Slow cars

Cos they're a ford? Nah seriously: Overweight, They need a new engine, something that isn't based on an engine made in the 60's.

Because they are one of the heaviest sports cars in the US?

Actually ford is very up to date on engine design. fords modular engines are very good engines! Chevy is the one still using pushrod engines. But yes the mustangs are very heavy, like most modern cars. The base model dodge challenger weighs 4,140lb - while a mustang GT has a curb weight of 3,356lb. :) p.s. Mustangs can be VERY fast if you know how to mod them.

They're seriously overweight! Like ALL american cars. Engine is to big and heavy and puts out way less than it should. But again, like ALL american cars. But it's way faster with a supercharger!!!!!!!!!

naw ur stereotyping.

but i find it funny elvindthat ford is the only ones to have the hp ratings at the wheels and like chevy does it at the flywheel alot of power is lost through your drive train going toi the wheels

I thought all the domestic makes used SAE J1349 standards for testing? What's your source for this out of curiousity? I need to double check my information.

Okay, answering my own question it seems that Ford didn't start SAE engine power certification untill 2007 and doesn't seem to do it on all their drive trains yet.

You suck at driving... that's why.

what about the 4.6l SOHC 3V engine is based on an engine from the 60s other than the fact that gasoline + O2 + spark = boom... they need a diet though...

Ford still rates the hp from flywheel figures... theres not a stock mustang GT that makes hp as advertised to wheels cobras on the other hand... they are way underrated... i know that (at least in canada) the insurance takes the HP rating into consideration when offering insurance rates... and they are crank measured..

really i dont think mustangs are slow... they are heavy ill give you that... but there not slow... and your comparing them poorly i know u have a STi and thats great for you ... its too bad you settled for a style-less car but whatever... STi =$45995 starting price http://www.subaru.ca/SubaruData.aspx?WebPageID=11054&WebSiteID=282&CompareType=S&CarIds=400&Category=AllSpecCategory Mustang GT = $33999 starting price.. speced up how i want it (California package and interior upgrade $37699...delivered) so there not really comparable when you look at one is a full 10 grand cheaper than the other ... and the subaru doesnt include the delivery... or any options... So i dunno im pretty sure that I could make a new stang much faster than a subaru if i could use the difference in upgrades... and i would do it properley with brake upgrade and suspension upgrades too... id probabally only procharge it to 400hp and put it on a diet... acceleration wise... theres quite a lot that can come out of a mustang to lighten it... bang for buck wise i still dont think you can get past the mustang... unless you have cash for a entry level vette... which the STi should be compared to...

ok you are getting raped on the price on that lol In the US the STI fully loaded with every possible thing including the sill plates doesnt even come close to 45k its more like 38k and when you say you want to upgrade the brakes and everything the reason that sti is more is because you dont have to upgrade anything at all. Its got Brembos all around stock, BBS rims, Recaro seats, Bilstein suspension set up thats why its more money. doesnt the mustang have some kind of gay solid rear axle or something ? they said in one of the magazines like car and driver or motortrend that it had one of worst and dated suspension systems in the new model sports cars to day.

yeah its got a live axle, but they are trying to keep it classic and still handly decently, well they failed, cause a solid axle can handle, but mustangs cant. even the corvette zr1 uses a pushrod engine, the same basic design as the 50s, is it slow... hell no! with the right tinkering a solid axle can be fast... just ford tends to jump into new technology as fast as possible, without fully figuring it out... the modular engine is a prime example , its a dohc engine, that is no more efficient then their Windsor pushrod engine...

Pushrod engines are the more efficient design, ohc are only nice because they can allow more adjustability. If a pushrod engine is designed right it creates the same force with a reduced rotating mass and drag= more power Besides solid axles are more reliable. Isn't the Ultima Aero running a pushrod motor?

FYI, you quoted the Canadian STI price when comparing to Ford's US price. The US price of the STI is actually $35k, which makes it a pretty good buy.

nope i used the canadian sites for both... look it up if ur so bright...

the aero is running a variant of the C6R pushrod engine derived from the LS3 engine

the live axle in my stang works just fine... and the new stangs are better... i think youl be suprised with the refinment they have put into the 2010s too... the modular engine that goes into the GT is a SOHC only the SVT models get DOCH engines... the future is with DOHC and they are moving to a 5.0l DOHC modular engine for 2011 sharing the same engine with the ford f150 which is rated at a 400hp... expect more for the stang... that will be a impressive engine... while true the SOHC engines in the past (like the one sitting in my mustang right now) were a little sluggish for their displacment i would argue that they have an amazing ammount of room for adjustibility and upgrade options... you can take my car and with a simple head/cam/valve swap update it to the current spec 4.6 basically... and yes chevys vettes all use pushrod engines and i love them to death too... but there is nothing wrong with new tech... u had best get use to it...

Apparently, I mistook the "California" package to mean California price. Regardless, the STI does just about everything better than the Mustang and the price reflects that.

well for comparisin the US entry level GT stang is $26775 And for the upgrade thing thats what im saying dont compare cars that dont cost the same... i can throw a set of 14" baer brakes, swap the seats, do a full suspension mod, and bump the HP to 425 right from ford and id only be at 44k here in canada... thats how the car would be delivered... (at that price id just jump into a vette though...) the mustang does have a solid rear but its proved to be not only very strong and reliable but also very workable through the corners if your willing as a driver to do it... its maybe not as easy as your techno babble to drive but it does work well... its ok i understand that your probabally a shit driver who needs the help... beyah... but seriously if your gonna compare the STI to something then put it side by side with a vette... i know the outcome of that battle ... and if you wanna put the new STI up against a similar priced Evo both current Gen then you know the outcome of that too...

ive driven the live axle mustangs, and the irs mustangs, the irs is way better, but isnt as good in a straight line. you compare a mustang to other sports cars and it handles like a truck, but its still better then 90% of the cars out there

Were are you getting this information? the main advantage of having overhead cams is it enables engine to have more than 2 valves per cylinder which can allow for a better flowing head design. plus efficiency comes from things like compression ratio, force induction, head design and valve timing. rotating mass has little to do with power production or efficiency. solid axels are also a thing of the past for good reason they transfer every bump the rear tire experiences to the opposite tire making the rear end loose effective traction. the only real advantage is that they are cheap to produce but Independence differentials can handle equivalent power while giving better ride and handling qualities. i rather have the independent rear differential out of a kr cobra or viper anyday over the stock ford 8.8inch. the ultimate areo is an all aluminum corvette engine requiring twin turbos and incredible expensive components in the engine to make that power, yes it has push rod but its power comes from the turbos and free flowing head design not from the lack of rotational mass that it saves from only having one cam shaft. that's like me saying Arnold Schwarzenegger had a professional body building career because he was Austrian, not because he took steroids and weight trained intensely.

because the mass public rather have cars that have a bunch of air bags and creature comforts than a performance drive train. remember ford produces cars that the public wants not cars that are going to be a handful to drive and scare consumers away. the majority of mustangs produce are v6 automatics because most people buy a mustang for its sporty looks and reputation. there are a few die hard performance fans that still get the gt model and rather be drag racing it than cruising the beach with the top down but we small group of the mustangs target market. That being said ford does offer a reasonably fast vehicle of the money and I've never seen a car take as much abuse as a mustang and not have major problems. they are designed to be reliable and almost idiot proof. if you decide to put in a little wretch time with gt or above model you can produce quite a capable vehicle for a reasonable amount of money.

I'm speaking on an equal comparison mate. Apples and Oranges, you may like the citrusy flavor of multivalve but what does that have to do with Golden delicious vs Macintosh? I didn't mention multivalve because that would be comparing valvetrains and heads not the specific design characteristic. All other things being equal a pushrod is still more efficient, but they lack adjustability. I should have mentioned multivalves looking back, but it had nothing to do with the point I was making. And I brought up the Aero as an a example of a car where ALL components were picked for performance abilities, if pushrod engines were obsolete a company going for all out performance wouldn't pick a pushrod motor to design their powerplant around. 'solid axels are also a thing of the past'- As long as people want cheap and reliable they won't be. On a daily driver, even a sporty one, I personally would take reliability and cheap any day. (fast, reliable, cheap... For a street car I pick the last two). Dual purpose car or that is a purpose built sports car, then yeah I'll take something that's going to cost a bit more, but lets face it a Mustang is a fairly entry level sports car, where bang for buck counts. And think of who the car is marketed toward, I mean how many Mustangs have you seen dodging cones? I'd even be willing to say Nascar mentality had something to do with it, as much as I hate it, the car is designed in a country where the epitome of racing is turning left for 2 hours.

I know of Mustangs that are in the 9's. You are comparing a Sti to Mustangs. You might as well compare a Ferrari to your Sti. They are totally different class of cars designed to meet a different market. Riddle me this how many older Japanese cars do you see on the road or in garages in the US.. How many Japanese cars are handed down in the family? Yeah I could see my son going OH Boy!! dad your giving me a Subaru in 10 years (I don't think so).. Yeah I know I love going to the classic car shows and looking at the custom Toyota's, Nissan errr Datsun cars of yester year NOT!!!! Come-on you show me a 240z or even a 260Z I will show you a pile of rust. And even if you did find one in decent shape why bother restoring it.. A Mustang is not all about speed, its about style, its about class is about a life syle is about America. One of the most modified cars in the US is the Mustang. The US auto makers are suffering because our market is flooded with the throw away metality of todays generation. Thats why I just laugh when you pull up next to me a rev your engine. You still think its all about speed on the roads..On the track the Mustang is a car you see a lot of. Have you watched Pinks or any drag racing events.. If the Sti's are so much faster and you love the drive train how come there are not more of them on the drag circuit. Get your facts before posting about how slow the Mustang is.

mustang all the way put a sti up against a saleen s351 and its not even a race on the street track or strip

U got a link to support that... I got mine straight off the subaru Canada page. Dealer said so doesn't count.

Nevermind the fact that you are comparing two completely different cars, all wheel drive rally car versus a rear drive street/sport car, you are comparing the high end version of imprezza wrx sti versus the low end mustang gt. if you want to measure performance (on paved surfaces) with top end models of these two cars, try pitting a sti vs a top end mustang like the super snake. It is as bad as those who compare the new ss camaro, or srt8 challenger to a stock gt. those are the high output versions of each car, and they get compared to the middle of the road mustang. try keeping the comparisons to similar version levels of cars other than just price.each of the cars that have been mentioned are good cars in their fields, it just depends on owner preference as to what you like more. And if the Mustang is such a bad/slow car, why do so many people want to compare their cars to it ?

thats partially my point man... but i like to compare cars that are in similar price ranges... and by similar i mean within 2000 dollars... i mean dollar for dollar the sti may be a better performer but you miss out on a lot... ive always said that a car is make or brake on the X factor... which involves lots of things how it performs by the numbers, what it looks like, how it drives, and the most important bit is how you feel when your driving it... i always feel like im driving just some car when im behind the wheel of something like a STi in the mustang it is just differnet theres heritage involved and a feeling that i just love... getting up beside the wall on a freeway in the city and letting second gear fly is a awesome thing that you only get in a V8 muscle car. that feeling thats damn near sexual for me... hairs stand on end and nothing else matters... windows down and just creating thunder in your wake... perfect...

i hear that man, i love blasting through tunnels, parkades,etc.

why are people saying the mustang needs a diet? they are the lightest american "muscle" car. lighter than the gto, chrager, or camaro. the gt needs a bigger engine. and if this driveline is the way people are saying it is, it sounds to me like it needs to be upgraded to todays technology

no your wrong put an sti up against a saleen s351 and the saleen will beat it in everything but a rally..

Sure, for much more money. My post was based on money being an object.

a saleen s351 is about 35000 in the us same as an sti it stopped bein produced in 1999. if thats the case compare the regular subaru impreza against a gt mustang not an impreza sti against a gt mustang thats my point in my post

A GT vs a normal WRX? The GT might win in straight line performance, since that's what they concentrated on. The WRX would probably win on a track with twisties, and non-performance categories. The s351 was over US$57K in 1999, so you should compare it with a used Z06 Vette. In fact, a much newer Z06 could be had for much less than an s351.

There is a 4.6 SOHC 3-valve its in the 05 and up gt...... oh and the 4.6 DOHC is a 4-valve used in cobras and mach 1's

hey mike for someone whos throwing as much shit my way as you are you need to do some serious research... you should know the 05+ GT stangs recieve 3valve 4.6l engines... thats pretty rookie ...

chase im on board with you with everything you said but the technology its also americas highest tech muscle car if you base tech as newer is higher tech... the pushrod engines produce great horsepower at less fuel consumption (application depending) but the ohc engines are technically more advanced i guess... i think it could use a displacment bump though...

The thing thats nice about the old stuff is that you can do a rear end swap or tweak the engine in your garage for next to nothing and then take it on the street or run it down the quarter relati vely cheaply, your not goin to do that on a vette or viper or saleen. these cars were never meant to really run with those cars(in GT form) they were meant more for the guy who wants a fun car that he can customize and run on the track on the weekends maybe. And why in gods name would there even be a comparison between a subaru and a mustang in pretty uch anything, we kno the subarus a champ on a race track and a stang was meant for the quarter dont go mixing the two together, it doesnt work

i was referring to the suspension not being independent as the lack of technology part. there are much better suspension setups now than what the gt has. that solid rear or whatever it is that it has should be scrapped.

what exactally can you do to a 1969 mustang to make it noticeably faster that you cant do to a new mustang... other then timing, which MIGHT add about 5 hp, or carb adjusting which would add about the same... now get a tuner for a new mustang and you can tune the car perfectly every time for the rest of your life for a one time payment of $400 or so... old school tuning and new tuning is not all that different, its just less guess work these days

I think what they mean is that if you had a 69 mustang there were no emission laws or computers to deal with. you jsut get under the hood rip the carb off and put a new one on the car. then tune the jets to your liking. slap on a new exhaust is a piece of cake too. lots of space to work with unlike new cars and no sensors to mess with. car breaks you get under the hood adjsut a few things and it works unlike a new car that you need to take in to get a diagnostics test on.

sensors are not hard to deal with, and makes the engine more efficent, there fore more powerfull we dont have emissions tests here :)

a push rod engine can be smaller, and weigh much less then a ohc engine of the same displacement

a faulty sensor can set off a check engine light which is a pain. i like older cars for the simplicity and just pure raw power they had. 1970 chevelle 454 ss. 500 hp and 500 ft lbs of torque at the wheels. just engine and tranny pure raw power. got to love it

im with you on the pushrod engine. im a chevy guy. kind of turning into a mopar guy too

im not talkin bout 05 up mustangs there peices of shit and to heavy youll never hear me talkin bout the new mustang gts and yes they do have a 3v in the new mustangs but i wasnt talkin bout them i was talkin bout the 99-04 mustangs which only have a 4.6 2v sohc and the cobras had the 4.6 dohc 3v is what i was talkin bout rookie cuz if you knew your mustangs like u say u do u woulda pointed that out as well

im talking now you can get a used s351 for around 35-40000 i kno for a fact because i just saw a used sell for 41000. and i would never buy a chevy. and u brought up the vette z06 which got smoked by the saleen on the road course strip and cones. but i thought we were comparing the sti against mustangs not mustang against vette. everyone in there right mind know that a saleen would get the sti in everything but a rally race.

if you put dual 4 barrels its gonna add more then 5 horse to it and they have a bigger block to start with than a newer mustang. a 1969 mach 1 r code with the 428 scj puts out more then 100 hp then any newer mustang without doing anything to it

not to step on your toes but im pretty sure that the z06 beats even the saleen s351. the 2003 runs in the 12s for the 1/4 mile and in the 4s for 0-60. i dont know how much a s351 cost new but the z06 in 2003 was around $60k.

the 1999 s351 is a 11 second car stock the z06 puts out 505hp and 500lbs of tourqe and the saleen puts out 495 hp and 570 lbs tourqe and is alot lighter then a vette now if you wanna say a c6 vette would beat it i would agree. car and driver put them to the test a z06 vette a viper and a saleen s351 and the saleen beat them at everything

ah ok i stand corrected. i must have found stats for the s281 saleen i was looking at. i dont know how much the saleen runs new but speaking between the viper and vette i would def take the vette and spend the difference of the 2 on the vette and make it a pure viper killer haha

yea you must of most people do u prolly seen it said 375hp and 415 lbs tq right that is the s281 still a bad ass car but as for a vette and viper i agree with the vette even tho i dont like chevy at all thats the only car they got right besides the older camaro z28s

haha im actually a huge chevy guy. kind of turning into a mopar guy with my 300C now but still love chevys.

i do love the new 300c esp the srt-8 and the stylin on them are excelent for an over all car family, fun luxury and still has good power its got it all

i was going to get the srt8 instead of just the regular C but that 6.1 hemi sucks gas bad in comparison haha

I was replying about the STI vs the Mustang GT, but you are now talking about used cars. I've seen publications time the s351 at 12.4-12.9 so 11's must be obtained on a sticky track with DRs. The 2002 (using as an example) Z06 weighs less and costs far, far less. In fact, I've seen Z06s for about US$25k with less than 20k miles. Performance wise, it's not too much of a stretch. If you consider the Mustang's playskool interior, older parts and high cost, the Z06 sounds like the better choice. For ~US$40K, I'd get a 2007 Z06 and have a car that's 8 years newer and probably similar, if not better, performance.

my friend has a 2007 z06. it cranks. i would say it would beat about anything on the road including the saleen

ah yeah theres no arguing there i suppose ... but i have to mention that the live axle is pretty good for what it is...

Mike your still wrong The Mach 1s and Cobras are 4v engines....

only time a bigger carb will help an engine gain power is if it was running out of air at high rpm, other then that the smallest that can flow at the engines top rpm is best... and the 69 mach 1 ... factory rated at 335, but likely 400 hp or so... its a special edition mustang... and the new cobras will absolutely destroy it... im all for the classic cars, but they cannot compete with cars that have technology that is 30 years newer!... most of them have neck snapping acceleration... because they all run extremely low gears, and top out at barely over 100 mph... the new mod motors are not much smaller then the pushrod big blocks...

A view of History people commenting on Mustangs, clueless about engine design and so many factors, and NOT knowing the Govt and insurance company's determine "vehicle power outputs" Now in 2016 for $50,000+ a Silly Shelby name version or other BOSS version or whatever name Ford reuses the GTGT+ these are 1-2% of all Mustangs sold!...you can purchase a Mustang that moves faster, primarily purchased by old men!

No traction.

The reason is because it's a big American muscle car and not your sleek, lightweight Lamborghini gallardo or Ferrari 458 so it has a ton of Bhp. Another reason is because with the perfect amount of tuning, yours can do over 200mph so don't judge it because it is only the stock ones that are slow.