3 second 0-60 Mustang GT, stock

mad_machine wrote: somebody brought up dropping that motor into a Lincoln. I suggest this is a great idea. We all need a hot rod lincoln

There are no RWD Lincolns, right?

tuna55 wrote:

mad_machine wrote: somebody brought up dropping that motor into a Lincoln. I suggest this is a great idea. We all need a hot rod lincoln

There are no RWD Lincolns, right?

Assuming we all forget that the Mustang is actually a Lincoln....

Not to say one will ever be built with the Lincoln badge, but at least it does still exist.

tuna55 wrote: There are no RWD Lincolns, right?

There's still the Navigator, but it's too refined, luxurious, and high-tech now to be powered by a lowly, naturally aspirated V8. It may not be traditional "Hot Rod" stuff, but the Ecoboost in the new one is reported to have 450hp and 500 ft-lbs which puts the Coyote to shame.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaannnnddddd now we're back to talking about trucks.

Don't most Mustangs eventually end up in a you tube video with the driver pulling out of a parking doing a burn out and then crashing into an innocent bystanders car? So I guess this will just happen quicker now like leaving the dealership right after purchase.

FlightService wrote: In reply to yupididit: Let's be honest, we want an updated Panther platform car with stick option.

If we're really being honest we want an updated version of what the Lincoln LS could/should have been.

Edit: On topic: With that kind of performance from a GT I can't wait to see what the next gen. of "special" Mustangs can do. The current GT350R sets a pretty high bar.

In reply to BlueInGreen44:

I would have loved a Lincoln LS V8 stick. It had plenty of space, comfortable, not horribly priced. It was a great opportunity to really rebrand Lincoln into the American Jaguar (Yes I know Ford owned Jag at the time, I meant sporting luxury GT cars).

Swing and a miss Ford. Swing and a miss.

In reply to FlightService:

You do realize that the Mustang is an LS, don't you? So you can get an LS with a v8 and a manual and a fully independent suspension. Just with 2 doors. And a Ford badge.

edit- and the LS and Jag were identical cars- other than 0.1l displacement. Actually, the LS V6 was the only one with a manual.

alfadriver wrote: and the LS and Jag were identical cars- other than 0.1l displacement. Actually, the LS V6 was the only one with a manual.

Which Jag did it match up to? S-type, I'm guessing? And I've always wondered why the LS had a 3.9L that made it a unique version of the AJ-V8 that wasn't used in anything except the LS and T-bird.

rslifkin wrote:

alfadriver wrote: and the LS and Jag were identical cars- other than 0.1l displacement. Actually, the LS V6 was the only one with a manual.

Which Jag did it match up to? S-type, I'm guessing? And I've always wondered why the LS had a 3.9L that made it a unique version of the AJ-V8 that wasn't used in anything except the LS and T-bird.

Correct, S-type. And I can't even tell you IF the 3.9 and the 4.0l where actually different- I actually doubt they were- just that Jag wanted to be the bigger engine.

On a tangent- I think that whole program and how terrible Jag was about it was one of the reasons we dumped them. I would never buy one after that. And it's not as if that engine sucked horribly- we could have used it on many cars.
But that we didn't does say something.

Edit- the platform, we did keep. Which did end up as the Mustang. Somehow with front struts and a stick in the back....

And people were ripping on the Hellcat and Demon....

alfadriver wrote:

rslifkin wrote:

alfadriver wrote: and the LS and Jag were identical cars- other than 0.1l displacement. Actually, the LS V6 was the only one with a manual.

Which Jag did it match up to? S-type, I'm guessing? And I've always wondered why the LS had a 3.9L that made it a unique version of the AJ-V8 that wasn't used in anything except the LS and T-bird.

Correct, S-type. And I can't even tell you IF the 3.9 and the 4.0l where actually different- I actually doubt they were- just that Jag wanted to be the bigger engine. On a tangent- I think that whole program and how terrible Jag was about it was one of the reasons we dumped them. I would never buy one after that. And it's not as if that engine sucked horribly- we could have used it on many cars. But that we didn't does say something. Edit- the platform, we did keep. Which did end up as the Mustang. Somehow with front struts and a stick in the back....

How much DEW98 is left in the Mustang now, though? My understanding was that even the S197 was pretty heavily reworked from it, much less the S550.

CobraSpdRH wrote:

roninsoldier83 wrote:

CobraSpdRH wrote: Why can't they do this with a 4 door? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Fusion has next-to-no sporting pretensions (even the Sport). Yes, there is the Focus ST and RS, but FWD and 6+ seconds 0-60. I guess I'm just picturing a 4 door Mustang GT and EB but it doesn't exist (in the US, I believe this would be a Falcon in other countries). I wonder if this drops the price on Coyote Mustangs enough to justify a "weekend car"...

For the record, the Focus RS is AWD (not FWD) and hits 0-60mph in ~4.7 seconds. Fairly sporty for a 5-door hatch.

Good points, I guess I was focused more on the ST with that statement than the RS. Would love to test drive an RS, but afraid I would want to bring it home As others are posting, maybe the trucks are the answer here. No manual (right?), but definitely quicker than they have a right to be. That combined with street-tuned suspension could be a fun time (homebrew Lightning).

I hear ya! I agree with the rationale of not test driving the Focus RS unless you plan on buying one... when I test drove the FoRS, I wasn't planning on buying one... I now have a 2017 Focus RS in my garage, parked next to my S2000.

Stay away, far away. Unless you want to cause your wallet a lot of pain!

Sine_Qua_Non wrote:

not long ago that was mclaren, lambo, and ferrari territory.

But it's still not going to be quite refined as those three are.

I wouldn't say Ferarris are "refined". More like "let's see what the suckers will tolerate". Maybe things have changed in the past 20 years though thanks to the NSX Factor.

Tom_Spangler wrote: How much DEW98 is left in the Mustang now, though? My understanding was that even the S197 was pretty heavily reworked from it, much less the S550.

Probably not much, but it's fun to point out.

Especially now that it's closer to the DEW than ever.

Sowait, the S-type/LS is on a chassis named after the Distant Early Warning line? How fitting.

Also, it is impossible to find some parts for the S-type, and while parts for the LS may fit, the Ford dealer parts guys will not admit it. We had to get coolant tubes for an S-type by light-duty cloak and dagger means.

Meh. I'm holding out for the 13 speed.

Yeah but when are we going to see another twin stick?

Knurled wrote:

Sine_Qua_Non wrote:

not long ago that was mclaren, lambo, and ferrari territory.

But it's still not going to be quite refined as those three are.

I wouldn't say Ferarris are "refined". More like "let's see what the suckers will tolerate". Maybe things have changed in the past 20 years though thanks to the NSX Factor.

Ive never driven any of those three, what are we using to quantify "refinement"? Ive honestly thought that the mustangs built since 2005 were really decent cars to be in. Road-trip good. The ergonomics are really good. You have a really good field of view. (That one is a big deal to me, im 5'8" and the earlier mustangs made me feel like a little kid having to lean up to see over the dash.) NVH wasnt bad at all in stock form. I guess if were talking it being made from common materials instead exotic super high end stuff, then yeah its not as refined. But it will go a lot farther without a major break down. When it does break it wont cost you tens of thousands to fix it. I consider that refined.

If comparison shopping between mustang and Ferrari or lambo (im not) the choice is really do i want a high end exotic, or do i want similar performance and enough money leftover to pay my house off. Youll see my ass sitting in some rich corinthian leather, no questions asked.

In reply to gearheadmb:

So you went with a 30 year old dodge?

We've actually reached a level where someone shopping an Italian exotic might actually cross shop a Mustang. (okay, so even then it's a high-end specialty edition, but none the less...)

That's pretty remarkable.

In reply to ultraclyde:

The difference in refinement is that Ferrari/Lambo/McLaren/Lotus/et al, spend far more time ,money, and effort perfecting the suspension geometry, brake response, shock damping curves, bushing firmness, even spring isolator firmness to arrive at a package that will both corner at over 1 gee on street tires while giving a ride comfort level that is so nice it feels almost luxurious (almost!). I driven late model Ferraris, Lambos, McLarens as well as a few hours in a 2016 Mustang GT, so I can speak to the difference in "refinement". The new Mustang is a really impressive package for it's price, and the fact that is mass-produced, and it's performance capabilities (by the numbers) are nearly equal to the true exotics. But they still lack that feel of perfection the exotics possess.

In reply to WildScotsRacing:

Eric could tell you for sure, but I would nearly promise that Ford spends way more man-hours on those things, but they simply have very different goals and price points.

tuna55 wrote: In reply to WildScotsRacing: Eric could tell you for sure, but I would nearly promise that Ford spends way more man-hours on those things, but they simply have very different goals and price points.

Yea, I'd be pretty confident that there were more prototypes for every aspect of building cars plus more hours of development for the Mustang over a Ferrari. As tuna pointed out, the goals are very, very different.

The idea that people have associated the two cars together is pretty interesting.

alfadriver wrote:

tuna55 wrote: In reply to WildScotsRacing: Eric could tell you for sure, but I would nearly promise that Ford spends way more man-hours on those things, but they simply have very different goals and price points.

Yea, I'd be pretty confident that there were more prototypes for every aspect of building cars plus more hours of development for the Mustang over a Ferrari. As tuna pointed out, the goals are very, very different. The idea that people have associated the two cars together is pretty interesting.

I worked in tier 1 for a time, but it was long ago. From my experience there, and my general understanding of high volume manufacturing, I'd say this is not close either. In terms of man-hours, I bet Ford spent more than 10x what Ferrari spent.

In reply to tuna55:

Fair enough, but how then do the exotics achieve that feel that they have? Or are my (most of us here, I suspect) standards for what constitutes nice road manners just plain different than Joe and Jane Sheep?