Is Ford Running on Empty?

"Carlton" > wrote in message
...

> To each his own
> I drove the 2006 Freestyle and while I liked the SUV I didn't like the CVT
> at all. I thought it seemed to be lugging down the engine. IOW it made the
> car feel slow. I agree that it was very smooth though and looking at the
> tach I couldn't feel any changes other than the sluggishness.
> Maybe the engine just needs more power? I don't really know.

Well you would be wrong. I think you are confusing noise and thrashing about
with power. The Freestyle is as fast or faster than any of it's six cylinder
competitors (Pacifica, Avalon, 6 cylinder 300, 6 cylinder Magnum). BTW, I
think calling the Freestyle an SUV is a misnomer (even if Ford claims it is
one). It is nothing more or less than a Five Hundred Station Wagon. It is
said that calling something a station wagon is now a bad thing.

> The reason I said it drove me crazy is because I like to know where I am
> as far as gear/torque/rpm etc because once you learn the car you can get
> the most performance out of it.
> With the CVT, there it's just *there* and that's it.
> Kinda felt weird to me.

Just floor it! The engine management system handles matching the engine
speed to the gear ratio to achieve the maximum speed. Even my Vue handled
that well. The CVT Vue was significantly faster to 60 than the 5 speed
manual Vue with the same engine (or the current models with a conventional
automatic). You just have to get over the idea that you have to feel shifts.

Ed

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 08:57:38 -0400, "Eisboch" > wrote:

>
>"Mike Hunter" > wrote in message
...
>
>> If you own a new hemi, if I were you, I would not bet your title that you
>> will 'walk away' from any old Hemi. LOL
>>
>> mike hunt
>>
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>> Whitelightning wrote:
>>>
>> .
>>>
>>> 1) The modern 6.1L Hemi is NET rated at what the old 7L Hemi was rated
>>> in GROSS HP.
>>>
>>> 2) And a modern SRT Hemi car will walk any old Hemi car.
>>>
>
>
>Those of us old enough to remember such stuff recall:
>
>The 426 hemi was built to compete against the Ford and Chevy 427 engines in
>stock car races of the mid-60s. In order to qualify as a "stock" engine, a
>minimum of 500 had to be produced and installed in cars available to the
>public at dealerships. At the time, the Fed limited stock engine horsepower
>ratings to 425 hp, thus the 425 hp rating of the 426 hemi.
>
>The problem was (or not really a problem) that many people that bought the
>original hemi from a dealership and put the car on a dyno were surprised and
>delighted that they actually produced as much as 550 hp as delivered.
>It also didn't take a lot of money or mods to tune these beasts up to around
>600 hp.
>
>BTW .... regarding the weight questions on the new Charger versus the old
>.... I have a '69 Charger R/T (440 not 426). Weight is 3,636 lbs.
>
>Eisboch
>
>www.eisboch.com/glforsale
>

It's nice to see you expanding your horizons!
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John

I didn't pit a Toyota Camry against the V-6 Mustang, Mike Hunter was the one
who erroneously quipped off "A V6 Mustang will blow the doors off a Camry
with EITHER engine LOL".

That small distinction kinda makes the rest of your comparisons somewhat
irrelevant here...

Keep in mind I don't own or like the Toyota Camry, I speak up only to
disprove utter bull****.

BTW:
The last Camry I drove was a 1999 190HP V-6 5 speed manual, and it was no
slouch.
What kind of power was the V-6 Mustang cranking out in 1999?


"John S." > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Actually given the price of a 3.5 V6 Camry you really need to compare
> it to the Mustang GT!
>
> Your beloved 2007 Camry has an MSRP of $24,300 while the Mustang V6
> list for only $19,100! MSRP on a Mustang GT is $25,100 (some places
> actually sell them for that... LOL). So for an extra $800 you can get
> a 300HP Mustang GT! LOL!
>
> Also your Camry is only available in an automatic... I'm guessing it s
> a smooth, slow shifting automatic at that... While the Mustang is
> avaible in a manual so it will have less power loss.. (Have you seen
> that new commerical for the car where you don't even feel it shift?
> What's up with that??? LOL!)
>
> On the subject of torque... You feel torque and talk about
> horsepower... Torque wins races! Both cars have about the same torque
> but the Mustang V6 makes peak earlier... Now I'm very familar with the
> torque curves on the Mustang but not on the Camry. I can tell you the
> torque curve on the Mustang V6 is really good. Torque comes on early
> and stays nice and flat. I will have to see if I can find a Camry
> dynosheet... But I doubt will be as good as the Mustang's. The 4.0L
> is a torquey little motor! 2 stock automatics would probably be a close
> race... but I think a stock manual Mustang is going to beat the
> Camry...
>
> But then again the Camry is $5000 more than the Mustang V6! For $5000
> you can add F/I to the Mustang and have some serious FUN! LOL! (and
> please don't whine to me about voiding my warranty... LOL)
>
> And of course... dont' forget the "gawk" factor! I have never owned a
> car that gets "gawked" at as much and my 05 Stang... There will always
> be cars out there that are FASTER than The Mistress, but not many that
> are better looking! LOL!
>
>
>
> My Names Nobody wrote:
>> Ya OK, you wish. LOL
>>
>> 2007 Camry, V6 3.5-liter high-output V6, 268-horsepower at 6200 rpm, 248
>> lb-ft of torque at 4700 rpm
>>
>> 2007 Ford Mustang, V6 standard 4.0-liter, V6, 210-horsepower at 5,250
>> rpm,
>> 240 lb-ft of torque at 3500 rpm
>>
>> Before you get too excited about the power being at higher RPMs, have a
>> look at the Mustangs V-8 numbers...
>> 2007 Ford Mustang, V8 4.6-liter, V8, 300-horsepower at 5,750 rpm, 320
>> lb-ft
>> of torque at 4,500 rpm
>>
>> I can see all the Camry doors all over the shoulders of the roads now,
>> NOT...
>>
>>
>> "Mike Hunter" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >A V6 Mustang will blow the doors off a Camry with EITHER engine LOL
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "My Names Nobody" > wrote in message
>> > newsccvg.3334$us.2493@trnddc04...
>> >>
>> >> "Mike Hunter" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >>> Most buyers buy what they buy because the believe that is the best
>> >>> buy
>> >>> for their money. The ONLY Toyota that is the number one seller, in
>> >>> its
>> >>> class is the Camry, however. Performance? That's funny, 8 out of
>> >>> 10
>> >>> Camrys sold in the US are 4cy and way underpowered compared to those
>> >>> of
>> >>> its competitors that offer V6s for much less money.
>> >>>
>> >>> mike hunt
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Kinda like most Mustangs sold huh? LOL
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> > wrote in message
>> >>> ups.com...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Mike Hunter wrote:
>> >>>>
>> > wrote in message
>> glegroups.com...
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>Lest we forget both GM and Ford outsell ANY of the imports, as well.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>Irrelevant (quality != quantity) and misleading ( GM + Ford is
>> >>>>>>bigger
>> >>>>>>than Toyota, but Toyota + Ford is bigger than GM, but so what?).
>> >>>>>>GM
>> >>>>>>is
>> >>>>>>also #1 in China, but again, so what?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>Then how do you explain why the Camry is the number one selling
>> >>>>>car in the US?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I doubt it's all due to quality but also because of performance,
>> >>>> comfort, and resale value. What do you think is the reason?
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>

"Mike Hunter" > wrote in message
...
> Ya right. See what happens when you tramp on the throttle, in each, at
> those speeds, particularly on a steep grade.
>
>

So Mike, are you now back peddling away from your fictitious speed to RPM
comparison crap you posted?
Do you now see the error of you ways, forgetting about gear ratios?


> mike hunt
>
>
> "My Names Nobody" > wrote in message
> news:1pFvg.8081$Ss2.2128@trnddc01...
>>
>> "Mike Hunter" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Thanks for proving my point, about the importance of torque to HP! A
>>> 2007 GT is only running a 1,900 RPMs at 70 MPH. 2,200 at 80 MPH The
>>> Toyota needs to be at nearly 3000 RPMs to attain 70 MPH At 3,000 the
>>> Mustang
>>
>> LMAO, Where are you getting the ****? IN WHICH GEAR??? The only way
>> the 2007 V-6 Camry spins 3000 RPM at 70 miles per hour is if you leave it
>> in 3rd and don't use the top two gears.
>> The last (190 HP) Toyota I drove idled along at 75 MPH in overdrive at
>> 1800 RPM...
>>
>
>

"Carlton" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 13:58:06 -0400, C. E. White wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I love the Freestyle CVT. It is my second car with a CVT (actually it is
>> my
>> Mother's car, but I've driven it more than her). My first CVT was in a
>> Saturn and although it gave superior performance to the 5 speed manual,
>> it
>> had ,<hmmm> problems - especially when abused by a 16 year old. Last week
>> I
>> drove the Freestyle to Baltimore (310 mile one way trip up I-95). I was
>> extremely pleased with the performance. The fuel economy was good (not as
>> good as a Sable on a similar trip, but still good - around 25 mpg mostly
>> going 75+ mpg). I hardly noticed the way the transmission performed at
>> all.
>> Very smooth at all times. Lots of passenger and luggage room. Great A/C.
>> My
>> only complaint was the standard radio - wish it would play MP3s.
>>
>> Ed
>
>
> To each his own
> I drove the 2006 Freestyle and while I liked the SUV I didn't like the CVT
> at all. I thought it seemed to be lugging down the engine. IOW it made the
> car feel slow. I agree that it was very smooth though and looking at the
> tach I couldn't feel any changes other than the sluggishness.
> Maybe the engine just needs more power? I don't really know.
>
> The reason I said it drove me crazy is because I like to know where I am
> as far as gear/torque/rpm etc because once you learn the car you can get
> the most performance out of it.
> With the CVT, there it's just *there* and that's it.
> Kinda felt weird to me.

Where you are, is ALWAYS in the sweet spot of your power curve. That is why
the heaver all wheel drive CVT version of the Ford 500 is quicker than its
lighter front wheel drive automatic transaxle version Ford 500....

???

"John S." > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Blue Mesteno wrote:
>> "John S." > wrote
>> > On the subject of torque... You feel torque and talk about
>> > horsepower... Torque wins races!
>>
>> No offense, but if it was about torque, then we'd all drive John Deere
>> tractors. It's not all about torque. The John Deere 6135 produces 600hp
>> at
>> 2100rpm and 1881 lb/ft of torque at a piddling 1600 rpm. 1/4 mile
>> speed???
>> 60 seconds??
>> --
>> Scott W.
>> '68 Ranchero 500 302
>> '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W
>> ThunderSnake #57
>> http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/
>
> no offense taken... but... I didn't say it was ALL about torque... I
> think people just get hung up on HP without looking at the torque
> numbers... For a 1/4 mile Torque is a very important factor...
>

But no more important than gear ratio...

"Mike Hunter" > wrote in message
...
> Todays Mustang GT has the 4.6V8 is a better engine than the 302, 300 HP
> and 345 FP of torque. The limited production Cobra has the engine from
> the Ford GT with a supercharger and 500 HP and 445 FP of torque from what
> I've heard.

It has specifically not been called a "Cobra" by Ford, it is titled the
Shelby GT500. It does not use the GT engine. It is a cast iron 5.4 block
(the GT uses an aluminum block) with aluminum heads from the GT.


> The MSRP for the coupe is 40K, 45K for the convertible but dealers are
> getting 5K to 10K over MSRP. Every Ford dealer gets one, Presidents Award
> dealers get two.
>
>
>
> mike hunt
>
>
>
>
> "Whitelightning" > wrote in message
> news:2YAug.5346$Ss2.5148@trnddc01...
>>
>> "Picasso" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> long as the drives stay in the rear, and they keep the v8 ;P
>>>
>>> I really wish they wouldnt even PUT the v6 in them. it kindda ruins
>>> them... like the fox stangs 4 banger, what a gutless piece of junk that
>>> was... 2.3L Wasn't it? the ford tempo's could walk all over them!
>>> hahaha
>>>
>> Careful now, lol. In 1985 one of the performance mags did a head to head
>> to
>> find the "fastest"
>> production car. Of course the Corvette won hands down over all even
>> after
>> Chevrolet made them put a roll cage in the car and locked out 6th gear on
>> the tranny, the Camaro IROC nudged out the Pontiac Firebird for 2 nd
>> place,
>> and forth place went to the Buick Grand National, which beat the Firebird
>> for top end, but got beat bad in the 1/4 mile, but the big surprise was
>> the
>> Dodge Omni GLH whooped the 5.0 Ford Mustang, not just on top end, but in
>> the
>> 1/4 mile as well.. A couple years later the Omni was gone, as was the
>> Grand
>> National, but the big upset winners were both GM trucks, the Cyclone, and
>> the Typhoon, which almost beat the damn Corvette in the 1/4 mile.
>>
>> Whitelightning
>>
>>
>
>

"Mike Hunter" > wrote in message
...
> Todays Mustang GT has the 4.6V8 is a better engine than the 302, 300 HP
> and 345 FP of torque. The limited production Cobra has the engine from
> the Ford GT with a supercharger and 500 HP and 445 FP of torque from what
> I've heard.


2007 FORD SHELBY GT500 OFFICIALLY RATED AT 500 HORSEPOWER

Horsepower
500 hp @ 6,000 rpm (SAE Certified)

Torque
480 lb.-ft. @ 4,500 rpm (SAE Certified)

http://media.ford.com/newsroom/featu...?release=23017



> The MSRP for the coupe is 40K, 45K for the convertible but dealers are
> getting 5K to 10K over MSRP. Every Ford dealer gets one, Presidents Award
> dealers get two.
>
>
>
> mike hunt
>
>
>
>
> "Whitelightning" > wrote in message
> news:2YAug.5346$Ss2.5148@trnddc01...
>>
>> "Picasso" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> long as the drives stay in the rear, and they keep the v8 ;P
>>>
>>> I really wish they wouldnt even PUT the v6 in them. it kindda ruins
>>> them... like the fox stangs 4 banger, what a gutless piece of junk that
>>> was... 2.3L Wasn't it? the ford tempo's could walk all over them!
>>> hahaha
>>>
>> Careful now, lol. In 1985 one of the performance mags did a head to head
>> to
>> find the "fastest"
>> production car. Of course the Corvette won hands down over all even
>> after
>> Chevrolet made them put a roll cage in the car and locked out 6th gear on
>> the tranny, the Camaro IROC nudged out the Pontiac Firebird for 2 nd
>> place,
>> and forth place went to the Buick Grand National, which beat the Firebird
>> for top end, but got beat bad in the 1/4 mile, but the big surprise was
>> the
>> Dodge Omni GLH whooped the 5.0 Ford Mustang, not just on top end, but in
>> the
>> 1/4 mile as well.. A couple years later the Omni was gone, as was the
>> Grand
>> National, but the big upset winners were both GM trucks, the Cyclone, and
>> the Typhoon, which almost beat the damn Corvette in the 1/4 mile.
>>
>> Whitelightning
>>
>>
>
>

"My Names Nobody" > wrote in message
news:LfRvg.9717$Ss2.2895@trnddc01...

(...)

>> The reason I said it drove me crazy is because I like to know where I am
>> as far as gear/torque/rpm etc because once you learn the car you can get
>> the most performance out of it.
>> With the CVT, there it's just *there* and that's it.
>> Kinda felt weird to me.
>
> Where you are, is ALWAYS in the sweet spot of your power curve. That is
> why the heaver all wheel drive CVT version of the Ford 500 is quicker than
> its lighter front wheel drive automatic transaxle version Ford 500....

Actually, it depends.

If you are accelearating fast, you are at the sweet part of the power curve.
And as you go faster, the effective gear ratio changes automatically to keep
you there.

When you are cruising down the highway, you are at the sweet part of the
economy curve.

This provides perforance and economy.

When I went to the NYC Auto Show, they had a model that showed how it
worked. Quite simple, really. And, when they work right, really cool.


Jeff

>
> ???
>
>

Whitelightning wrote:
> "Mike Hunter" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I can only assume you never owned one of those car if that is what
>> you believe LOL
>>
>>
>> mike hunt
>
> Obviously he never drove one. There is a hell of a difference
> between 350 cid, and 426 cid.
>
> Ahh those were the days,Chrysler's 426 hemi's, Ford's 429 cobra jet
> ala 1970 Torino, and Chevy's '63 409 cid, and the later 427 cid
> engines, and last but not least, the '70 Buick StageI with the 455
> cid, 510 ft pounds of torque, at 2,600 rpm.
Displacement differences are made up by fuel injection,
superchargers and turbochargers, and the electronics
systems that allow maximum spark advance to be used
because of the knock sensors. Quite simply, the stock
autos from the late 60's and early 70's were not producing
as much power as these new cars.

Magazine test data that compares the old and new cars
has repeatedly shown that the old cars were not actually
as fast as many people think.