Why doesn't Ford one-up the Vette?

wrote:
> Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Rich wrote:
>>>
>>>> One simple addition to the Mustang line;
>>>> A small-block 427. They already have the engine,
>>>> I saw it (if you can image it) in a prototype racing
>>>> Thunderbird about three years ago.
>>>> Why won't they do it?
>>>> How would it look if a Mustang waxed the GT?
>>>> -Rich
>>>
>>>
>>> Why go head to head with the Vette? Now that the f-bodies are
>>> long gone, the Stang is the last true two door north american
>>> musclecar. And no, I dont count the butt-ugly charger. Carve out your
>>> market niche and collect money while there is no direct competition...
>>
>>
>> While GM is standing around with its head up its ass Ford is busy
>> creating the next generation of Mustang fanatics with the '05+ cars.
>> In a few years the younger crowd will say "What's a Camaro?" if GM
>> doesn't act soon.
>
> Or they think 'camaro' in the same thought as 'mullett'

Ahhh... it has been a long time since I had a reason to plug this web site:

http://www.mulletsgalore.com/classifications/index.html

It lists every type of mullet known to mankind.

Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
> wrote:
>> Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rich wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One simple addition to the Mustang line;
>>>>> A small-block 427. They already have the engine,
>>>>> I saw it (if you can image it) in a prototype racing
>>>>> Thunderbird about three years ago.
>>>>> Why won't they do it?
>>>>> How would it look if a Mustang waxed the GT?
>>>>> -Rich
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why go head to head with the Vette? Now that the f-bodies are
>>>> long gone, the Stang is the last true two door north american
>>>> musclecar. And no, I dont count the butt-ugly charger. Carve out
>>>> your market niche and collect money while there is no direct
>>>> competition...
>>>
>>>
>>> While GM is standing around with its head up its ass Ford is busy
>>> creating the next generation of Mustang fanatics with the '05+ cars.
>>> In a few years the younger crowd will say "What's a Camaro?" if GM
>>> doesn't act soon.
>>
>> Or they think 'camaro' in the same thought as 'mullett'
>
> Ahhh... it has been a long time since I had a reason to plug this web site:
>
> http://www.mulletsgalore.com/classifications/index.html
>
> It lists every type of mullet known to mankind.

Here is the one specific to the Camaro owners: http://tinyurl.com/b6zv2

"Ritz" > wrote in message
...
> John wrote:
>>>While I love the 427 side oiler, I don't fondly remember having to
>>>re-adjust the valves every other month. That was the best part
>>>(at least from a routine maintenance standpoint) about the "upgrade" to a
>>>428cj, hydraulic lifters.
>>
>>
>> Been there, done that. Luckily, the Genesis lifter galleys are drilled
>> to accept hydraulic or solid lifters. I think hydraulic roller tappets
>> would be just dandy!
>
>
> Just dandy for your neighborhood gas station. 8-) Those engines use an
> ungodly amount of gas. Great to collect, but tough to live with on a
> daily basis.

Yep, but gas mileage isn't even in the equation if you go with a big block.
It's all about gut-wrenching torque! Knowing you can smoke the tires and
make them bark in EVERY gear!

--
John
'69 Mach 1 390 Toploader Acapulco Blue
ThunderSnake #59

> wrote in message ...
> ZombyWoof wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 00:48:36 GMT, " >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Rich wrote:
> >>
> >>>One simple addition to the Mustang line;
> >>>A small-block 427. They already have the engine,
> >>>I saw it (if you can image it) in a prototype racing
> >>>Thunderbird about three years ago.
> >>>Why won't they do it?
> >>>How would it look if a Mustang waxed the GT?
> >>>-Rich
> >>
> >> Why go head to head with the Vette? Now that the f-bodies are long
> >>gone, the Stang is the last true two door north american musclecar. And
> >>no, I dont count the butt-ugly charger. Carve out your market niche and
> >>collect money while there is no direct competition...
> >>
> >
> > GM has already announced that the new F-car will make it's appearance
> > in 2007. Artist renderings & guesses at overall look have it go
> > sixties retro like the current Mustang.
>
> *ITS NOT HERE NOW*. Artists renderings of me in 2 years give me muscles
> like Arnie and attributes like John Holmes.

Which roughly translates to Big AND Dead.....right? :-)

John wrote:
> "Ritz" > wrote in message
> ...
>> John wrote:
>>>> While I love the 427 side oiler, I don't fondly remember having to
>>>> re-adjust the valves every other month. That was the best part
>>>> (at least from a routine maintenance standpoint) about the "upgrade" to a
>>>> 428cj, hydraulic lifters.
>>>
>>> Been there, done that. Luckily, the Genesis lifter galleys are drilled
>>> to accept hydraulic or solid lifters. I think hydraulic roller tappets
>>> would be just dandy!
>>
>> Just dandy for your neighborhood gas station. 8-) Those engines use an
>> ungodly amount of gas. Great to collect, but tough to live with on a
>> daily basis.
>
> Yep, but gas mileage isn't even in the equation if you go with a big block.
> It's all about gut-wrenching torque! Knowing you can smoke the tires and
> make them bark in EVERY gear!

You can get the same feeling, and more, from a small displacement engine
with a twin screw blower. My little ol' 302 with a KB blower pumps out
460+ ft-lbs of torque at the rear wheels at just 2,500 rpm.

Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>>> Just dandy for your neighborhood gas station. 8-) Those engines use
>>> an ungodly amount of gas. Great to collect, but tough to live with
>>> on a daily basis.
>>
>>
>> Yep, but gas mileage isn't even in the equation if you go with a big
>> block. It's all about gut-wrenching torque! Knowing you can smoke the
>> tires and make them bark in EVERY gear!
>
>
> You can get the same feeling, and more, from a small displacement engine
> with a twin screw blower. My little ol' 302 with a KB blower pumps out
> 460+ ft-lbs of torque at the rear wheels at just 2,500 rpm.


Yup, forced induction will turn a V6 or V8 into a real stump puller.
Making ponies the "old fashioned way" strikes me as being mostly a waste
of fuel when you can get the same results from an inherently more fuel
efficient smaller engine. But like I said, if you're a collector or
drag racer, chances are that fuel economy isn't one of your priorities.
For the rest of us, it makes a difference.

Cheers,

Michael Johnson, PE wrote:

> You can get the same feeling, and more, from a small displacement engine
> with a twin screw blower. My little ol' 302 with a KB blower pumps out
> 460+ ft-lbs of torque at the rear wheels at just 2,500 rpm.

Just another datapoint....

My 2.7L twin turbo A6 will soon be putting out about 440hp and about
420ft/lbs of torque. And that's in daily driver trim and will get about
21mpg on average....all from an engine with "only" about 170 cubic
inches. There aren't too many big blocks out there in
street/daily-driver trim that could keep up with this "family sedan" on
the track or the strip.

Cheers,

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 21:47:32 -0400, Ritz > wrote:

>Rich wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 22:54:40 -0400, Ritz > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Rich wrote:
>>>
>>>>One simple addition to the Mustang line;
>>>>A small-block 427. They already have the engine,
>>>>I saw it (if you can image it) in a prototype racing
>>>>Thunderbird about three years ago.
>>>>Why won't they do it?
>>>>How would it look if a Mustang waxed the GT?
>>>>-Rich
>>>
>>>Cuz they don't have to? People voted with their pocketbooks.
>>>
>>>If you want a supercar, but a GT. If you want a fast mustang, buy a
>>>supercharger.
>>
>>
>> The entire "retro" package could be rounded out with the equivalent
>> of a big block.
>
>
>You can get the same amount of power found in a vintage big block with a
>lot less weight in a properly tuned modern small block V8 or V6 plus
>forced induction. And if you can drive it like a sane person, you even
>get relatively good gas mileage instead of the single digit mpg of an
>old big block.
>
>If you want vintage, buy a vintage car.

You think the new Vette is going to get single-digit gas mileage?
-Rich

"Rich" > wrote in message
...
> One simple addition to the Mustang line;
> A small-block 427. They already have the engine,
> I saw it (if you can image it) in a prototype racing
> Thunderbird about three years ago.
> Why won't they do it?
> How would it look if a Mustang waxed the GT?
> -Rich

Aint gonna happen.
The Mustang is a nice looking car. At $3.00 per gallon for fuel, few will
spring for
a gobbling 427. (I had a 68 Cobra. That f''''er yielded 4-8 miles per
gallon)
Ford isn't going to slit their other wrist by going this way.
They are into deep caca as it is.

The Corvette is a highly refined vehicle. Desired by the moderately
wealthy.
Ford is not even on the same street.

Rich wrote:
>>>The entire "retro" package could be rounded out with the equivalent
>>>of a big block.
>>
>>
>>You can get the same amount of power found in a vintage big block with a
>>lot less weight in a properly tuned modern small block V8 or V6 plus
>>forced induction. And if you can drive it like a sane person, you even
>>get relatively good gas mileage instead of the single digit mpg of an
>>old big block.
>>
>>If you want vintage, buy a vintage car.
>
>
> You think the new Vette is going to get single-digit gas mileage?


It's anyone's guess. We'll find out if/when it actually becomes
available for purchase.