Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 37

Thread: Ecoboost Stang coming soon!

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    south jersey, delaware soon!
    Posts
    2,260
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haystack View Post
    More gas mileage is better. Why wouldn't you want it to be better?
    it's not a concern to me.. call me spoiled or stupid, but i'd rather have a 600rwhp/10-12mpg pushrod motor than 500rwhp/25+mpg OHC motor.. i don't really care about gas mileage, never have and probably never will.. i'll only ever care if gas prices reach $5/gallon, which it's never even reached $4 around here.. if/when it does, i'll start mixing with methanol again, which i still do with my capri and blue bird anyway


    Quote Originally Posted by T-BirdX3 View Post
    The funny part is these new performance cars are much better at everything compared to anything made in the late 60's early 70's.
    performance wise, of course.. 30-40+ years of innovation better have produced better numbers, or else they should have just hung it up.. but as far as styling, i'm sorry, but there's nothing about these newer cars that would ever make me want to own 1 over the original.. especially the disgusting camaro and ford's eff up on the redesign of the 'restrostang..'
    ShadowMSC.com < < Still Under Construction

    R.I.P. 'Zump' 8/29/86 - 11/11/11
    3- 87 TC's / 1 really mean 83 Capri RS / 94 Sonoma SAS Project on 37x12.50 TSL Radials / 88 S10 that's LITERALLY cut to pieces / 84 F150 SAS, 351M, 39.5 TSL's / 85 Toyota regular cab, 22R 5spd, 3/4" drop, my little junkyard save/daily driver

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Utah.
    Posts
    9,117
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default

    Having paid over $4 a gallon, I even filled a 22 gallon tank just shy of $5 a gallon. I think your an idiot.

    Methonal also uses about twice the amount of fuel as gas, so unless it costs less then half, you are wasting your time. Amd he more efficiantly your motor is running, the better power, and to an extent, the better gas mileage you should be getting. I kniw guys with 300hp carbs that are getting 25+. I also know several people that used to tune vw's that were getting 1.6 liters over 200hp, and over 50mpg.

    If you can't get better power with decent mileage your doing it wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by jcassity
    I honestly dont think you could exceed the cost of a new car buy installing new *stock* parts everywhere in your coug our tbird. Its just plain impossible. You could revamp the entire drivetrain/engine/suspenstion and still come out ahead.
    Hooligans!
    1988 Crown Vic wagon. 120K California car. Wifes grocery getter. (junked)
    1987 Ford Thunderbird LX. 5.0. s.o., sn-95 t-5 and an f-150 clutch. Driven daily and going strong.
    1986 cougar.
    lilsammywasapunkrocker@yahoo.com

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    south jersey, delaware soon!
    Posts
    2,260
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default

    300rwhp is a far cry from 600+rwhp, in terms of everything.. i don't know what the actual numbers are with the capri, as it's never seen a dyno in it's life, but it averages 14mpg with 1 gallon of methanol to 21 gallons of gas (running 22 gallon fuel cell).. i'm totally fine with the gas mileage it gets, as the power is incredible, both on the street and at the track.. i only pay $130 for a 55 gallon drum of methanol, when i buy more than 1.. i always buy at least 2, because the micros run on methanol.. at $130 for 55 gallons, it comes to about $2.36 a gallon.. usually, i buy 4 drums and sell it at the track for $4 a gallon, plus $3 for a pint of Benol (methanol 2 stroke oil), so it's making me money.. not costing me a cent
    ShadowMSC.com < < Still Under Construction

    R.I.P. 'Zump' 8/29/86 - 11/11/11
    3- 87 TC's / 1 really mean 83 Capri RS / 94 Sonoma SAS Project on 37x12.50 TSL Radials / 88 S10 that's LITERALLY cut to pieces / 84 F150 SAS, 351M, 39.5 TSL's / 85 Toyota regular cab, 22R 5spd, 3/4" drop, my little junkyard save/daily driver

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    9,051
    Feedback Score
    18 (100%)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thunderjet302 View Post
    What no "Ecoboost" 5.8 V8 for the Shelby GT500? That's where it should go. The power of a V10 with the gas mileage of a V8 .

    The 2013 GT500 is already replete with V10 power....
    http://www.roadandtrack.com/tests/dr...d-shelby-gt500

    As far as gas mileage they're saying no gas guzzler tax. Not bad for a 650 HP car that is capable of 200 MPH out of the box for an estimated 60-65K. If things play out right for me, this is on the buy list.

    the mustang and camaro never struck me as muscle cars.. a muscle car in my mind is a big car with big power.
    Considering at what these 2 particular cars tip the scales at nowadays I think it's safe to put them into that category as opposed to the older ones which were indeed "pony cars." Big difference is the new ones can actually negotiate the twisties.

    but there's nothing about these newer cars that would ever make me want to own 1 over the original.. especially the disgusting camaro and ford's eff up on the redesign of the 'restrostang..'
    To each his own with regards to style, but it's hard to deny the appeal of progress. Case in point: My 2005 has extensive powertrain mods and a decent amount of suspension mods. Bottom 12's/high 11's are where it sits at the moment. Right in line with a bone stock 30s Boss Laguna Seca.....

    I just flipped though an issue of Car and Driver the other day. Road test of a Buick....it hit .90g on the skidpad..... A BUICK!


    Me & the wife just purchased a brand new Focus with the 2.0. I;m actually bummed that we were in such need of a reliable commuter at the time because I would have loved to have waited the few months and got the turbo version.
    -- 05 Mustang GT-Whipplecharged !! -- 87 5.0 Trick Flow Heads & Intake - Custom Cam - Many other goodies...3100Lbs...Low12's! http://www.fquick.com/V8Demon

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Utah.
    Posts
    9,117
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default

    How is it much different? If I know 5 guys that can get 300 hp from a carbed 302 and 25mpg, why couldn't someone with a wideband and fuel injection get 600 out of a larger and more powerful motor? How are they getting 400hp and 30mpg out of the mustangs and camaros? The more efficent and engine runs, the better power it will get. You mixing in methonal just hurts gas mileage and changes your tune. You might get better power, but it kills your mileage.

    Remember david claffin on sbftech. I think he is running 11's and getting 28mpg highway.
    Quote Originally Posted by jcassity
    I honestly dont think you could exceed the cost of a new car buy installing new *stock* parts everywhere in your coug our tbird. Its just plain impossible. You could revamp the entire drivetrain/engine/suspenstion and still come out ahead.
    Hooligans!
    1988 Crown Vic wagon. 120K California car. Wifes grocery getter. (junked)
    1987 Ford Thunderbird LX. 5.0. s.o., sn-95 t-5 and an f-150 clutch. Driven daily and going strong.
    1986 cougar.
    lilsammywasapunkrocker@yahoo.com

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Middle Sackville, NS, CANADA
    Posts
    9,827
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow View Post
    i don't know why, but i'm not feeling the muscle car '2nd era' thing at all.. the mustang and camaro never struck me as muscle cars.. a muscle car in my mind is a big car with big power.. ie - torinos, chevelles, etc etc.. plus the whole gas mileage aspect of it doesn't fit in with it for me..
    Considering that a bone stock run-of-the-mill V6 (or 4-cyl turbo) midsize family car would run rings around just about any so-called "muscle car" from the 60's (at least everything except the ragged edge, barely even streetable, rare-as-hell-because-nobody-bought-them-back-then top-end big block cars like the Hemi Belvederes, 427 Galaxies, etc), in every category from straight line acceleration to skidpad to figure 8 to slalom to fuel economy to safety to reliability, and considering that if a ~280 hp family car isn't enough for you, you can always buy an SHO, 300C, Charger R/T, etc, and if that isn't enough you can step up to an SRT8 300C or Charger, AND considering that most of these are cars that aren't even considered fast nowadays (all but the SRT8's anyway) when compared to others that really are fast, I can only say this: I'm certainly glad that the automotive industry doesn't fret too much over the muscle car in your mind.

    There is no doubt about it: The golden age of the automobile is right now. Cars are more powerful and perform better in every aspect right now than they ever have and will ever be (with looming CAFE sphincter clenching and more expensive fuel). Actually I shouldn't say that: Advanced technology means we will not see another Decade of Suck (known to car guys as the 70's). Back then it was a choice: Performance or economy/emissions (and unfortunately the government made that choice). Nowadays we can have both. Cars will likely get lighter and will perform better because of it, but they'll also come with smaller, more efficient engines. This has already happened - the Mustang is lighter than the Camaro and has a smaller engine, but eats its lunch performance wise. Ford has promised a lighter 2015 Mustang, as GM has promised a lighter Camaro and Chrysler has promised a lighter Challenger (or Cuda, whatever they call it)....
    2015 Mustang GT Premium - 5.0, 6-speed, Guard Green - too much awesome for one car

    1988 5.0 Thunderbird SOLD SEPT 11 2010: TC front clip/hood ♣ Body & paint completed Oct 2007 ♣ 3.55 TC rear end and front brakes ♣ TC interior ♣ CHE rear control arms (adjustable lowers) ♣ 2001 Bullitt springs ♣ Energy suspension poly busings ♣ Kenne Brown subframe connectors ♣ CWE engine mounts ♣ Thundercat sequential turn signals ♣ Explorer overhead console (temp/compass display) ♣ 2.25" off-road dual exhaust ♣ T-5 transmission swap completed Jan 2009 ♣

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    south jersey, delaware soon!
    Posts
    2,260
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haystack View Post
    How is it much different? If I know 5 guys that can get 300 hp from a carbed 302 and 25mpg, why couldn't someone with a wideband and fuel injection get 600 out of a larger and more powerful motor? How are they getting 400hp and 30mpg out of the mustangs and camaros? The more efficent and engine runs, the better power it will get. You mixing in methonal just hurts gas mileage and changes your tune. You might get better power, but it kills your mileage.

    Remember david claffin on sbftech. I think he is running 11's and getting 28mpg highway.
    i used my desktop dyno to get a ballpark flywheel number on the capri.. mind you, it's a stupid computer program and not all too accurate.. with that said, it says my 408 at 18psi is pushing about 945 at the flywheel, over estimated by at least 100, i'd think..

    anyway, we'll use 845 at the flywheel, subtract 100 for drivetrain loss and say 745rwhp (just for the example).. back that with a worked C6, 3500 stall (non-lockup) and 4.10's.. yes, the lack of OD and the 4.10's hurt, but i don't drive on the highway.. no need to, when 90% of the places i go are within 15 miles..

    with straight gas, i got 15-16mpg at 12psi.. when i bumped to 18psi after the F.A.S.T. system and unmixed gas, i was averaging 10-12mpg.. when i started mixing and went for a re-tune, i gained mileage, due to the cooler burn of the methanol and the tune to adapt the mix.. between my lack of OD, gear rear and amount of boost, getting over 20mpg isn't possible.. especially since i'm contemplating 20-22psi, since she may be used as a 8.0 or 10.0 index car this year

    would i gain mileage by switching to an OD trans? most certainly.. will it last as long as my C6 for the amount of money i put into it? never.. i'd have to spend double to make it hold up to what the C6 is rated at now.. do i need the OD? not 1 bit.. cruising at ~50mph, the rpm's sit around 26-2700.. do i ever drive it over 50 on the street? sure, but hardly ever and when i am, it's under full boost..

    and as for the newer stangs getting great gas mileage with big power, it's purely all innovation, design and development.. if you think ford just put together a motor and threw it in a car and that was the end result, you're sadly mistaken.. i'm sure ford's development team spent months on a computer, designing the new coyote 5.0 to have more power than the mustang is known for, as well as the fuel economy of a 4 cylinder (obviously not current 4cyl standards, but take it back 3-4 years and the economy numbers are close)
    ShadowMSC.com < < Still Under Construction

    R.I.P. 'Zump' 8/29/86 - 11/11/11
    3- 87 TC's / 1 really mean 83 Capri RS / 94 Sonoma SAS Project on 37x12.50 TSL Radials / 88 S10 that's LITERALLY cut to pieces / 84 F150 SAS, 351M, 39.5 TSL's / 85 Toyota regular cab, 22R 5spd, 3/4" drop, my little junkyard save/daily driver

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    south jersey, delaware soon!
    Posts
    2,260
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder Chicken View Post
    Considering that a bone stock run-of-the-mill V6 (or 4-cyl turbo) midsize family car would run rings around just about any so-called "muscle car" from the 60's (at least everything except the ragged edge, barely even streetable, rare-as-hell-because-nobody-bought-them-back-then top-end big block cars like the Hemi Belvederes, 427 Galaxies, etc), in every category from straight line acceleration to skidpad to figure 8 to slalom to fuel economy to safety to reliability, and considering that if a ~280 hp family car isn't enough for you, you can always buy an SHO, 300C, Charger R/T, etc, and if that isn't enough you can step up to an SRT8 300C or Charger, AND considering that most of these are cars that aren't even considered fast nowadays (all but the SRT8's anyway) when compared to others that really are fast, I can only say this: I'm certainly glad that the automotive industry doesn't fret too much over the muscle car in your mind.

    There is no doubt about it: The golden age of the automobile is right now. Cars are more powerful and perform better in every aspect right now than they ever have and will ever be (with looming CAFE sphincter clenching and more expensive fuel). Actually I shouldn't say that: Advanced technology means we will not see another Decade of Suck (known to car guys as the 70's). Back then it was a choice: Performance or economy/emissions (and unfortunately the government made that choice). Nowadays we can have both. Cars will likely get lighter and will perform better because of it, but they'll also come with smaller, more efficient engines. This has already happened - the Mustang is lighter than the Camaro and has a smaller engine, but eats its lunch performance wise. Ford has promised a lighter 2015 Mustang, as GM has promised a lighter Camaro and Chrysler has promised a lighter Challenger (or Cuda, whatever they call it)....
    yes, the auto industry is in it's prime right now, but i still don't get that muscle car feel.. again, of course they're going to perform better and be more consumer friendly than the cars of the past, but it's just not the same feel.. i understand it's the second coming of the muscle car era and things will be 'better' in comparison, but they just don't strike me as the cars from the first era.. could it be the fact that i'm entirely anti plastic and paper thin sheet metal? most likely.. and the styling could be a little more desirable.. i also believe adding a 2nd performance model would really make it more of a muscle car era than it is, currently.. in the 60's and 70's, you didn't have 1 high performance car to choose from, you had several.. right now, GM is the only 1 with 2 performance cars, although i despise corvettes, no matter what year/body style.. plus the vette isn't a 'muscle car' by any means, as you all should agree.. it's a 2 seater sports car
    ShadowMSC.com < < Still Under Construction

    R.I.P. 'Zump' 8/29/86 - 11/11/11
    3- 87 TC's / 1 really mean 83 Capri RS / 94 Sonoma SAS Project on 37x12.50 TSL Radials / 88 S10 that's LITERALLY cut to pieces / 84 F150 SAS, 351M, 39.5 TSL's / 85 Toyota regular cab, 22R 5spd, 3/4" drop, my little junkyard save/daily driver

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Middle Sackville, NS, CANADA
    Posts
    9,827
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)

    Default

    Back in the 60's they weren't all muscle cars either. For every GTO, SS, Super Bee and Cobra Jet there were eleventy-two million six cylinder and small V8 (you know, the 289's, 273's, 327's, etc) Tempests, Chevelles, Chargers and Fairlanes. Back then they weren't "Muscle cars", they were "intermediates", and for the most part they were every bit as boring as my 2011 4-cylinder Sonata.

    Same thing goes in that "New Dart" thread. Some have said that Chrysler is blashpeming the "Legendary" Dart name by pasting it onto an economy car. I say bullshit. The new Dart will fill the exact same slot in the automotive landscape that the originals did: The bottom feeder in Mopar's lineup. The original Dart was never meant to be a performance car, and probably 90% of them left the plant with slant 6's and 318's. And the few 340 and Big-Block Darts that were made will undoubtedly be echoed in modern times by a 4-cylinder turbo Dart that will blow the doors off of any original version except maybe the exceedingly rare Hurst-built Hemi and 440 race cars.

    And styling is subjective. Back in the 60's and 70's nobody thought any more of those designs than people think of current ones now. Rarely is a car built to become a classic; it happens retroactively. Lord knows what cars will look like in 2052, but whatever that year brings, people may just look back on the plebian cars of 2012 with fondness...
    2015 Mustang GT Premium - 5.0, 6-speed, Guard Green - too much awesome for one car

    1988 5.0 Thunderbird SOLD SEPT 11 2010: TC front clip/hood ♣ Body & paint completed Oct 2007 ♣ 3.55 TC rear end and front brakes ♣ TC interior ♣ CHE rear control arms (adjustable lowers) ♣ 2001 Bullitt springs ♣ Energy suspension poly busings ♣ Kenne Brown subframe connectors ♣ CWE engine mounts ♣ Thundercat sequential turn signals ♣ Explorer overhead console (temp/compass display) ♣ 2.25" off-road dual exhaust ♣ T-5 transmission swap completed Jan 2009 ♣

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    south jersey, delaware soon!
    Posts
    2,260
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default

    i'm afraid to see what cars will look like in 2052.. i forsee a bunch of retarded looking electric vehicles like GM's concept car.. i forget what it was called, but it was an ugly, wannabe sports car looking high tech.. 'thing'
    ShadowMSC.com < < Still Under Construction

    R.I.P. 'Zump' 8/29/86 - 11/11/11
    3- 87 TC's / 1 really mean 83 Capri RS / 94 Sonoma SAS Project on 37x12.50 TSL Radials / 88 S10 that's LITERALLY cut to pieces / 84 F150 SAS, 351M, 39.5 TSL's / 85 Toyota regular cab, 22R 5spd, 3/4" drop, my little junkyard save/daily driver

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •