Brought to you in part by:

Great deals on auto restoration supplies!

.


JC Whitney clearance center!

  Mustangsandmore Forums
  '05 to Present -- The S197 Mustang
  2005 mustang

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   2005 mustang
CHIPSBAD67
Gearhead

Posts: 396
From: LOU,KY;USA
Registered: Sep 2003

posted 04-10-2004 01:22 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for CHIPSBAD67   Click Here to Email CHIPSBAD67     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
i know youve seen pictures as i have. is this a good looking car or what! maybe im a fossil but i just cant get with the mod motor stuff, maybe my son will be building one of these (he's only 6 right now). maybe im a fossil but i want an 05 with a 408. i just hope the car is at least as quick as the 04. cant tell you how much i hated what ford did in 94 with making it heavier with a crappy intake then again with the torque-less mod motor in 96. its like the powerplants now are great performers then they strap this 281 cid with a car that weighs what 3700lbs in cobra trim? i saw an article where they put a stock lightening motor in a fox chasis lx and went 10's. they wouldnt even have to improve the motor, just lighten the car up.

------------------
306, 4speed, 4.11's....best 1/8 mile 7.58 at 92mph with 1.72 60ft. PUMP GAS/NO ADDERS/STREET TIRES

IP: Logged

73torinoqcode
Gearhead

Posts: 403
From: Buffalo,NY,USA
Registered: Jun 2003

posted 04-10-2004 12:24 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for 73torinoqcode   Click Here to Email 73torinoqcode     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Personally I think the styling stinks. The prototype car was way nicer than production.

IP: Logged

Buster
Gearhead

Posts: 1466
From: Hurricane alley
Registered: May 2002

posted 04-10-2004 07:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Buster   Click Here to Email Buster     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by 73torinoqcode:
Personally I think the styling stinks. The prototype car was way nicer than production.

Yikes, now that?s a shocker to me.... I think the 05 Stang is one of the nicest Stangs since the 60's. I've never been inclined to buy any new car... well, til now with the 05 Stang.

I still bet the 05 Stang is the reason Cheby stopped the Camaro production. That is, once they found out about it... they knew there was no way they could compete with that new Mustang in town... so they hit the highway and left town with it.

I also believe the 05 Stang philosophy inspired the new/old looking cheby truck.

IP: Logged

Kellxr7
Gearhead

Posts: 646
From: Canada
Registered: Mar 2003

posted 04-10-2004 07:23 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Kellxr7   Click Here to Email Kellxr7     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by 73torinoqcode:
Personally I think the styling stinks. The prototype car was way nicer than production.

Being a hardcore Fordnut, It hurts like a biatch to say this, but I have to agree with you. It looks like a bulky piece of plastic to me

IP: Logged

73torinoqcode
Gearhead

Posts: 403
From: Buffalo,NY,USA
Registered: Jun 2003

posted 04-10-2004 07:51 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for 73torinoqcode   Click Here to Email 73torinoqcode     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I guess all the styling is not bad. I just wish they would have kept the othe prototype hood and did a little something different with the headlights in the middle.

IP: Logged

cracing
Gearhead

Posts: 370
From: Saltillo Miss. USA
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 04-11-2004 03:22 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for cracing   Click Here to Email cracing     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Why, when a retro type vehicle is made, cant they make one true to the original in body style & a late model drivetrsin. Why is there a always a pseudo intellectual who knows better what people want/need than we do?IMO,if they made a copy of say a 34 Ford, 40 Ford,55-56 Crown Vic, the list goes on & on. Then, not attach a Donald Trump pricetag on it where the poass public could buy it, I think they would sell very well,But with Ford, IT AINT GONNA HAPPEN!! Out of touch with the original concept that Ole Henry had of a car the "people" could own. Like one of the Ford grandson's commercial, "My idea of performance is a red Mustang with a throaty sounding V8" Well build one you lying rich a$$ MF! Again, just my opinion on one of the many, many ways Ford has let us down.

------------------
BAD COMPANY TILL THE DAY I DIE!!!!!

IP: Logged

TomP
Gearhead

Posts: 5822
From: Delta BC Canada
Registered: Dec 99

posted 04-12-2004 01:41 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for TomP   Click Here to Email TomP     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I don't think the bodystyle will be used much in Pro 5.0 or ProStock since it doesn't look as aerodynamic as the current cars.

I'm sure it won't be any lighter, it's a bigger car. The styling looks more like a Mustang 2 than the 60's look of the prototypes.

IP: Logged

Dubz
Gearhead

Posts: 1781
From: Manitoba Canada
Registered: Oct 2002

posted 04-12-2004 01:47 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dubz   Click Here to Email Dubz     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
i think they could have done better with design, no doubt.

I wouldn't/won't buy one

IP: Logged

[email protected]
Gearhead

Posts: 850
From: Lakewood, CO, USA
Registered: Jun 2001

posted 04-12-2004 10:49 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for JCQuinn@work   Click Here to Email JCQuinn@work     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Being an old fart, I have an old fart's opinion. Ford stopped making Mustangs when they went to that piece of crap modular engine. I will not buy engines that don't have pushrods. I don't care how nice the styling is I buy whats under the hood.

John

IP: Logged

grandestang
Gearhead

Posts: 375
From: Lake Bluff, Illinois USA
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 04-12-2004 04:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for grandestang   Click Here to Email grandestang     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by [email protected]:
Being an old fart, I have an old fart's opinion. Ford stopped making Mustangs when they went to that piece of crap modular engine. I will not buy engines that don't have pushrods. I don't care how nice the styling is I buy whats under the hood.

John


Sorry but I couldn't disagree more. The overhead camshaft technology is what sets Ford apart from Chevy. Why live in the past when there is so much room to step forward and advance. Just look at the 427 Cammer. Hasn't this been called one of the most powerful engines ever? Wasn't this largely atributed to the SOHC?

Ford can make more power more efficiently with their overhead cam engine. If they had any where close to the displacement of those chevy 350s, then I think the power levels would not even be close, Ford taking all. Just look at what they can do with only 281 cubes in the new Mach 1. Last I checked they can run low 13s outta the box. That exceeds even the big blocks of yesteryear. I won't even start on the 03 cobra engine.

Paul

------------------
1970 Grande
H code 351W FMX

IP: Logged

[email protected]
Gearhead

Posts: 850
From: Lakewood, CO, USA
Registered: Jun 2001

posted 04-12-2004 04:53 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for JCQuinn@work   Click Here to Email JCQuinn@work     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Paul, you buy what you think is good and I will do the same.

When the modular engines are even close to competitive to the pushrod engines in the naturally asperated racing classes with comprable dollars being spent I will consider them good. Right now the push rod engine is far superior in terms of horsepower per dollar.

Overhead cams come to us from the 1920's, modern technology hah.

Overhead cam engines typically have poor torque curves compared to pushrod engines. That is why the factory is putting superchargers on them. Superchargers have long been a crutch to make horsepower when the basic engine design is flawed.

John

IP: Logged

Dubz
Gearhead

Posts: 1781
From: Manitoba Canada
Registered: Oct 2002

posted 04-12-2004 04:55 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dubz   Click Here to Email Dubz     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
there is little difference in the peformance of the two engines.

modular motors however, don't have the pushrods to hinder intake routing.

but other than that i see no advantage whatsoever with the overhead cam design. You have to turn another cam, you still have the same friction, as the number of lifters has not been reduced. And with todays very strong pushrods i don't see that they would flex enough that they are a weakness.

modulars are typically alot heavier as well, which really sucks in performance applications

plus, ever have to change a head gasket on a modular?? root canals have more appeal

[This message has been edited by Dubz (edited 04-12-2004).]

IP: Logged

[email protected]
Gearhead

Posts: 850
From: Lakewood, CO, USA
Registered: Jun 2001

posted 04-12-2004 05:07 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for JCQuinn@work   Click Here to Email JCQuinn@work     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
If you don't think there's a performance difference enter one in NMRA Hot Street class and watch the pushrods go by.

I am not talking about factory tune up motors. I am talking about modified engines, that is what I play with and what I am concerned about.

John

I know the thread started with a factory stock car but every new Ford I have ever bought ended up being a drag car.

IP: Logged

grandestang
Gearhead

Posts: 375
From: Lake Bluff, Illinois USA
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 04-12-2004 05:14 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for grandestang   Click Here to Email grandestang     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by [email protected]:
If you don't think there's a performance difference enter one in NMRA Hot Street class and watch the pushrods go by.

I am not talking about factory tune up motors. I am talking about modified engines, that is what I play with and what I am concerned about.

John

I know the thread started with a factory stock car but every new Ford I have ever bought ended up being a drag car.


Take a 2003 cobra, put on a free flowing exhaust, free flowing air filter, and change a pulley, get a tune. With that you will be running low 11s and more than 500hp at the flywheel at least 450 at the wheels. Pretty good for under $1000 worth of mods IMO.

Finding a factory head that will outflow a ford DOHC would be tough if not impossible to do.

Paul

P.S. I am just proposing an argument, no flaming.

------------------
1970 Grande
H code 351W FMX

IP: Logged

Daniel Jones
Gearhead

Posts: 828
From: St. Louis, MO
Registered: Aug 99

posted 04-12-2004 05:55 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Daniel Jones   Click Here to Email Daniel Jones     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
> Sorry but I couldn't disagree more. The overhead camshaft technology is what
> sets Ford apart from Chevy. Why live in the past when there is so much room
> to step forward and advance.

Marketing hype. First of all, overhead camshaft technology is nothing
new and dates all the way back to the 1890's. Second, the question isn't
which is newer, it's which is better. The Ford modular V8 packaging was
severely compromised for transverse mount installations. When the engine
was designed, Ford believed many of them would be installed in front wheel
drive applications. This dictated the engines be as short as possible
longitudinally, so they would fit in the planned engine compartments when
installed transversely. The bore spacing is very narrow, resulting in
very small bores and long strokes for their displacements. The 4.6L and
5.4L V8's have bores about the size of my little Buick 215 cube V8. To
get the displacement desired, the blocks had to be relatively tall.

The small bores limit the valve curtain area and, ultimately, the
maximum flow the heads can achieve and power the engine can develop.
This forced the designers to 4 valve per cylinder heads for the high
performance versions. Unfortunately, the heads and cam drives were
made very bulky. Combine the enormous cylinder head castings with the
tall decks needed to contain the long stroke cranks and you get an
engine that is very tall and wide and doesn't lend itself to swapping
in many engine bays. In a Pantera that can easily swallow a 460 big
block, either the heads must altered (shaved for clearance) or the
inner fenders clearanced. Don't even think about putting them in an
older Ford without hacking out the shock towers. Even in aluminum, the
engines are very heavy for their displacement. The trade publication
"Design News" lists the weight of the aluminum block and heads 4.6L DOHC
engine at 521 lbs. Compare that to the pushrod 4.6L aluminum Rover V8
at nearly 200 pounds lighter. Plus the Rover can be stroked to 5.3L
without resorting to a taller block. The taller 5.4L block adds even
more weight. Even with aluminum block and heads, Ford's published
number for the Ford GT's supercharged 5.4L DOHC is 315 Kg (695 lbs.).

With the limited bore spacing, stroke and extra cylinders are your only
ways to get extra displacement. The 5.4L V8 (with a taller deck to
accomodate the longer stroke crank) and 6.8L V10 are the direct result.
The 5.4L V8's have an even worse bore/stroke ratio than the 4.6L, resulting
in very high piston speed at a given RPM. The limited bore spacing also
limits the crank journal width, limiting the crankshaft strength. A
bunch of Lightning truck 5.4L engines have snapped connecting rods and
ventilated blocks due to this.

> Just look at the 427 Cammer. Hasn't this been called one of the most powerful
> engines ever? Wasn't this largely atributed to the SOHC?

7 liters of displacement didn't hurt either. The asymmetric cam lobe design
played an important role, too. Understand I'm not anti-OHC. I like OHC's
on inline engines where the packaging penalty is not nearly as important as
it is on a larger displacement V8. I just don't buy in to new-and-improved
marketing hype.

> Ford can make more power more efficiently with their overhead cam engine.

I care not one bit about specific power output. What is important is
power output per dollar (how much power can I make within my budget),
per pound (for handling), or per volume (will it fit in something I'd
care to swap it into). On all those accounts, a pushrod V8 is the clear
winner. On the new 2005 Mustang, Ford had to drop the nice short-long
arm front suspension of the DEW98 platform with it's superior camber
gain and revert to McPherson struts because the modular motors are
just too wide. Fuel economy is also important but there's really no
clear difference with respect to fuel economy.

> If they had any where close to the displacement of those chevy 350s, then
> I think the power levels would not even be close, Ford taking all.

But they don't have the displacement of the Chevy, despite being
enormous. The Chevy is smaller, lighter, cheaper to produce, and packs
an extra liter of displacement. A normally aspirated Z06 makes similar
peak power to a supercharged 2003 Cobra. There's a reason Ford had to
resort to slapping a supercharger on the Cobra and GT to make competitive
power. John Colleti, the head of Ford's Special Vehicle Team gave an
interview in which he explained why Ford's 2003 Cobra is supercharged.
He said they were able to reach their power goals with the normally
aspirated 4.6L DOHC V8 but they couldn't keep the motor together for
the durability cycle, even with premium aftermarket race rods (2003
Cobras use Manley H-beam forged rods and forged steel cranks). For Ford,
the answer was a supercharger but it comes at a cost in both dollars and
weight. The 2003 Mustang Cobras are up to nearly 3700 pounds now.

Ford designers will continue to develop the modular motors but you'll
have a real tough time convining me they are inherently better.

Dan Jones

IP: Logged

Dubz
Gearhead

Posts: 1781
From: Manitoba Canada
Registered: Oct 2002

posted 04-12-2004 06:24 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dubz   Click Here to Email Dubz     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
very nice post Daniel!

IP: Logged

cracing
Gearhead

Posts: 370
From: Saltillo Miss. USA
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 04-12-2004 07:02 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for cracing   Click Here to Email cracing     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Very nice post indeed! Very true post! I agree.

IP: Logged

grandestang
Gearhead

Posts: 375
From: Lake Bluff, Illinois USA
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 04-12-2004 07:02 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for grandestang   Click Here to Email grandestang     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Daniel, that was one of the most informative things I have read all year! My outlook on this topic has been changed.

Even with the limited bore sizing though it is interesting how Ford has found ways to work around it, and keep up with/suprass the competition.

I still have one question...
Why would Ford handicap itself like this and continue to produce these small bore engines for all these years? How much more would it really have cost for them to increase the bore sizing on these blocks?

Paul

------------------
1970 Grande
H code 351W FMX

IP: Logged

Daniel Jones
Gearhead

Posts: 828
From: St. Louis, MO
Registered: Aug 99

posted 04-12-2004 08:14 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Daniel Jones   Click Here to Email Daniel Jones     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
> very nice post Daniel!
> Very nice post indeed! Very true post! I agree.

Thanks guys.

> Even with the limited bore sizing though it is interesting how Ford
> has found ways to work around it, and keep up with/suprass the
> competition.

Yes. If I had a mod motor-powered vehicle, I'd be doing the same thing
as Ford. Slap a blower on it. Best bang-for-the-buck.

> Why would Ford handicap itself like this

The initial decision to limit the bore spacing was made for several
reasons. The biggest was they expected to fit many of them in
transverse applications. Second, the long stroke and small bore
are best for meeting the ever tightening emissions. The SOHC and
DOHC was probably as much a marketing decision as it was an engineering
decision (gotta compete with BMW and Lexus).

> and continue to produce these small bore engines for all these years?

The tooling is all paid for. Tooling cost is massive.

> How much more would it really have cost for them to increase the bore
> sizing on these blocks?

A staggering amount. To change the bore spacing, you must change
the most expensive parts of the rest of the engine: heads, crankshaft,
manifolding, etc.

Dan Jones

IP: Logged

grandestang
Gearhead

Posts: 375
From: Lake Bluff, Illinois USA
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 04-12-2004 10:08 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for grandestang   Click Here to Email grandestang     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Dan, don't you think it would be safe to say that just putting a blower on a DOHC engine would give you much greater output than on a pushrod engine? DOHC have always been known to have a soft low end but strong high end, putting a roots or twin screw blower on seems to give you the best of both worlds.

Paul

------------------
1970 Grande
H code 351W FMX

IP: Logged

gunrocker
Gearhead

Posts: 476
From: Colliers, WV,USA
Registered: Mar 2004

posted 04-12-2004 11:33 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for gunrocker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Dan...VERY INFORMATIVE post! Excellent!!! Sure makes me appreciate my little 289 and my Cleveland.

IP: Logged

wildfire466
unregistered
posted 04-13-2004 12:14 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Pile on! I agree with 73torinoqcode
on styling!

Les

------------------
http://www.geocities.com/wildfire1mustang/

IP: Logged

steve'66
Gearhead

Posts: 9104
From: Sonoma,CA,USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 04-13-2004 12:31 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for steve'66   Click Here to Email steve'66     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Dan,

What's with the 5w-20 oil they want us to use in the mod motors? Now that my 5.4 is out of warranty can I use 10w-30? Any insights would be apprciated.

SteveW

IP: Logged

[email protected]
Gearhead

Posts: 850
From: Lakewood, CO, USA
Registered: Jun 2001

posted 04-13-2004 01:36 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for JCQuinn@work   Click Here to Email JCQuinn@work     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Thank you Daniel for stating all that Modular information so eloquently. I know all that but cannot express my knowledge nearly as well. If I ever have to debate something I will have to hire you as my spoksman. lol

John

IP: Logged

Daniel Jones
Gearhead

Posts: 828
From: St. Louis, MO
Registered: Aug 99

posted 04-13-2004 08:33 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Daniel Jones   Click Here to Email Daniel Jones     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
> Dan, don't you think it would be safe to say that just putting a blower on
> a DOHC engine would give you much greater output than on a pushrod engine?

Not necessarily. The engine doesn't know or care where the cams are.
What matters is how well the induction path flows. Just because it has 4
small valves doesn't mean it will outflow something with 2 larger valves,
say a 351C cylinder head. Particularly when the pushrod head mounts on a
4" bore and the DOHC head mounts on a 3.5" bore. If you're comparing it
to a stock 5.0L Windsor head, then yes it does flow better. A good after-
market Windsor head will outflow a 4.6 DOHC head, though. I remember B&M
putting a disclaimer in their supercharger catalog that their blower should
not be mounted on a 302 or 351W with stock heads as the restriction could
cause the blower to overheat. No such disclaimer on 351C-4V heads.
My C302 heads will outflow the best 4.6L or 5.4L DOHC head I've seen.
Early in the 4.6L DOHC engine's development, a former Ford engineer told
me the highest output DOHC head ever massaged by Ford flow less than an
unported A3 head. Those heads were based on custom cores with one inch
raised ports that were completely modified for an all out race effort (for
the SCORE off-road truck series) using the modular motor. According to
Ed Olin (the Ford engineer who oversaw the development of the 2000 Cobra R
powertrain), they wanted to use those SCORE/Rough Riders DOHC heads on the
Cobra R but tooling limitations forced them to use a revised production
casting.

Then there are the SOHC 2V heads. You'll notice the new 2005 Mustang is
getting 3 valve heads from Ford's 5.4L truck engines. There's a good
reason for that. Ford upper management originally planned for the 4-valve
version to be a large volume production engine, with the 2-valve version to
be a low-cost but relatively low-volume variant. So they designed a very
compromised 2-valve that could be produced from the same production equipment
as the 4-valve. The biggest compromise was that the intake valves lean away
from the intake ports, which makes for more convoluted and restrictive
intake ports. It also makes for a wider engine than necessary, even for OHC.
Somewhere in the design cycle, likely due to the DOHC version's higher cost,
the decision was made to make the 2-valve version the high volume engine.
By that time, the SOHC was stuck with the compromised intake tract. Lucky
for the 2005 Mustang, the truck program paid for an improved set of 3 valve
SOHC heads.

Getting back to supercharging, after you've got sufficient airflow capacity
(and the fuel to keep pace with it), the next question is will the short
block live under boost. You may have noticed that Ford reverted to an iron
block on the 2003 Cobra, despite the weight penalty on an already nose heavy
car. You might have also noticed they design an entirely new block for the
Ford GT. There are good reasons for both of those developments, too.
Modern production engines are designed to meet a specific target, with the
aid of computer-aided design and manufacturing. All the components tend to
be matched to the desired performance goal. Changing just one component
(like an intake or cam) in the system may not yield the payoff it once did.
Also, they tend to not be overbuilt. According to SAE paper #942474, by
Dan Yerace (Ford Motor Company) and Dennis Corn (Roush Industries), the
4.6 DOHC was designed for maximum output levels of 100 BHP/L. Ford realized
it would be easy for guys to crank up the boost and went with the stronger
iron block on the Cobra.

> DOHC have always been known to have a soft low end but strong high end,
> putting a roots or twin screw blower on seems to give you the best of both
> worlds.

Assuming the compression is low enough.

> What's with the 5w-20 oil they want us to use in the mod motors? Now that
> my 5.4 is out of warranty can I use 10w-30? Any insights would be apprciated.

The mod motors have a major problem in oiling at startup. The path from the
pan to the cam journals is over four feet long, and it takes a while for oil
to get up there. The journals are small and heavily loaded, and there are no
bearings. The cams ride directly in the head castings (at least in the SOHC,
haven't checked the DOHC). If I were running a mod motor, I'd run a quality
synthetic 5W-20, particularly if I ran it in a cold winter climate. A lot of
engines run tigher clearances and lighter weight oil to squeeze out that last
bit of fuel economy. My dad once ran straight 10W oil in an old flathead '48
Mercury. It was used when he got it and still running fine 70,000 miles later.
Modern oils have improved a lot since then, so I wouldn't be afraid of a good
5W-20, assuming you keep the oil temperature under control. There are also
5W-30 synthetics, not to mention 0W-40's.

> Sure makes me appreciate my little 289 and my Cleveland

When you are working on your 289, this ought to bring a smile to your face:

http://www.vorshlag.com/pictures/motor-4.6-4V-004.jpg

> Pile on!

One of my major beefs is that modular motors were not designed to be hot
rodder friendly. No room to be bored. Non-rebuildable connecting rods.
Oddball valve springs, press-lobe hollow core camshafts (four of them on the
DOHC and not one of them cheap), etc.

Dan Jones

IP: Logged

grandestang
Gearhead

Posts: 375
From: Lake Bluff, Illinois USA
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 04-13-2004 08:59 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for grandestang   Click Here to Email grandestang     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Dan, once again I've learned more from reading your post than I could learn from 1,000 tech articles on the net.

I'm gonna save this thread for future refrencing.

Again thanks alot!

Paul

------------------
1970 Grande
H code 351W FMX

IP: Logged

73torinoqcode
Gearhead

Posts: 403
From: Buffalo,NY,USA
Registered: Jun 2003

posted 04-13-2004 11:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for 73torinoqcode   Click Here to Email 73torinoqcode     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
And I still dont like the 05 Stang. I thought it might grow on me if I looked at it enough but it doesnt. Does anybody know if they are going to do an SVT or Roush car. I am hoping they will give us a nice hood and different front facia. I was really excited and was probably going to buy one before they changed it from the prototype form. I never thought a hood and a set of lights could turn me off so much. I do like the retro side scoops but thats about it. Well looks like I might be hunting an 03 leftover or an 04 Cobra when they have to move them out, when the 05 Stang goes mainstream.

PS Dan Jones thanks for the good motor info in real mans terms.

IP: Logged

steve'66
Gearhead

Posts: 9104
From: Sonoma,CA,USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 04-13-2004 11:58 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for steve'66   Click Here to Email steve'66     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Dan,

Thanks for your enlightenment on the design of the Modular Ford engine. Nice job and I/we appreciate it.

SteveW

IP: Logged

TomP
Gearhead

Posts: 5822
From: Delta BC Canada
Registered: Dec 99

posted 04-14-2004 11:01 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for TomP   Click Here to Email TomP     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Dan, great post and i agree with it all.

The 4.6 does OK for what it is but sure isn't meant to modify. The engine core place i go to has had lots of 4.6's with blackened cam journals in the head. I don't think they even deal in them anymore and the engine machine shop never seems to have any either, they do lots of other same vintage engines. I've heard the Caddy Northstar is pretty much the same, not meant to be rebuilt, sort of like a BIC lighter.

IP: Logged

TomP
Gearhead

Posts: 5822
From: Delta BC Canada
Registered: Dec 99

posted 10-22-2004 02:18 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for TomP   Click Here to Email TomP     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by [email protected]:
Being an old fart, I have an old fart's opinion. Ford stopped making Mustangs when they went to that piece of crap modular engine. I will not buy engines that don't have pushrods. I don't care how nice the styling is I buy whats under the hood.

John


Y'know the flathead didn't have pushrods... newfangled crap,eh!

[This message has been edited by TomP (edited 10-22-2004).]

IP: Logged

tricksixtyfive
Journeyman

Posts: 91
From: los angeles
Registered: Sep 2004

posted 10-25-2004 12:18 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for tricksixtyfive   Click Here to Email tricksixtyfive     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
all those who do not like the 05 stang are the ones that think the fox body looked good huh.. the 05 stang is a great base car to make a shelby or even a boss on. this plateform rocks..it looks way better than the 94 did, and even the 2004 mach 1. just an opinion

IP: Logged

IIGood
Moderator

Posts: 3510
From: Arnold, MD, USA
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-25-2004 06:17 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for IIGood   Click Here to Email IIGood     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Everyone has their opinions. I remember back when the '99 first came out, I absolutely hated it. I thought it looked terrible. And everyone else and their grandmother loved it.

Well...guess what...here it is, five years later, and I own 2 of the '99+ Mustangs. Go figure.

------------------
Frank S.----MCA Member 40390
'03 Mustang GT coupe
'99 Mustang coupe
'77 Ghia--"II Good"

IP: Logged

Mooney
Gearhead

Posts: 1691
From: Marietta, Ga
Registered: Oct 2003

posted 10-29-2004 05:07 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mooney   Click Here to Email Mooney     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by tricksixtyfive:
all those who do not like the 05 stang are the ones that think the fox body looked good huh.. the 05 stang is a great base car to make a shelby or even a boss on. this plateform rocks..it looks way better than the 94 did, and even the 2004 mach 1. just an opinion


LOL I don't like the 05 that much and I don't care much for the Fox Body either... I will admit though that I do like my 65.

IP: Logged

seaweed
Gearhead

Posts: 124
From: MA.
Registered: Dec 2000

posted 12-04-2004 07:29 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for seaweed     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Very enteresting,--- does that mean we will not be seeing the 68 Shelby look a like Cobra verson any time soon ???---S.

IP: Logged

chocolatethunda
Journeyman

Posts: 1
From: Erie
Registered: May 2005

posted 05-14-2005 04:25 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for chocolatethunda   Click Here to Email chocolatethunda     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
wow. the new 2005 mustangs rock my sox. they rule................poop

IP: Logged

N266fords
Gearhead

Posts: 1586
From: Spokane ,WA USA
Registered: Apr 2003

posted 05-14-2005 08:55 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for N266fords   Click Here to Email N266fords     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I however an just glad to see the mustang is still going strong.
I do however like the 2005 Mustang GT.
Bruce Williams

IP: Logged

68 Coop
Gearhead

Posts: 1637
From: Mesquite, NV.
Registered: Oct 2004

posted 05-18-2005 03:33 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for 68 Coop   Click Here to Email 68 Coop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I agree totally with ALL that say it is a VERY good looking car. I wish they would bring out a real Coupe, then I could have paternal(?) twins.

------------------
William
68 Coupe
"Restomod in Progress"

IP: Logged

All times are ET (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Mustangsandmore Front Page

Copyright 2005, Steve LaRiviere. All Rights Reserved.


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47d

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More

[Build a free Mustangsandmore.ws Home Page!]

[Posting Pictures]

[About M&M][Acronyms][Calendar][Chat][Classifieds] [Members' Pics]

[M&M Conventions] [M&M Mug Shots]

[ Mustangsandmore.com Bookstore] [ Smokin' Fords] [Tech Articles]