Mustangs................

[TJ91]

It could be better, could be worse. But it sure is lighter.
I wonder if they are adding a 6 speed this time?

[Tal]

Ford will probably hit these numbers or something very close, but there's still a lot that's unknown. Primarily what will the cost/mpg's be, both of which are very important for the V6 segment (both are key in TCO for the buyer that pays attention). Will Ford keep the weight down, I don't expect it will go up much but nobody outside of a few people at Ford really know right now and there are plenty of other unknowns as well. Of course there's also what will GM do, the LLT seems to have quite a bit of headroom for added horsepower in future model years. Another big unknown at this point is the possibility that GM and/or Ford could offer a pair of V6 models one economy and one mid-range. There's way to many unknowns right now, it's like trying to discuss GM's DI V8 or the possiblities for a Z/28. As a consumer I'm glad to see Ford stepping up their game from that silly 4.0 though, more competition is good for us all!

[syr74]

Originally Posted by Brokinarrow

my question is, will the V6 stang be able to compete on MPG? If a new buyer is comparing the two, MPG could definitely tip the scale heavily for them (this is a V6 shopper here, not out to get a raging V8... not that the V6 doesn't kick butt )

Now that is a valid point. The 3.7L V6 wont utilize direct injection but will apparently make very good numbers in terms of power so fuel economy is absolutely a question mark at this juncture.

[Black5thgen]

Originally Posted by syr74

How do you guys actually read this stuff and still get it wrong? If you bothered to read the entire article the lower portion addresses the new standards specifically including the fact that some sort of rear seat head protection will be mandated by 2013 and that a smaller dummy will also be utilized to better represent female passenger. All of this directly stems from and applies to the new side impact standards. THe article also states....




The government is going to change the standards and means by which side impact ratings are gathered, but they are not telling anybody how to pass under those new standards or implying whether any specific existing vehicle will or wont meet them as is. Related to this the government is also requiring that companies meet a specifically higher standard for rear passenger side impact ratings, and that they must have a system in place to accomplish the same, but again the government is telling nobody exactly how to accomplish that.

As for Camaro meeting these standards and the Mustang not meeting them. The fact of the matter is that we have nothing but GM's word that the Camaro meets these standards, since the government isn't testing for the same as yet. GM obviously thinks the Camaro will pass, but they thought they would get five stars for frontal impact rating as well. Worst case scenario for Mustang, the car need rear head bags that it doesn't currently have. Again, I'm dieing to know just how much you think those will weigh. I also addressed the new rollover rating system which wont be mandatory until 2017.

If you have something to add be my guest as I am always open to learn something new, and I have plenty left to learn..

Did you even bother to read my link where it states that the crash tests will be measured using a different ram to better represent a real car and new cars will have to use more body bracing to pass the inspection. That is where the added weight will come from, not the airbags that you're stuck on so passionatly. As for your question about how much the airbags will weigh i'll say 250lbs. They new mustang will weight 250lbs. more than the current.

[CamaroFemme]

Originally Posted by Stew

I don't want to burst your ubble, but GM cars aren't exactly bulletproof, in the last few years I had to replace the transmission in the 00 Grand Prix, just over 100k miles, and my parents Lumina also blew it's transmission with just over 140k, and their Regal, among 1000 other problems, has a transmission on it's way out with well UNDER 100k miles..... My Fords and CHryslers are all much better!

Never said they were bulletproof, just stating the experiences of myself, my family and friends.

Bubble intact.

[CamaroFemme]

Originally Posted by S8ER01Z

I won't go as far as saying Ford and Chrysler are better but I see where you are going and agree. My LT1 4th Gen Camaro Z28 dropped the 4L60E at ~78K... The rearend went shortly after, airpump, a/c compressor... well actually I could probably name a shorter list of things that didn't fail.

CamaroFemme - Trying to claim Mustangs are junk is just a bad path to go down. GM cars are far from bullet proof... don't worry your honeymoon will be over soon and you will see.

Once more - all I'm doing is stating the experiences of myself, my family, and my friends. I also take note the Camaro you had problems with was a 4th gen, which I've heard the low sales/quality of which is why we had a years-long hiatus. I didn't state Mustangs were *junk*, so please don't put words in my mouth. I stated if at all possible, I would never own one, and stated why.

[S8ER01Z]

Originally Posted by CamaroFemme

Once more - all I'm doing is stating the experiences of myself, my family, and my friends. I also take note the Camaro you had problems with was a 4th gen, which I've heard the low sales/quality of which is why we had a years-long hiatus.

yeah they only made 110,000 F-bodies that year...and all of them brokedown... sure glad it didn't have anything to do with CAW and that union contract. My point was it has nothing to do with the 'brand' or 'maker'... every car is different. Some are perfect and some fall apart. You can hardly claim all of them are faulty when there is nothing to back it up. Avoiding ALL fords because of problems had with 1 or 2 cars is ignorance IMHO.

My 01 has been completely trouble free and has 110K on all the original parts (minus a slave cylinder which I just changed about 3K ago). Pulling the clutch next week to replace it for track duty in Oct. Daily driven rain, snow or shine, but thanks... I forgot how unrealiable and crappy the 4th gens were until you filled me in...

I didn't state Mustangs were *junk*, so please don't put words in my mouth. I stated if at all possible, I would never own one, and stated why.

Sorry.. just paraphrasing...you certainly didn't say anything good.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Black5thgen

This thread is full of loss. Especially the idiot who thinks 8/10's in the quarter is a small margin. The SS barly edges out a GT
The mustang has to meet 2012 crash standards, watch the weight increase.

Every test I have seen put the camaro at 4.7 to 60, the mustang at 4.9, camaro at 13.0 and the mustang at 13.5, that is not that much difference

[Stew]

Originally Posted by S8ER01Z

I won't go as far as saying Ford and Chrysler are better but I see where you are going and agree. My LT1 4th Gen Camaro Z28 dropped the 4L60E at ~78K... The rearend went shortly after, airpump, a/c compressor... well actually I could probably name a shorter list of things that didn't fail.

CamaroFemme - Trying to claim Mustangs are junk is just a bad path to go down. GM cars are far from bullet proof... don't worry your honeymoon will be over soon and you will see.

Each person has different experiences, IMHO they overall pretty close. I will say my 96 LT1 Caprice was pretty good, needed a fuel pump and had the wonderful gunk buildup in the coolant tank,but that was it, oh and the window track breaking. But I miss that big old boat, not a better car for long trips, exept maybe my 96 Roadmaster LOL.

[S8ER01Z]

Originally Posted by Stew

Each person has different experiences, IMHO they overall pretty close.

exactly.

[Black5thgen]

Originally Posted by Stew

Every test I have seen put the camaro at 4.7 to 60, the mustang at 4.9, camaro at 13.0 and the mustang at 13.5, that is not that much difference

Even at 5/10's that's 5 car lengths. Not close when you think about it. Car and driver I think ran a 13.6 with the mustang and 13.0 with the Camaro. 2/10's would be close. half a second is not.

[CamaroFemme]

Originally Posted by S8ER01Z

yeah they only made 110,000 F-bodies that year...and all of them brokedown... sure glad it didn't have anything to do with CAW and that union contract. My point was it has nothing to do with the 'brand' or 'maker'... every car is different. Some are perfect and some fall apart. You can hardly claim all of them are faulty when there is nothing to back it up. Avoiding ALL fords because of problems had with 1 or 2 cars is ignorance IMHO.

Well, I think the maker has SOMETHING to do with it! But nah, I'm not claiming they're all faulty, but if you heard from a few people close to you that Product X was the worst they'd ever had, and you had had a damn fine experience with their competition, I daresay that would affect your buying practices.

Sorry.. just paraphrasing...you certainly didn't say anything good.

If I hear anything good about a Ford automobile from anyone close to me, I'll let you know, how 'bout that?

[syr74]

Originally Posted by Black5thgen

Did you even bother to read my link where it states that the crash tests will be measured using a different ram to better represent a real car and new cars will have to use more body bracing to pass the inspection.

I read it, but I didn't learn anything new. Remember that revised side impact ratings system and those new standards I discussed? Think that new ram might have something to do with that?

Originally Posted by Black5thgen

That is where the added weight will come from, not the airbags that you're stuck on so passionately.

You are drawing conclusions out of thin air. Nowhere does the NHTSA dictate how automotive manufacturers must modify their cars in order to pass the new test, assuming the cars need to be modified in the first place. There is no mandate for side impact reinforcement, just revised test measures and a new ratings system. Mustang breezes through the current test and will do just fine in the new one. Like I said, the only likely changes are side head airbags for the rear seat passenger, which is minor to say the least.

Originally Posted by Black5thgen

As for your question about how much the airbags will weigh i'll say 250lbs. They new mustang will weight 250lbs. more than the current.

Wow, side headbags weigh 250lb? By those standards if you took all the airbags out of the Mustang GT it would weigh about 2500lb.

[levi1922]

Originally Posted by syr74

I read it, but I didn't learn anything new. Remember that revised side impact ratings system and those new standards I discussed? Think that new ram might have something to do with that?



You are drawing conclusions out of thin air. Nowhere does the NHTSA dictate how automotive manufacturers must modify their cars in order to pass the new test, assuming the cars need to be modified in the first place. There is no mandate for side impact reinforcement, just revised test measures and a new ratings system. Mustang breezes through the current test and will do just fine in the new one. Like I said, the only likely changes are side head airbags for the rear seat passenger, which is minor to say the least.

in his defense, i did read something, somewhere, on a magazine, a longg time ago, about the mustang needing more structural reinforcements. i cannot cite a source for this right now, i will look though.