JohnGalt wrote: I would be very angry if i found out my 300hp mustang could only do 112 mph safely. What the hell are those Ford drive-shafts made of anyway?
+1
JohnGalt wrote: I would be very angry if i found out my 300hp mustang could only do 112 mph safely. What the hell are those Ford drive-shafts made of anyway?
+1
carguy123 wrote: Just shows Ford is still cutting corners every way they can. Remember the debacle about the original Mustang and an underhood brace?
How the heck is having a 130MPH driveshaft in a 112MPH restricted V6 AUTO Mustang "cutting corners"?
WTF??!?!
This isn't a Shelby GT5oo, Boss 302, or 5.0 GT we're talking about here fellas, it's a BASE MODEL V6!!! With an AUTO! The thing held up for 20+ MPH past it's warrantied and manufactured limit!
I'm impressed how well that v6 pulled up to those speeds, anyone else?
insert snarky comment about idiot driver removing safeguards, yada yada yada...
Javelin wrote:carguy123 wrote: Just shows Ford is still cutting corners every way they can. Remember the debacle about the original Mustang and an underhood brace?How the heck is having a 130MPH driveshaft in a 112MPH restricted V6 AUTO Mustang "cutting corners"? WTF??!?! This isn't a Shelby GT5oo, Boss 302, or 5.0 GT we're talking about here fellas, it's a BASE MODEL V6!!! With an AUTO! The thing held up for 20+ MPH past it's warrantied and manufactured limit!
The real question is how does one data point show anything? We only have evidence of this happening once and know nothing of the previous abuse inflicted upon the car in question. There is no trend here; other than the long tradition of jackasses owning V6 Mustangs and driving them accordingly.
Raze wrote: I'm impressed how well that v6 pulled up to those speeds, anyone else? insert snarky comment about idiot driver removing safeguards, yada yada yada...
jrw1621 wrote: I have not been near a new V6 Mustang but I am impressed in the video how much the car still pulls beyond the 112 limit. The speedo still climbed fast beyond 120 mph and I bet 145 would have been possible if the road were long enough.
In the words of Red Foreman from That 70's Show: Dumbass....
Right there in the article:
V6 Mustang is built with a 2.73 rear gear ratio and a lightweight, one-piece driveshaft that's engineered to toe the line between fuel economy and performance.
And:
owners looking for more speed should look toward the Mustang GT with its 412-horsepower V8, heavy-duty two-piece drive shaft and variety of rear axle ratio choices.
So read between the lines.
The GT has lower rear gears which means it has a higher driveshaft rpm at a given speed than the econobox version.
The GT also has a two-piece driveshaft. This means it has a center bearing to support the shaft and stop it from getting a "whip" going if it vibrates at high rpm.
The econobox has a lightweight, one piece driveshaft. No doubt more flexible and prone to "whip" than the two-piece shaft.
Dumbass owner exceeded design limits, that's all there is to it.
Shawn
Interesting. I thought most speed limiters were there due to lower rated tires and such. Some F-bodys had limiters for this reason. I wonder if you buy a V6 5-speed with the upgraded suspension etc do they give you the better shaft? If road racing one of these cars, would an improved shaft be seen as a safety item?
MG Bryan wrote: The real question is how does one data point show anything?
Woah there man. Don't be bringing reason into this 
It does seem really odd that a driveshaft would be designed with less than a 20% safety margin. I wonder if that is the reason they set the speed limiter. One piece shaft developed nasty harmonics above 120mph or so?
Trans_Maro wrote: Right there in the article: V6 Mustang is built with a 2.73 rear gear ratio and a lightweight, one-piece driveshaft that's engineered to toe the line between fuel economy and performance. And: owners looking for more speed should look toward the Mustang GT with its 412-horsepower V8, heavy-duty two-piece drive shaft and variety of rear axle ratio choices. So read between the lines. The GT has lower rear gears which means it has a higher driveshaft rpm at a given speed than the econobox version. The GT also has a two-piece driveshaft. This means it has a center bearing to support the shaft and stop it from getting a "whip" going if it vibrates at high rpm. The econobox has a lightweight, one piece driveshaft. No doubt more flexible and prone to "whip" than the two-piece shaft. Dumbass owner exceeded design limits, that's all there is to it. Shawn
The goodnews there, for V6 owners wanting to go fast.. the mounts for the centre bearing should already be there. Just need the 2 piece shaft from the GT and bolt it all in
ditchdigger wrote:MG Bryan wrote: The real question is how does one data point show anything?Woah there man. Don't be bringing reason into this
I'm sorry, I forgot this was the internet.
MG Bryan wrote:Javelin wrote:The real question is how does one data point show anything? We only have evidence of this happening once and know nothing of the previous abuse inflicted upon the car in question. There is no trend here; other than the long tradition of jackasses owning V6 Mustangs and driving them accordingly.carguy123 wrote: Just shows Ford is still cutting corners every way they can. Remember the debacle about the original Mustang and an underhood brace?How the heck is having a 130MPH driveshaft in a 112MPH restricted V6 AUTO Mustang "cutting corners"? WTF??!?! This isn't a Shelby GT5oo, Boss 302, or 5.0 GT we're talking about here fellas, it's a BASE MODEL V6!!! With an AUTO! The thing held up for 20+ MPH past it's warrantied and manufactured limit!
Exactly!
I have a V6 Mustang 5 speed (previous generation) and I don't track it or anything, but I've heard of similar issues with the driveshaft being the weak link. It's just a daily driver so I have no reason to take it that fast and when I got a tuner I didn't even bother removing the speed limiter.
How is it Ford cutting corners? It's putting a weak (cheap) driveshaft in to increase profits and then limiting the speed so that (you hope) no one exceeds it.
Why would you need to limit the speed of a V6 car otherwise?
carguy123 wrote: How is it Ford cutting corners? It's putting a weak (cheap) driveshaft in to increase profits and then limiting the speed so that (you hope) no one exceeds it. Why would you need to limit the speed of a V6 car otherwise?
They put a lightweight driveshaft in an economy model of that car.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
This would be like me bitching that my F-150 won't tow 14,000 lbs.
They cheaped out because it won't do the job of a larger truck without breaking.
Wanting fuel economy and bitching when you find out that the manufacturer used lightweight parts is asinine. If he wanted a performance car, there are other options available that aren't THAT car.
Our second Freightliner at work is a 4wd. The transmission is the same as the 2wd except that the 4wd has the overdrive blocked out. I can unblock it but I might break the transmission due to the heavier loads put on the drivetrain. It would not be Allison's fault if this happened, it would be mine.
Gearheadotaku wrote: I wonder if you buy a V6 5-speed with the upgraded suspension etc do they give you the better shaft?
It's not about getting the base shaft anymore: they expect you to pay to get shafted better. 
carguy123 wrote: How is it Ford cutting corners? It's putting a weak (cheap) driveshaft in to increase profits and then limiting the speed so that (you hope) no one exceeds it. Why would you need to limit the speed of a V6 car otherwise?
The same reasons they make a V6 Mustang for the first place. Fuel economy, smoothness, low NVH (all for the DS), and lower insurance (for the V6).
I love how people are roasting a company over the coals from ONE idiot (and let's face it, he is an idiot: driving 135+ while filming with one hand on a public road) whom has at least monkeyed with the car's computer (to disable the speed limiter), so who knows what else has been done to that car. All of that taken into consideration, and it still didn't fail until 135+!! And you're crucifying Ford over that!??!
Would you bad-mouth Hoosier if your R6's were speed rated for 135 and they blew out at 155+? Would you treat Simpson this way if your helmet designed for a 100MPH impact didn't fail until 120+?
I mean, seriously? What happened here?
Javelin, you too have made the mistake of bringing logic and reasoning into this. 
As a service advisor, I have been told plenty of times 'I will do whatever I want and you WILL berkeleyin' cover it if it breaks or I will get an attorney and then I will hold my breath and kick my feet until I turn blue'.
The most memorable was an A/C actuator failure on a Wrangler with less then 6000 miles which was due to water and mud intrusion. This thing is on TOP of the A/C case. I will leave it to your imagination as to just how deep it got in the water. The guy said 'it's 'trail rated' and the district rep replied ' but it's not 'pond rated'.
It is not the job of the manufacturer to protect idiots from their own stupidity.
If you want a 135+ MPH car, buy a car rated for 135+ MPH or build your own.
Do we have any pics of the aftermath?
I'm curious if the Track/Performance Package, whatever they are calling it, of the V6 Mustang has the same "economy" driveshaft.
Because if it does, all arguments about the base model vs. the GT go out the window.
I always thought driveshafts were rated based on the amount of torque applied to them, and their length. I never considered rotating speed or top speed an issue. Either they are balanced correctly, and are rated for the torque the engine can produce or not. They don't know the difference between 3K rpm in first gear and 3K rpm in 5th. That being said, I'd rather loose one on a launch than on a high speed run.
carguy123 wrote: How is it Ford cutting corners? It's putting a weak (cheap) driveshaft in to increase profits and then limiting the speed so that (you hope) no one exceeds it. Why would you need to limit the speed of a V6 car otherwise?
Tire speed rating...which, I just check, is 118 on the V6 Mustang.
tr8todd wrote: I always thought driveshafts were rated based on the amount of torque applied to them, and their length. I never considered rotating speed or top speed an issue. Either they are balanced correctly, and are rated for the torque the engine can produce or not. They don't know the difference between 3K rpm in first gear and 3K rpm in 5th. That being said, I'd rather loose one on a launch than on a high speed run.
Yes they do, because they're after the transmission, their speed is based off ground speed.
I get what everybody is saying. I really do. But nowadays, just about any V6 grocery getter can go 135 without drama.
You'll need to log in to post.
