aftermarket catback -- that DOES NOT mean the engine is rated over 350hp. Let's be serious here

 

I don't recall reading that the Cammer would only exceed 400 horsepower with long tube headers. Is it your usual m.o. to make things up and form an arguement based on your own conjecture?

 

Also, I'd hate to see a Mustang with an off-road y-pipe. Back to the blazing F-Body with you...

Edited January 31, 2007 by White99GT

[eddiehaskell]

I don't recall reading that the Cammer would only exceed 400 horsepower with long tube headers. Is it your usual m.o. to make things up and form an arguement based on your own conjecture?

As you may recall, I asked you what type of exhaust many post back - you never answered. Maybe you can check and get back to me? Thanks.

 

The engine is still rated at 400hp

 

Also, I'd hate to see a Mustang with an off-road y-pipe. Back to the blazing F-Body with you...

Now, lets read this slowly ok:

GM's LS1 crates are rated at 350hp - If they put in fine print somewhere that the engine will exceed 350hp with longtube headers, off-road y-pipe, and free flowing aftermarket catback -- that DOES NOT mean the engine is rated over 350hp. Let's be serious here

Now where did I mention Mustang and Y-pipe? You've been proven wrong on 2 issues in 1 thread. I'm always up for giving a good owning though

[White99GT]

As you may recall, I asked you what type of exhaust many post back - you never answered. Maybe you can check and get back to me? Thanks.

 

The engine is still rated at 400hp

 

And 440, and 430, and 425, and 420... Still waiting... :reading:

 

And none of this changes the fact you were were spewing pure conjecture. Laughable.

 

Here's a little snippet for you:

FRT 5.0-liter 'Cammer' crate engine

 

Ford Racing Technology will revolutionize the crate-engine concept when its new 5.0-liter Cammer crate engine becomes available in 2003. Instead of modifying a standard production engine to suit non-stock applications, Ford Racing specifically designed the Cammer to be one of the most technologically advanced crate engines any manufacturer has ever offered.

 

This high-performance retrofit is an all-aluminum, overhead-cam, 4-valve engine that is a perfect repowering upgrade for vintage Mustangs, street rods, and classic truck projects.

 

According to Ford Racing Technology engine engineer Andy Schwartz, “The 5.0-liter Cammer delivers a healthy 425-430 horsepower at 6700 rpm. The torque curve peaks with 370 foot-pounds at 4000 rpm.”

 

 

Now, lets read this slowly ok: Now where did I mention Mustang and Y-pipe?

You just did.

 

Mustang and Y-pipe

 

Thank you for being so arrogant and predictable.

 

You've been proven wrong on 2 issues in 1 thread. I'm always up for giving a good owning though

 

eddiehaskell, I have been proven wrong on nothing in this thread. Back to the blazing F-Body with you, enjoy the catalytic hump and sagging/cracking doors...

 

Bye now.

Edited February 1, 2007 by White99GT

[eddiehaskell]

And 440, and 430, and 425, and 420... Still waiting... :reading:

 

And none of this changes the fact you were were spewing pure conjecture. Laughable.

 

Here's a little snippet for you:

FRT 5.0-liter 'Cammer' crate engine

 

Ford Racing Technology will revolutionize the crate-engine concept when its new 5.0-liter Cammer crate engine becomes available in 2003. Instead of modifying a standard production engine to suit non-stock applications, Ford Racing specifically designed the Cammer to be one of the most technologically advanced crate engines any manufacturer has ever offered.

 

This high-performance retrofit is an all-aluminum, overhead-cam, 4-valve engine that is a perfect repowering upgrade for vintage Mustangs, street rods, and classic truck projects.

 

According to Ford Racing Technology engine engineer Andy Schwartz, “The 5.0-liter Cammer delivers a healthy 425-430 horsepower at 6700 rpm. The torque curve peaks with 370 foot-pounds at 4000 rpm.”

 

Have I not told you that I don't care about ratings from different years. The engine is rated at 400hp - OWNED - get over it kiddo.

 

You just did.

Thank you for being so arrogant and predictable.

Reading comprehension is your friend LOL.

eddiehaskell, I have been proven wrong on nothing in this thread. Back to the blazing F-Body with you, enjoy the catalytic hump and sagging/cracking doors...

 

Bye now.

Enjoy the 260hp, 14-second 1/4 miles, truck-like seating position, shifter in left field, outdated front suspension, Fairmont chassis, very outdated rear suspension, poor weight distribution, bad gas mileage, weak unresponsive engine, poor aero, high center of gravity and one on every block Mustang.

 

Yeah, I hit 'em where it hurts. :happy feet:

 

PM me if you have an other questions. C-ya.

[NickF1011]

Reading comprehension is your friend LOL.

Enjoy the 260hp, 14-second 1/4 miles, truck-like seating position, shifter in left field, outdated front suspension, Fairmont chassis, very outdated rear suspension, poor weight distribution, bad gas mileage, weak unresponsive engine, poor aero, high center of gravity and one on every block Mustang.

 

You'd better call up BMW to let them know their modified MacPherson strut suspensions are outdated.

 

Weight distribution is about as good as it's going to get in a front-engine, RWD configuration without using overly expensive weight-saving materials.

 

As for the seating position....it has often been cited as one of the many reasons most buyers PREFERRED the Mustang to the F-body. I'll agree that the shifter position sucks though.

 

Oh, I also recall you mentioning something about the Camaro's "superior aerodynamics". You'll be disappointed to hear that the SN95 Mustang and 4th generation F-body both had an identical 0.35 Cd. Just because it resembles a doorstop doesn't mean it has the aerodynamics of one.

[therealmrmustang]

Enjoy the 260hp, 14-second 1/4 miles, truck-like seating position, shifter in left field, outdated front suspension, Fairmont chassis, very outdated rear suspension, poor weight distribution, bad gas mileage, weak unresponsive engine, poor aero, high center of gravity and one on every block Mustang.

 

Yeah, I hit 'em where it hurts. :happy feet:

 

PM me if you have an other questions. C-ya.

 

That so-called Fairmont chassis ('79-'04) is still better build quality than the same vintage Camaro and has much more race success to boot ...

 

What the hell is a Camaro anyway? Isn't that spanish for shrimp?