305hp and an official EPA rating of 19/31mpg!

[OX1]

My '86 with the Trac-Loc could at least get out of it's own way in snow until I put the Kumho KH11s on it. There's a reason they're called summer tires. They don't work in winter. AT ALL.

 

It's not the car, it's the tires.

 

Yeah, he (she) should slap a set of Blizzaks on it, he will think he is driving a different car.

Anyone else remember when FWD/AWD was almost non-existent ?

We all still got around in the snow, amazing I know....... :D

Edited March 5, 2010 by OX1

[Biker16]

to put this in perspective, my 2000 focus sedan with the DOHC and 5spd. would be rated at 22/31mpg under the current EPA scheme.

[Swizco]

to put this in perspective, my 2000 focus sedan with the DOHC and 5spd. would be rated at 22/31mpg under the current EPA scheme.

 

My I4 manual Fusion lease vehicle was rated in the high 20s, with 160hp. These numbers are so good they're a little hard to contemplate.

 

This really does open up a whole new market for the V6: The EcoPony! Green Pony? These names are terrible.

 

Swizco

[blksn8k2]

What is really amazing about the mileage figures is that back in the late 60s/early 70s any car in the same weight class as the 2011 V6 Mustang that could actually run a high 13 or low 14 second quarter mile was lucky to get 10 mpg. Times have indeed changed. :happy feet:

[wildosvt]

It doesn't work that good...I get stuck (at a stop) all the time in my 06 GT and all the wonderful snow we got this winter in the Northeast...on all seasons tires

 

It works great when its wet out and the ass end gets squirly...the car is completely different beast in that regard vs the 98 GT i had.

 

 

The traction control is for wet or icey conditions. Your tires cant clean themselves of snow if they don't spin. I turn it off when I am driving in snow.

[suv_guy_19]

Yes, traction control will get you stuck, not help you. It's all about tires. I have more summer oriented all seasons on my car, and right now, during the daily melt and freeze, I have some trouble getting around. If I had put my winter tires on this year, like I did last year, there wouldn't be any problem at all.

[jpd80]

What is really amazing about the mileage figures is that back in the late 60s/early 70s any car in the same weight class as the 2011 V6 Mustang that could actually run a high 13 or low 14 second quarter mile was lucky to get 10 mpg. Times have indeed changed. :happy feet:

 

Great point blksn8k2.

 

If I said to you that the 2015 Mustang will need to have similar performance but get 35 mpg, would you believe me?

[Captainp4]

What's really amazing to me is they're doing this without ecoboost, imagine what the figures will be like when the I4 ecoboost can be used to replace or as an alternative the 3.7. Or maybe a smaller displacement v6 would be needed to make the same amount of power, but with the tq curves on the ecoboost engines maybe they'll be able to get away with a little less hp.

[jpd80]

What's really amazing to me is they're doing this without ecoboost, imagine what the figures will be like when the I4 ecoboost can be used to replace or as an alternative the 3.7. Or maybe a smaller displacement v6 would be needed to make the same amount of power, but with the tq curves on the ecoboost engines maybe they'll be able to get away with a little less hp.

Falcon goes first with the EB I-4 paying $230 million vehicle development cost but the engine is also available to other RWD vehicles like Mustang. Considering that the EB I-4 averages close to US 30 mpg in Euro tests, it could get close to 35 mpg on the US hwy cycle..

Could we see three separate buying demographics for the Mustang, that could shoot sales up significantly and open up export potential.

Edited March 6, 2010 by jpd80

[SVT_MAN]

My '86 with the Trac-Loc could at least get out of it's own way in snow until I put the Kumho KH11s on it. There's a reason they're called summer tires. They don't work in winter. AT ALL.

 

It's not the car, it's the tires.

 

Agreed, but I still maintain Mustangs are relatively lousy in the snow. I have driven V6 Mustangs (rentals) in the snow and they're pretty lousy too. I'm not saying they are impossible to handle, but getting started can be a challenge if you don't have weight in the trunk. I actually found driving the car and fishtailing it around corners was actually quite fun. But, my main problem was getting stuck in deeper snow at stop signs. I had a few times where I wondered if I was going to get going. Granted, it may have helped if I had turned the traction control off. Sometimes that bogged the engine and made it harder to move.

 

I do know that snow tires make a TREMENDOUS difference. My parents both own Jaguar XJ8s and those cars drive better than my Fusion in the snow when they have their snow tires fitted on them. Tires make more difference than most want to admit.

 

 

That's why they made Traction Control optional starting in 99. Don't really need it here in Los Angeles (last time it snowed was January 1949), but it's nice to have on the rare occasion the road is slick when it rains.

 

Yeah, my car has traction control. But it doesn't help you to get moving. In fact, it may hinder the car's movement when you get right down to it. As others have pointed out, the main reason is the tires. I'm sure I could drive the Mustang in the snow if I really wanted to, but I just don't see the point. I feel like the Mustang is really twitchy and easy to lose the rear end on in slippery conditions, traction control or not. The combination of rough roads, slick conditions, and a harsh suspension doesn't usually have good effects. Plus, I would hate to see that car destroyed by the rust belt state I live in. They use a TON of salt around here.

Edited March 8, 2010 by SVT_MAN

[fordmantpw]

Sorry for the mistake. They are all season tires actually. I was in the middle of doing some AJAX coding. (Any of you who are programmers will understand how this can mess up your mind.)

 

I actually have a pair of Dunlop SP Sports on it ... http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Dunlop&tireModel=SP+Sport+Signature

 

They're all season, high-performance. Very highly rated.

 

AJAX ROCKS! :happy feet: :happy feet:

[T'Cal]

I'm guessing that the updated 3.5L V6 with 20 HP less would get at least 1 MPG better city and hwy (20/32). Why not make that standard and offer the 3.7 as optional or perhaps standard on specialty models such as the Pony Package and California Special? This smaller engine would still return impressive numbers with 0-60 accomplished in about 6.0 seconds and the quarter mile in the mid high 14s, again with fuel economy ratings of at least 20/32. Wow!!

Edited March 8, 2010 by T'Cal

[SVT_MAN]

AJAX ROCKS! :happy feet: :happy feet:

 

Indeed, it does. I sometimes use plain old Javascript, but lately I've been using the Prototype framework quite a bit more. What is your parsing language? I'm using PHP / MySQL. I know a lot of others are using .NET these days though ... I should probably learn that even though I'm not a big fan of VB. Probably getting paid quite a bit under where I should be at my current gig (I'm one of 2 programmers in the whole joint) .. but it's good experience. Having fun at least .. even if I work about 50 hours a week instead of 40. But that's OK. Programming is a ton of fun, for me at least.

 

BTW: I kind of made an idiot out of myself with that post because I DO have summer tires on my '99 Mustang. I got an automated email that said someone had replied to this topic and responded without remembering that this was a MUSTANG thread and not a FUSION thread (which I've also been active in). So, basically, I have all season tires on the Fusion, but summer tires on the Mustang. Oh well .. good to know someone else has a warped enough mind to enjoy programming 'round here .

Edited March 8, 2010 by SVT_MAN

[fordmantpw]

Indeed, it does. I sometimes use plain old Javascript, but lately I've been using the Prototype framework quite a bit more. What is your parsing language? I'm using PHP / MySQL. I know a lot of others are using .NET these days though ... I should probably learn that even though I'm not a big fan of VB. Probably getting paid quite a bit under where I should be at my current gig (I'm one of 2 programmers in the whole joint) .. but it's good experience. Having fun at least .. even if I work about 50 hours a week instead of 40. But that's OK. Programming is a ton of fun, for me at least.

 

BTW: I kind of made an idiot out of myself with that post because I DO have summer tires on my '99 Mustang. I got an automated email that said someone had replied to this topic and responded without remembering that this was a MUSTANG thread and not a FUSION thread (which I've also been active in). So, basically, I have all season tires on the Fusion, but summer tires on the Mustang. Oh well .. good to know someone else has a warped enough mind to enjoy programming 'round here .

 

I started doing "AJAX" back before AJAX was AJAX. I was writing custom JavaScript to get the rich client look and feel back in '98 with my first gig out of college (classic ASP, no intellisense...those were the days of true programmers ). That required 100's or 1000's of lines of JavaScript (which I loved). Today, I use .NET (C# rules...VB drools ) and it does all of the hard work for me. It's amazing how many fewer lines of code it takes to do the same thing as 10 years ago. I still do a lot of custom JS though to keep performance up on some intensive apps.

 

I'm like you though...I love what I do, and I work 50+ hours of week instead of 40. When the kids go to bed, I go back to work until bed time (I work from home). I just love what I do!

[Pioneer]

Why not make that standard and offer the 3.7 as optional or perhaps standard on specialty models such as the Pony Package and California Special?

 

Because the standard V6 engine in the Camaro makes 304 HP and is rated 29 MPG highway.

[BlackHorse]

Great motor but I'm not feeling the new grill. It just looks generic like it belongs on a family sedan not a Mustang. The 2010 grill is much better.

[03 LS]

Great motor but I'm not feeling the new grill. It just looks generic like it belongs on a family sedan not a Mustang. The 2010 grill is much better.

Which grill are you talking about? The MCA one or the CS one? You do know these are special editions and you still can buy the standard ones, which have the same grill as 2010's.

[jpd80]

I'm guessing that the updated 3.5L V6 with 20 HP less would get at least 1 MPG better city and hwy (20/32). Why not make that standard and offer the 3.7 as optional or perhaps standard on specialty models such as the Pony Package and California Special? This smaller engine would still return impressive numbers with 0-60 accomplished in about 6.0 seconds and the quarter mile in the mid high 14s, again with fuel economy ratings of at least 20/32. Wow!!

Pretty obvious that Ford knows the GM SIDI 3.6 beats the 3.5 in performance.

 

There's probably negligible difference in fuel economy between the 3.7 and the 3.5.

Edited March 8, 2010 by jpd80

[BlackHorse]

Which grill are you talking about? The MCA one or the CS one? You do know these are special editions and you still can buy the standard ones, which have the same grill as 2010's.

 

I'm referring to the grill in the link at the beginning of this thread, the silver car. No I didn't know there were different grills for the V6. I'm not up to speed on it because I'm not going to buy the car anyway, they want too much money for them; as is the case for most new cars. If that's a special edition grill I'm sorry to tell them but they missed the mark, the 2010 or I guess "factory" grill is much more attractive.

[Deanh]

I'm referring to the grill in the link at the beginning of this thread, the silver car. No I didn't know there were different grills for the V6. I'm not up to speed on it because I'm not going to buy the car anyway, they want too much money for them; as is the case for most new cars. If that's a special edition grill I'm sorry to tell them but they missed the mark, the 2010 or I guess "factory" grill is much more attractive.

thats the Mustang club of America edition....the giveaway is the rear applique between the tail-lights

[Noah Harbinger]

Indeed, it does. I sometimes use plain old Javascript, but lately I've been using the Prototype framework quite a bit more. What is your parsing language? I'm using PHP / MySQL. I know a lot of others are using .NET these days though ... I should probably learn that even though I'm not a big fan of VB. Probably getting paid quite a bit under where I should be at my current gig (I'm one of 2 programmers in the whole joint) .. but it's good experience. Having fun at least .. even if I work about 50 hours a week instead of 40. But that's OK. Programming is a ton of fun, for me at least.

 

 

Mootools FTW! I started with Prototype + Scriptaculous, then migrated to Prototype + Moo.FX, then went full-bore Mootools. Haven't looked back since. (In case nobody saw my Greasemonkey post - which I'm sure nobody did - I use Mootools to manipulate the site's output to better fit my preferences. Though anything I did could have been done using Prototype or [shudder] Jquery.)

 

In the past year, I've programmed in or for: PHP, .Net (C#), Old-world ASP (VBScript - blech), Perl, Bash, TCSH, Java, C, C++, Javascript, XSLT, MySQL, MSSql (Blech again), Access (Double Blech!), and Ingres.

 

The days I'm programming, I stay late and leave energized. When my other duties dominate ("customer service" of sorts, blah!), I leave as soon as I've done my time, and get drunk as soon as I get home.

Edited March 9, 2010 by Noah Harbinger

[RichardJensen]

I've got a homebrewed ColdFusion server side framework to which I am adding AJAX functionality in a few select modules. And because they're extremely lightweight modules (they will be periodically calling a script to update an ATOM/RSS feed), I'm not going to use a framework. I'll write the timer script and the XMLHttpRequest function myself, and the server script will be feeding the function formatted HTML, so I won't need to do much client side processing.

 

My beef with AJAX in general is how badly it compromises browser performance when it is done poorly, and it is implemented poorly most of the time (cf Sturgeon's Law).

 

And, more specifically, I dislike AJAX implementations that perform functions that could be done more simply and more quickly had there been more forethought put into the site spec

 

---

 

As an artist, I was taught to respect the possibilities and the limitations of a medium. Yes, I use ColdFusion. But I don't use it to do things that ColdFusion does not do well. Similarly, there are things that AJAX does exceptionally well (i.e. certain Google Maps, Google Mail, and Facebook features), but there are instances where AJAX is used to perform tasks that would be much more efficiently handled on the initial load (e.g. any Gannet Co. newspaper website).

 

---

 

To put it bluntly---not since VisualBasic has there been something so widespread that performs so inefficiently in so many of its implementations.

Edited March 9, 2010 by RichardJensen

[fordmantpw]

I've got a homebrewed ColdFusion server side framework to which I am adding AJAX functionality in a few select modules. And because they're extremely lightweight modules (they will be periodically calling a script to update an ATOM/RSS feed), I'm not going to use a framework. I'll write the timer script and the XMLHttpRequest function myself, and the server script will be feeding the function formatted HTML, so I won't need to do much client side processing.

 

My beef with AJAX in general is how badly it compromises browser performance when it is done poorly, and it is implemented poorly most of the time (cf Sturgeon's Law).

 

And, more specifically, I dislike AJAX implementations that perform functions that could be done more simply and more quickly had there been more forethought put into the site spec

 

---

 

As an artist, I was taught to respect the possibilities and the limitations of a medium. Yes, I use ColdFusion. But I don't use it to do things that ColdFusion does not do well. Similarly, there are things that AJAX does exceptionally well (i.e. certain Google Maps, Google Mail, and Facebook features), but there are instances where AJAX is used to perform tasks that would be much more efficiently handled on the initial load (e.g. any Gannet Co. newspaper website).

 

---

 

To put it bluntly---not since VisualBasic has there been something so widespread that performs so inefficiently in so many of its implementations.

 

I agree with you. If used incorrectly, it severely hampers performance on the browser. It's amazing to watch the CPU utilization when doing something with AJAX that shouldn't be done. I use it where it can be of help, and stick with custom JavaScript where it is much more efficient. One of my favorite uses of AJAX is an 'Auto Save' feature similar to what Word does (Google Apps does the same thing). It's essentially invisible to the user, and keeps them from losing data.

 

I used to build entire web applications using XmlHTTPRequests with classic ASP. They performed better than most ASP.NET apps with AJAX today...on less hardware! But boy was is ugly to code vs. today's nifty RAD features.

[RichardJensen]

I used to build entire web applications using XmlHTTPRequests with classic ASP. They performed better than most ASP.NET apps with AJAX today...on less hardware! But boy was is ugly to code vs. today's nifty RAD features.

See, that bugs me. iTunes is now 90+MB, it's more than tripled in size over the last three-four years.

 

I don't consider myself a programmer, I don't really think like a programmer, and I don't relish the programmer ethos.

 

What I am is a cheapskate. I'm typing this out on a Hackintosh built using an Intel 845 chipset integrated motherboard, with 2GB memory and a 3GHz processor.

 

The company's server still runs RHEL 3 and MySQL 3.23.

 

What I'm wiling to do is invest extra time in the conceptualization and coding phase, in order to minimize server load and feature requirements.

 

If you scroll down to the bottom of a page on this forum, you'll see performance statistics that include the number of queries that have been performed to load the page. This reply page required 18 queries. That kind of a query count gives me the heeby-jeebies.

 

Of course, being an independent shop, I get to make these kind of choices about how I work.

 

It should probably also be noted that the cumulative amount of time I spend conceptualizing these efficiencies is probably far greater than the net savings in time to my clients' clients--but it's part of my ethic. Minimal code. Minimal processor usage. Minimal query count.

[fordmantpw]

See, that bugs me. iTunes is now 90+MB, it's more than tripled in size over the last three-four years.

 

I don't consider myself a programmer, I don't really think like a programmer, and I don't relish the programmer ethos.

 

What I am is a cheapskate. I'm typing this out on a Hackintosh built using an Intel 845 chipset integrated motherboard, with 2GB memory and a 3GHz processor.

 

The company's server still runs RHEL 3 and MySQL 3.23.

 

What I'm wiling to do is invest extra time in the conceptualization and coding phase, in order to minimize server load and feature requirements.

 

If you scroll down to the bottom of a page on this forum, you'll see performance statistics that include the number of queries that have been performed to load the page. This reply page required 18 queries. That kind of a query count gives me the heeby-jeebies.

 

Of course, being an independent shop, I get to make these kind of choices about how I work.

 

It should probably also be noted that the cumulative amount of time I spend conceptualizing these efficiencies is probably far greater than the net savings in time to my clients' clients--but it's part of my ethic. Minimal code. Minimal processor usage. Minimal query count.

 

I'm right there with you. I used to spend much more time designing things to limit the number of queries it would take to build a page. I would design the page and the queries so that I could load tons of information with one query to the MSSQL database. Now, clients want things done quickly and a shoestring budget, and they don't care if they have to throw more hardware at it. I still focus on performance and as few database calls as possible though. Honestly, I would rather design for optimal performance as it presents more of a challenge and gives more satisfaction when the project is completed than just having something that works.

 

19 queries on this page (I guess because there is one more reply that is has to pull data for?). And we wonder why there appears to be performance issues on the site at times.