theoldwizard Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 Forget paddle shifters.... Unless they're hooked up to a transmission that can make decent use of them. Fact is most of those paddle shifters are somewhere between useless and counter productive because of the amount of time it takes the transmission to shift. All they do is make your Walter Mittying a little easier. WOW ! We agree, even on the Walter Mitty part !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fbmphil Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 Second, besides the MKS, I'm betting no other EcoBoost application has more than 1 turbo. Too darn expensive ! I think the V6 EB mules are just starting to pop up, so we will see... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 First, these days, most folks are interested in economy so any thing that sound more "save gas" than "go fast" is better to the marketing boys. Second, besides the MKS, I'm betting no other EcoBoost application has more than 1 turbo. Too darn expensive ! I think one of the secrets to the EB low end torq is using next generation high temperature turbos and locating them as close to the exhaust ports as posible. In a V configuration engine you need 2 turbos to do this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 First, these days, most folks are interested in economy so any thing that sound more "save gas" than "go fast" is better to the marketing boys. Which is why the engines would still be called their goofy name of Ecoboost, but the trim level would be Twin Force. Maybe it is just me, but I think "Twin Force Fusion" sounds great. Second, besides the MKS, I'm betting no other EcoBoost application has more than 1 turbo. Too darn expensive ! Isn't the Ford xB getting it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 Nice to see the grille in the illustration isn't chrome, of course that could just be me..... No, that's actually "orange chrome" LOL. Just kidding. And the front end will look something like this, but likely modified: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 MKR was greenlighted late last summer. It will slot between the MKZ and MKS, and for lack of a better explanation, will be a Lincoln CTS. RWD/AWD, V6 engines, super-expressive style. I knew that was the rumor, but I didn't know it'd been approved yet. That's good to hear. But in this situation do you think they're actually referring to the MKR? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 If this vaporware car ever appears, it is dead on arrival in a world of $4+ gasoline heading who knows where. Earth to Ford, the #1 thing on consumer's minds is fuel consumption, not performance. Here's a clue, people are flocking to 4 cyl. engines in droves. Just look at your Focus sales. Marketing the 4 cyl Ecoboost would have been a far, far better idea, but that won't be here until MY 2011 and by then the competition will be a lot tougher and the choices will be between ICEs, hybrids PHEVs, BEVs and diesels for high mileage vehicles. :blah: :blah: :blah: Enough with your constant talk of PHEVs and all that other stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 Does ANYONE here understand how Ford's AWD system really works? After seeing responses like this one about 60,000 times, I'm thinking obviously no one does. The only "FWD-bias" the AWD system has is when it's under very light or no loads. If you hammer on the throttle, almost ALL of the power is going to be pushed to the REAR wheels, not the FRONT. Torque steer in these vehicles is basically non-existent. The only question I have about that setup is whether or not the gearbox could reliably handle 340 HP burnouts all the time. Do you know if the Flex's AWD system works like that as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 I'm just about ready to start breaking out the "Fail" and "Life: You're Doing it Wrong" graphics... It's getting tempting to turn the 'Ignore' function on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 I was waiting for someone to post that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 ok maybe we should just call this "the thread to fight about AWD!" I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 BINGO...340 sounds tasty....but ford would be better off OVERALL to have a 2.0 EB, plain old FWD with excellent projected MPG's and peppy to boot.......... Isn't one of those on the way as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 No...it is an overweight pig. Just like the Challenger and probably the Camaro. And I think the Mustang is ugly. Ah. So now the truth comes out. SVT isn't a failure....just your opinion of what it should be is. And I still don't possibly see how you can perceive the GT500 to be a pig considering what you drive every day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 Ah. So now the truth comes out. SVT isn't a failure....just your opinion of what it should be is. And I still don't possibly see how you can perceive the GT500 to be a pig considering what you drive every day. My car is also not a 500HP Muscle car that is supposed to be damn near the best Mustang Ford produces. But that is exactly the apples to apples compairson I would expect from someone like you. And yes, when a $24,000 Cobalt SS can pull more Gs, carry many more MPHs through the skid pad, and stop in the same distance as a SVT vehicle, I would say that SVT is damaged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 My car is also not a 500HP Muscle car that is supposed to be damn near the best Mustang Ford produces. But that is exactly the apples to apples compairson I would expect from someone like you. And yes, when a $24,000 Cobalt SS can pull more Gs, carry many more MPHs through the skid pad, and stop in the same distance as a SVT vehicle, I would say that SVT is damaged. What exactly is the best Mustang Ford produces then, if it's not the GT500 (well, GT500KR now)? ...and I think you mean speed through a slalom. Anyhowl...skidpad and slalom numbers are pretty useless compared to one another unless they are conducted at the same time in identical conditions. And even if they are lower, they are still far and away better than those managed by the base Mustang or Mustang GT...which is kind of the point, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 What exactly is the best Mustang Ford produces then, if it's not the GT500 (well, GT500KR now)? ...and I think you mean speed through a slalom. Anyhowl...skidpad and slalom numbers are pretty useless compared to one another unless they are conducted at the same time in identical conditions. And even if they are lower, they are still far and away better than those managed by the base Mustang or Mustang GT...which is kind of the point, no? Not when the car costs $50-$60K Hell for that money one could get a Corvette...and that is a MUCH better car. Maybe if the GT500 started at $35K or $40K, then I could understand it's mediocrity...but at the prices Ford assumes it is worth, it just is not worth it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 Not when the car costs $50-$60K Hell for that money one could get a Corvette...and that is a MUCH better car. Maybe if the GT500 started at $35K or $40K, then I could understand it's mediocrity...but at the prices Ford assumes it is worth, it just is not worth it. On the pricing aspect I would agree with you to some extent. $35K would be expecting a bit much though.... It shouldn't really have cost much more than the '03-04 Cobras..maybe around $40K or so....but slap that ol' geriatric's name on it and suddenly people think it is worth more than it is. Of course, 50-60K is generally what the DEALERS thought they were worth, as that's quite a step above MSRP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_fairmont_wagon Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 Personally, I just think that the GT500 has the wrong engine in it, but that's just me. I would have preferred a 4V 4.6L with twin turbos instead of that heavy ass 5.4L supercharged iron block setup. But, that's just me. I realize that the 4.6L setup that I wanted was only going to save about 80-100 lbs, and, in the grand scheme of things, that's not all that much on such a heavy vehicle. Of course, I'm also the person that wanted there to be a GT350 with a 3V 5.4L with an aluminum block tuned to deliver 350 hp and 400 lbs of torque on pump premium. I have pie in the sky aspirations, what can I say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomaro Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 Dam rmc523...8 posts in a row...gotta be a record! Cheers :beerchug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomaro Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 but slap that ol' geriatric's name on it and suddenly people think it is worth more than it is. You can thank old John "The SVTGod" Colletti for that one. That was his baby. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 Personally, I just think that the GT500 has the wrong engine in it, but that's just me. I would have preferred a 4V 4.6L with twin turbos instead of that heavy ass 5.4L supercharged iron block setup. But, that's just me. Me too. Add IRS while they're at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 You can thank old John "The SVTGod" Colletti for that one. That was his baby. I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure Colletti was loooong gone from SVT by the time the GT500 got its name. He departed SVT and Ford in 2004...likely before the name was finalized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 Me too. Add IRS while they're at it. Ford is apparently suing them.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure Colletti was loooong gone from SVT by the time the GT500 got its name. He departed SVT and Ford in 2004...likely before the name was finalized. I thought the GT500 was Hau Thai-Tang's baby? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 I thought the GT500 was Hau Thai-Tang's baby? Believe it was, at least from a design standpoint. It was probably some marketing dummy who decided to slap Shelby's name on it though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.