NickF1011 Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 Oh yeah the engine works, many engines works, if not they couldnt get it out of the factory, but is it truely competitive in performance to others in it's segment, is my main concern. As mentioned by J150, its perception. Gets tiring to have a great overall product and have it be raped by the media because of those types of decisions (and bad brakes too-but I think Ford has learned that one). But I think we have strayed far from the original point. It's not a matter of "just" working. They work well. Who the hell thinks a Mustang GT is UNDERPOWERED at 315 horsepower? I sure don't. Hell, that's more power than my Cobra came with, and that's MORE than enough to get in trouble. Who thinks the F-150 is underpowered? It surely isn't with the new transmissions. Surely the Focus, MKS, and Edge aren't underpowered -- oh wait, those were launched with new engines. My bad. I thought every Ford came with old engines at launch. There was a time when increased power from the same engine was sufficient in a new vehicle. I guess those times are over. Seems every new vehicle needs to beat its predecessor by at least 100 horsepower to be considered acceptable. :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_fairmont_wagon Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 As I have stated before, Ford has only two truly pathetic engines in their stable. The 4.0L Cologne (which has already been consigned to the dustbins at a very close future date, roughly when the current Explorer program ends) and the 4.6L 2V mod V8, which is continued only due to the needs of the customers of the CVPI. Were it not for that vehicle's existence, then even its use as the base engine in the F-150 wouldn't justify its existence. A little food for thought, do you realize that the cologne 4.0L V6 likely costs more per unit than the 4.6L 2V v8 in fully dressed form going into their respective vehicles? The cologne suffers greatly due to currency fluctuations between the US and Europe. I say likely because of the circumstances that each engine comes from, not because I have any hard and fast figures. Ford wouldn't put the 4.6L 2V in the mustang due to perception and fuel economy reasons. Ford can't use the D30 due to torque defficiencies (even the PIP D30 doesn't have the low end grunt to get their desired performance out of that vehicle. The rest of Ford's engines are competitive in their size class and cost levels. Comparing the Hyundai Tau 4.6L V8 to the MOD 4.6L 3V and saying this is proof of how far Ford has fallen neglects a few imprtant facts: 1) The Tau is a DOHC 4V design, the Mod is a 3V SOHC design. 2) The Tau is brand freaking new just out of R&D, the 3V 4.6L is now pushing 5 years old and is nearing its cycle run. 3) The Tau is specced for Premium fuel, the 4.6L 3V in the stang? Regular unleaded. And, that ignores the fact that the 5.0L Mod V8 is right around the corner and it delivers power numbers, according to the insiders we have on this site, that are comparable or better on a per liter of displacement basis than the Tau when tuned for Premium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 And, that ignores the fact that the 5.0L Mod V8 is right around the corner and it delivers power numbers, according to the insiders we have on this site, that are comparable or better on a per liter of displacement basis than the Tau when tuned for Premium. But it's not coming out in the new Mustang until a year later. Therefore, it sucks, Ford sucks, the Mustang sucks, Auto Alliance sucks, Alan Mullaly sucks, and anyone who likes the Mustang sucks. :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reynolds Posted December 11, 2008 Share Posted December 11, 2008 But it's not coming out in the new Mustang until a year later. Therefore, it sucks, Ford sucks, the Mustang sucks, Auto Alliance sucks, Alan Mullaly sucks, and anyone who likes the Mustang sucks. :P LOL... Or you could just slap new engines in every new vehicle out there, build a transmission half-ass and pray that it doesn't explode (hello GT-R). Also if you want other carry over engine lineups please see: M-B C350 M-B R Class Honda Accord Acura TL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted December 11, 2008 Author Share Posted December 11, 2008 But it's not coming out in the new Mustang until a year later. Therefore, it sucks, Ford sucks, the Mustang sucks, Auto Alliance sucks, Alan Mullaly sucks, and anyone who likes the Mustang sucks. :P No, just first year Mustang engine, sucks...and the V6 sucked years ago. And the decision behind it, sucks too. The UAW sucks too, their fault Ford isn't competitive. Alan doesnt' suck though, neither does the factory. New Mustang interior doesnt' suck either. At least it they raised it to a higher standard, I wish they would have it designed the vehicle with higher standards to match mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted December 11, 2008 Share Posted December 11, 2008 No, just first year Mustang engine, sucks...and the V6 sucked years ago. And the decision behind it, sucks too. The UAW sucks too, their fault Ford isn't competitive. Alan doesnt' suck though, neither does the factory. New Mustang interior doesnt' suck either. At least it they raised it to a higher standard, I wish they would have it designed the vehicle with higher standards to match mine. What "decision" about the Mustang's engines sucks? Would you rather it be using 3.8 V6's still or something? The 4.0 is old, but it works. As for the 5.0, would you rather wait until 2011 for a new Mustang entirely, because that's the alternative. The engines didn't suck in the 2009 Mustang, why do they suddenly suck in the 2010 Mustang? Just because the sheet metal and interior are new? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted December 11, 2008 Share Posted December 11, 2008 And, that ignores the fact that the 5.0L Mod V8 is right around the corner and it delivers power numbers, according to the insiders we have on this site, that are comparable or better on a per liter of displacement basis than the Tau when tuned for Premium. The 5.0MOD delivers superior power numbers across the power band when tuned for 87 Octane unleaded- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted December 12, 2008 Author Share Posted December 12, 2008 What "decision" about the Mustang's engines sucks? Would you rather it be using 3.8 V6's still or something? The 4.0 is old, but it works. As for the 5.0, would you rather wait until 2011 for a new Mustang entirely, because that's the alternative. The engines didn't suck in the 2009 Mustang, why do they suddenly suck in the 2010 Mustang? Just because the sheet metal and interior are new? Thats my point, majority of the time, the engines are never ready when the update is. Then if they do phase it in a year or 2 later, then sucks for the person that THOUGHT he had a complete package, and really didnt months after he bought it. And they COULD have used the D35. I dont have an issue with the 4.6L (they gave it more ponies), just the 4.0L. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 Thats my point, majority of the time, the engines are never ready when the update is. Then if they do phase it in a year or 2 later, then sucks for the person that THOUGHT he had a complete package, and really didnt months after he bought it. And they COULD have used the D35. I dont have an issue with the 4.6L (they gave it more ponies), just the 4.0L. Oh come on, the 4.0 in my buddies garage makes an excellent footrest... and bottle opener for that matter :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 Thats my point, majority of the time, the engines are never ready when the update is. Then if they do phase it in a year or 2 later, then sucks for the person that THOUGHT he had a complete package, and really didnt months after he bought it. And they COULD have used the D35. I dont have an issue with the 4.6L (they gave it more ponies), just the 4.0L. MAYBE could have used the D35. You and I aren't aware of what the supply constraints are on that engine at this time. Would you rather see an available 3.5 in the Fusion, or a 3.5 base engine in the Mustang? It could be coming down to that. I think a 3.5 in the Fusion is more important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenCaylor Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 Don't forget, a few years ago, one of the car mags did a test for the quickest car for under $20K. The winner: the V6 Mustang with a 0-60 of 6.5 seconds. Above all, the base Mustang has to be affordable. Why do you think the Mustang has been around for 45 years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilovenissan Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 well even though the vq didnt make it this year its ok i love my 4.0l of v6 in my pathfinder and the 291 pound feet of tourqe it makes. and i love my g35 that makes 306 hp, wards is just a stupid list to begin with. any way i have had much better luck with my pathfinder than i have had with my expedition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 well even though the vq didnt make it this year its ok i love my 4.0l of v6 in my pathfinder and the 291 pound feet of tourqe it makes. and i love my g35 that makes 306 hp, wards is just a stupid list to begin with. any way i have had much better luck with my pathfinder than i have had with my expedition. Welcome to the forum. I had a Pathfinder up until October... worst thing that ever happened to it was the odometer crapping out at 111,216 and intermittently until then. I'm curious. Why is it only now that Ward's is a stupid list? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 I'm curious. Why is it only now that Ward's is a stupid list? Don't worry. As soon as they put a VQ back on the list they'll be the bestest thing around!!!! :happy feet: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted December 22, 2008 Author Share Posted December 22, 2008 Don't feed it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 Don't worry. As soon as they put a VQ back on the list they'll be the bestest thing around!!!! :happy feet: :lol: I rather like the VQ too... even though the VQ30DE has the knock sensor in the worst possible place in a car. With so many new engines out there, including the Ford hybrid and the BMW and VW diesels, I can understand why they would leave it off. Don't feed it... Someone should make a smiley with that on a sign, STAT! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 :lol: I rather like the VQ too... even though the VQ30DE has the knock sensor in the worst possible place in a car. With so many new engines out there, including the Ford hybrid and the BMW and VW diesels, I can understand why they would leave it off. I never said I didn't like the VQ. It's a very nice engine but I agree with you. There are many choices out there now that deserve it just as much as the VQ and it got bumped this year. Big deal. I'm sure it'll be back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Greene Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 I really like the 4.0 in the Explorer. It's reliable, has good TQ, and runs forever. EPA numbers I don't understand, because you can get about 24 MPG from it in steady highway driving. Maybe it's not ideal for the base Mustang which could use a more halo base engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilovenissan Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 Welcome to the forum. I had a Pathfinder up until October... worst thing that ever happened to it was the odometer crapping out at 111,216 and intermittently until then. I'm curious. Why is it only now that Ward's is a stupid list? i could honsetly care less about wards and the same with car and drivers 10 best list. its there opinion. i like the vq series i have put allot of stress on the 4.0L in the pathfinder and its never failed me once im up to about 35,000 miles on it now. But the 3.5 in the g35 is amazing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted December 22, 2008 Author Share Posted December 22, 2008 Usually from my experiences with the VQ, they are reliable and a few develop leaks around 80-120K Miles. And gotta replace the timing belt around 80-90K... Although this isn't the problem..it's just the rest of the car is falling apart by that time. A/C seems to give up around 90K from what I'm seeing. The Bose audio systems CD player seems to quite around 60Ks, seen 3 of them do that. Electrical and VQ are the only things I see as stable...everything else and quality of components and body hardware age quickly. Specially seals... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 Usually from my experiences with the VQ, they are reliable and a few develop leaks around 80-120K Miles. And gotta replace the timing belt around 80-90K... Although this isn't the problem..it's just the rest of the car is falling apart by that time. A/C seems to give up around 90K from what I'm seeing. The Bose audio systems CD player seems to quite around 60Ks, seen 3 of them do that. Electrical and VQ are the only things I see as stable...everything else and quality of components and body hardware age quickly. Specially seals... Nissan seems to be known for crappy CD players. My wife's never works for me (but always for her), and the one in my old Pathfinder went as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilovenissan Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 Nissan seems to be known for crappy CD players. My wife's never works for me (but always for her), and the one in my old Pathfinder went as well. im on my third bose head unit, its made by clarion im probably going to end up pulling it out and put a alpine in it. the bose isnt to good for thrashing with. 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.