Search

[Mister Fahrenheit]

Just some questions that have been on my mind for a while, but for which I can't find any specific information:

*Why are there Holden Commodore SS sedans and utes being badged as Chevrolets in Australia?

*Is the recent proliferation of engine start buttons in cars an attempt to make them look more sporty, or is it the EU's attempt to reduce key-related injuries during a car accident?

*Why is the 4.6L V8 engine in a Mustang so pissweak? A Cadillac CTS has the option of having a 304-horsepower V6, so it's not a case of "Americans can't make engines".

*Why does Ken Livingston hate cars so much?

*How come the interiors of American cars are, for the most part, so cheaply (read: badly) made, compared to their European and Asian competitors?

*The Toyota TRD Aurion is probably the second-most powerful front-wheel drive car ever made. What I want to know is, why Toyota didn't spend some money making the car rear-wheel drive, considering that it's going up against the Falcon XR6 Turbo and the Commodore SS, both of which are RWD.

[Melancholic Goat]

Why does Ken Livingston hate cars so much?

Can you honestly see no logical reasoning behind the congestion charge, or did you just want to bulk out your portfolio of questions?

[Anatomica]

There are a couple reasons why the Mustang GT engine puts out... uh, I don't want to say "only" 300hp, because if you think 300 hp is a pissweak engine you've got a sort of skewed idea of what a powerful engine is. But anyway, although I don't know these reasons for a fact, I'm pretty sure this is why it's not as potent as it's capable of being.

1) Cost. The Caddy with the 300+ hp engine is $10,000 more than the base model GT. Getting more power out of an engine means more expensive components and more complex engineering. One of the purposes of the Mustang is affordable power. It's a 300hp car for under $30 grand. Can it be more powerful? Yes, it can, and in addition to a whole mess of companies that'll put an aftermarket kit on the car, Ford's got some options for that themselves. But they all cost more. At it's heart, the Mustang is a secretary's car. But as far as the GT model, philosophically speaking, it's sort of "the people's sports car." It's meant to be affordable, and it is.

2) Durability. Yes, I know. It's a Ford, they break. But you'll also be able to get it repaired for a not-unreasonable cost. The more power you crank out of an engine, the more stress you put on the components. Mustangs are, seriously, built to last. Pretty much everywhere I go, I see Mustangs that are 20 to 40 years old. I've got my head on a swivel for old cars, but nothing is more ubiquitous than the Mustang. Granted, not every single Mustang ever built has that staying power (in fact, I've almost never seen a Mustang II on the road), but if I'm seeing Mustangs from the sixties on an almost weekly basis, that says something about their durability which few other cars can claim. If we're still able to fuel cars with four stage combustion engines 30 years in the future, I absolutely guarantee you'll see plenty of the current Mustang GTs still on the road. And I also absolutely guarantee you will not see a single one of those V6 Caddies.

[Mister Fahrenheit]

Why does Ken Livingston hate cars so much?

Can you honestly see no logical reasoning behind the congestion charge, or did you just want to bulk out your portfolio of questions?

The question probably should have been raised less flippantly, but it was in response to Ken Livingston's decision to raise congestion charging for Band G vehicles by a substantial 300%, not to mention the 200-pound charge for commercial vehicles. I understand the reasoning behind the congestion charge, but to raise it by that much is probably not going to change much except for how much money you'll be out of pocket, especially considering how expensive it already is to live and work in London.

There are a couple reasons why the Mustang GT engine puts out... uh, I don't want to say "only" 300hp, because if you think 300 hp is a pissweak engine you've got a sort of skewed idea of what a powerful engine is. But anyway, although I don't know these reasons for a fact, I'm pretty sure this is why it's not as potent as it's capable of being.

1) Cost. The Caddy with the 300+ hp engine is $10,000 more than the base model GT. Getting more power out of an engine means more expensive components and more complex engineering. One of the purposes of the Mustang is affordable power. It's a 300hp car for under $30 grand. Can it be more powerful? Yes, it can, and in addition to a whole mess of companies that'll put an aftermarket kit on the car, Ford's got some options for that themselves. But they all cost more. At it's heart, the Mustang is a secretary's car. But as far as the GT model, philosophically speaking, it's sort of "the people's sports car." It's meant to be affordable, and it is.

2) Durability. Yes, I know. It's a Ford, they break. But you'll also be able to get it repaired for a not-unreasonable cost. The more power you crank out of an engine, the more stress you put on the components. Mustangs are, seriously, built to last. Pretty much everywhere I go, I see Mustangs that are 20 to 40 years old. I've got my head on a swivel for old cars, but nothing is more ubiquitous than the Mustang. Granted, not every single Mustang ever built has that staying power (in fact, I've almost never seen a Mustang II on the road), but if I'm seeing Mustangs from the sixties on an almost weekly basis, that says something about their durability which few other cars can claim. If we're still able to fuel cars with four stage combustion engines 30 years in the future, I absolutely guarantee you'll see plenty of the current Mustang GTs still on the road. And I also absolutely guarantee you will not see a single one of those V6 Caddies.

I think the main reason why the CTS is more expensive than the Mustang is because it's more of an upmarket vehicle, meaning that interior quality and equipment would be better than the GT. Also, it would also be a reflection of its development costs, considering that GM has spent a lot of time and money testing the car at the Nurburgring, partly for good publicity and partly because they also want compete with the European marques on a more even footing.

And when I was talking about the engine being pissweak, I was referring more to its power to displacement ratio. A Mustang GT has a 4.6L V8 which puts out 300 hp, meaning that it develops 65.2 hp per litre. A VW Golf R32, with its 3.2 V6, develops 250 hp, meaning it puts out 78.1 hp per litre.

To honest though, the figures can't really explain everything. What it all comes down to (for me) is that I'm disappointed that an engine of that size develops a disproportionately small amount of horsepower. I know that it's a case of "to each his own", but a Mustang doesn't feel like something I would buy with my own money. But thanks for answering my question without biting my head off.

[Melancholic Goat]

Why does Ken Livingston hate cars so much?

Can you honestly see no logical reasoning behind the congestion charge, or did you just want to bulk out your portfolio of questions?

The question probably should have been raised less flippantly, but it was in response to Ken Livingston's decision to raise congestion charging for Band G vehicles by a substantial 300%, not to mention the 200-pound charge for commercial vehicles. I understand the reasoning behind the congestion charge, but to raise it by that much is probably not going to change much except for how much money you'll be out of pocket, especially considering how expensive it already is to live and work in London.

I think a large part of the reason is to discourage people from buying band G vehicles. The extra income it generates is hardly going to be frowned upon, but I don't think it's as simple as Ken Livingstone hating cars. If you go ahead and buy a high emissions car anyway, that's your choice. There are plenty of cars that don't fall under that band, and there are other ways to get around London.

[Anatomica]

And when I was talking about the engine being pissweak, I was referring more to its power to displacement ratio. A Mustang GT has a 4.6L V8 which puts out 300 hp, meaning that it develops 65.2 hp per litre. A VW Golf R32, with its 3.2 V6, develops 250 hp, meaning it puts out 78.1 hp per litre.

But, again, the price of the R32 base model is about $7000 more than the Mustang GT base model (at least in my zip code). On the other side, Ford advertises the Shelby GT 500 Mustang, which produces an impressive 108.69 hp per liter (that's 500 hp out of 4.6L), for another $10,000 more than the base R32. I am really, honestly sure that if you look around at base model prices you really will see a positive correlation between price and power per liter, regardless of manufacturer.

[Mister Fahrenheit]

And when I was talking about the engine being pissweak, I was referring more to its power to displacement ratio. A Mustang GT has a 4.6L V8 which puts out 300 hp, meaning that it develops 65.2 hp per litre. A VW Golf R32, with its 3.2 V6, develops 250 hp, meaning it puts out 78.1 hp per litre.

But, again, the price of the R32 base model is about $7000 more than the Mustang GT base model (at least in my zip code).

On the other hand, the R32 has a four-wheel drive system, as well as a dual-clutch DSG gearbox, and also a  better-quality interior, as well as being more practical. I think the gearbox alone would make the Golf more expensive than the Mustang.

On the other side, Ford advertises the Shelby GT 500 Mustang, which produces an impressive 108.69 hp per liter (that's 500 hp out of 4.6L), for another $10,000 more than the base R32. I am really, honestly sure that if you look around at base model prices you really will see a positive correlation between price and power per liter, regardless of manufacturer.

Actually, it has a supercharged 5.4L V8 (meaning it gets around 92 hp per litre).

It's kind of hard for me to actually go out and compare the two cars (impossible, actually) since Ford has, as far I know, never sold the fifth-gen Mustang in Australia. That's actually something I find strange, as I have seen plenty of third- and fourth-generation Mustangs here, and even the ones from the 60's.

[Anatomica]

Ah, yeah. Forgot about the upped engine size. But my primary point stands. The Mustang GT is designed to be affordable, and durable. I am reasonably certain that those two factors cover it, possibly with an additional "mass production" consideration. I don't have numbers, but I would also submit that there are a whole lot more Mustang GTs than R32s. Again, the more power you get from an engine, the more complex the engineering. It makes some logical sense that it would be more difficult to produce a more complex vehicle.

[SikSuck]

Are the speakers any good in one of those machines?

I mean this is the music topic, right..[?/size]

[MaestroXC]

Wrong. 

Anatomica, still have that Charger you went to get the Pom with?  It was a Charger, right?

[Anatomica]

I wish I had enough money to buy an old Charger. I still wouldn't buy one, but I'd have a lot of money.

No, it's a 1970 Monte Carlo SS454. And yes, I still have it. Would you believe that sucker can pass emissions inspection?

[MaestroXC]

I'd believe it if you said so.  That's a badass ride.

My father, and his father, both took their driver's tests on the same day in 1972 in my aunt's boyfriend's 70ish Charger. 

[Anatomica]

Those are some fine looking cars, Chargers, though I still think the first generation Firebirds had the best looks.

I sorta geeked out in Deathproof when they talked about having the 440 with the six pack. Everyone always idolizes the hemi, but I'd take the 440 any day. Not that I'd kick any Charger outta bed for farting. Just saying, if I had my druthers.

[Sa9jev]

Those are some fine looking cars, Chargers, though I still think the first generation Firebirds had the best looks.

I sorta geeked out in Deathproof when they talked about having the 440 with the six pack. Everyone always idolizes the hemi, but I'd take the 440 any day. Not that I'd kick any Charger outta bed for farting. Just saying, if I had my druthers.

His other car was a Nova, wasn't it? It's been a while since I've seen the movie.
I'd love a Nova SS.

[Kicsi Viz]

When my dad hit 40 and suddenly was wearing his hair longer and going to the office in bright red bell bottoms and 2" wide white patent leather belts, he bought a Charger.  Sadly, it was a pile of shit.  And I could only get it up to 105mph.

[Anatomica]

I think I got my cars mixed up, as there were three awesome cars in Deathproof: Chevy Nova, and a Dodge Challenger and Charger. The former was the 440 under discussion in the diner scene. Anyway, they're all boner-inducing cars, though the Nova was the one that sounded most like my own.

[TC6909]

Just some questions that have been on my mind for a while, but for which I can't find any specific information:

*Why is the 4.6L V8 engine in a Mustang so pissweak? A Cadillac CTS has the option of having a 304-horsepower V6, so it's not a case of "Americans can't make engines".

I have the 4.6L V8 in my pickup. Its definitely not a weak engine but its out of place in a Mustang for sure

[Sa9jev]

Just some questions that have been on my mind for a while, but for which I can't find any specific information:

*Why is the 4.6L V8 engine in a Mustang so pissweak? A Cadillac CTS has the option of having a 304-horsepower V6, so it's not a case of "Americans can't make engines".

I have the 4.6L V8 in my pickup. Its definitely not a weak engine but its out of place in a Mustang for sure

It just seems so woefully underpowered past 2nd gear. Up to the top of 2nd, though, that motherfucker is torque-y as all fuck.

[Anatomica]

My experience with Ford is pretty limited, but I think they just make 3rd a really tall gear. My roommate's GT will hang in third just fine from 25 to 'round 70-ish, if I recall right. Likewise, my daily driver (a l'il SVT Contour) can run third from about 20 to 60.

[Kimber45]

The 4.6 in a F-150 and the 4.6 in a Mus GT will have different PCM programs and shift strategies. One for Torque and the other for HP.