Maybe but even so why can't Ford do the same thing. The one thing both the wife and I noticed when we got the stang was the need for another gear. Oh at 60 the is turning around 1200rpms.

But the feeling is more than that. I have not had the Mustang on the dyno yet but in the vette the torque is very flat. From somewhere before 2000rpms all the way to 6000 the torque is above 300ft lbs at the rear wheel. HP is also very linear, no peaks or valleys as it climbs. In other words it just pulls from idle to redline. When you take off you don't get pinned to the back of the seat. But as rpms build and speed increases you feel as if you are being push more and more into the seat. It is a really weird feeling and as alot of the C5 owners saying there cars where faster than the C6.

The Mustang on the other hand feels like the cars I grew up with. You get pinned back early then the pressure decreases. For you motorcycle guys that understand 2 stroke four stroke differences it like that but not as exaggerated.

And maybe in all this there is and answer. I was at a conference over the weekend and I was tolking to one of the people about the Vette. In many ways it is almost an economy car. It gets by far the best mileage at my house. Maybe the answer is to provide big power in the way of torque so you can use gears to provide a 6th gear that is .5 to 1.

 

What you're talking about is the difference between a 4.6L and a 6.0

 

But his previous post indicated that the 6.0L Vette motor gets better MPG than the wife's 4.6L Mustang.

That right there is something to think about, though weight plays a role here also.

 

i agree about the mpg thing, i use to have a 1971 chevy with a 454 in it and the thing got the same mpg as my 1995 f350 with a 460. i would think with all those electronic gizmos and such it would get better than the old chevy.

 

Did you see what the two rear gearing options for the '06 'vette are? 2.53:1 and 3.42:1

Does that high MPG vette have 2.53's???

By the way, what's up with "needing another gear" in the Mustang? 1200RPM at 60MPH? Sounds kinda low for a Ford.

 

Ah, knew someone would bring that up. Guess what it does not make a difference which gear you have the final gear ratio is almost identical. Most everyone with a C6 is getting upper 20's, manula or auto. The real difference between the 2 though is better spacing a 1-4 for the 3.42 option though the 2.53 with the auto as a taller 1st gear.

If you have to ask the question about the Mustang needing another gear you need to live with it for awhile. Remember I said it needed another gear before I even test drove a Vette.

See what Chevy has done with the Vette is put in a supper overdrive. Something they all should be doing. Top speed in a Vette, stock is achived in 5th gear. With enough torque and HP with the way the vette is geared 6th is good for like 312mph. Also remember I'm not just taking highway miles here but around town.

Chevy did somethings that I find annoying but at the sametime smart. First with the manual if you take off and a sedate pace it requires you to shift from 1st to 4th. A pain but it will improve you mpg. The motor has the torque to handle it. For the auto it will start in second instead of 1st if you are not hammering the throttle. Another smart move. Thanks to the super OD I can drive all day long at 45mph and pull down around 35mpg turning the motor at a sedate 1000rpms.

And that is the point. You have here a car that will do 0-60 in 4.5 sec, the qtr in 12.6 and will run at 186mph. At the same time when driven easy will pull down 18+ around town and 28+ at 75mph.

This is something that Ford needs to do with the Stang. The car has some of the best lines available today. The exhust note is by far the best on the market. It has good performance numbers and is way cheaper to mod than a Vette. But the addition of a 6 speed tranny and weight reduction would make it even a better car. How many people would jump at the chance to buy a muscle car for 30K that can pull down 30mpg without hurting performance?

 

I usually don't get baited like this, but here goes:

What do you mean it needs another gear? Where? You said 1200RPM at 60MPH? That's quite an overdrive. Rear gear is 3.31, overdrive is .72, so at 1200RPMs that's 40MPH with 26" tall tires... and I don't think they are that tall.

Just wondering, is all, not picking a fight.

 

my 5.3 consistently pulls 19 hwy- and thats at 80. I get an overall of 18- and it screams when you get on it. Real unique ride. I had a '79 bronco with a built 429 that was faster but it got 8mpg on a good day. Chebby has some incredible motors and blue had best learn if they ever want to compete. 300hp and 18mpg in a truck- don't know if that's been done before.

 

krewat, i may be wrong here, but i think he was referring to the vette turning 1200 rpm at 60 mph. And that the stang needed to be able to do that also.

 

Oh... maybe I read that wrong.

Lowering the RPM on a Ford modular is the WRONG thing to do.

I got better MPG in my '96 t-bird going from a 3.27 rear to a 3.73. From 23 up to 26.

1200RPM would be pretty low for a 4.6 to run at highway speeds. It would be near it's torque peak at 3600RPM which would equate to 180MPH

 

That is the C6 that runs those rpms. Wish the wife had the car here and I could tell you for sure but 60 is about 1600 rpms if I remember right. But both of us where looking for another gear out on the freeway and she is not really a car nut.

I think that was the point I was trying to make. Maybe the next trip to the dyno I'll start the run at 1000rpm to look at the torque curve down there. But this car, the Vette just pulls regardless of where it is at. 300ft lbs of torque at the rear wheels from 2000 rpms till 6000rpms, peaking at about 4500rpm at 340.

 

Got it!

I suspect Ford will get more out of the 3-valve 4.6 ... if the 5.4 and 6.8 can pull a very flat torque curve, the 4.6 should be able to also... not as flat maybe because the stroke is shorter, but still...

One thing to remember in all of this is that motors are produced at certain rates. I have no idea what Ford's capacity vs. production is right now, but I suspect they are looking to get production as close to capacity as possible. For that reason, we may not see a 5.4 in a Mustang anytime soon. Too many trucks

 

That's an interesting point.

I went from 3.31 to 4.10 on my Expedition, and expected MPG to change dramatically.

It didn't change at all. At least, I could not notice a difference MPG-wise.

Driving-wise, it's a huge improvement.

 

Would this spring be soon enough???


I know the Shelby will be lower production.........but 5.4 nonetheless.

 

Glad you're back

QUITE low production, eh?

Where has this thread gone to? Hot-rod ultimate machines, or are we still talking about something that would make Ford money?

art k.