Is Ford Running on Empty?

"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.

Whitelightning

"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...

> would be doing 105.
>

LOL
Ah, you are confusing torque curves with gear ratios, you better check your
math...
Speed is a result of crank RPM and transmission/final gear ratio, not the
engines torque curve. Torque may effect how quickly you get to that speed,
but has absolutely nothing to do with the engine RPM and final drive
speed...

You can go 70 MPH with many cars with well under half the torque and
horsepower, and the RPM is dictated by gear ratio, NOT Torque curve.

Even if torque did play a roll ( if we were talking about a whole lot less
power, running out of torque could come into play) in the RPM-in and the
resulting final RPM-out travel speed equation, rather than gear ratio, my
posting of the Mustangs and Toyotas numbers would have still done absolutely
nothing toward "proving your point"... Doh.

I did prove that you were talking out your ass when you quiped off "A V6
Mustang will blow the doors off a Camry with EITHER engine LOL". That
is just not true.


> My 2007 will be in by early August, bring your title and your Toyota.

LMFAO
I don't have one, but I would rent one just to show you the error of your
ways...


> could use a car for one of my grand daughters
>
> mike hunt
>
>
> "My Names Nobody" > wrote in message
> news:NQvvg.12568$k31.12257@trnddc06...
>> 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
>
>

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
...

> 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

Ya right. See what happens when you tramp on the throttle, in each, at
those speeds, particularly on a steep grade.


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
...

> BTW the transmission you don't feel shift is called the CVT transmission.
> Not sure if Toyota has it, but the Ford Freestyle does.
>
> It will drive you CRAZY, trust me.......

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

"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/

There are no 'shift' to feel, only changing drive ratio cones. When
starting out or climbing a grade, with a vehicle equipped with a CVT, one
needs to floor the throttle to get to the lowest gear to do the job, then
let up when you get to the speed you want to attain.. Otherwise you are
starting, or climbing, in the higher ratios of the tranny, and in the wrong
part of the torque curve

mike hunt


"Carlton" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 03:47:54 -0700, John S. wrote:
>
> BTW the transmission you don't feel shift is called the CVT transmission.

> Not sure if Toyota has it, but the Ford Freestyle does. (and the 500)
>
> It will drive you CRAZY, trust me.......
>
>

The best definition is HP gets one speed, Torque get one going quickly and
what keep you going on the grades. Your chose is speed versus quick, even a
4cy can go 100 MPH, it takes torque at the right speed to go quickly and
keep up to the speed limit on the long grades. That is why the 500 does so
well with only 203 HP, the CVT keeps the tranny on the top of the torque
curve and 203 is enough HP to go over 100 MPH if you wish.

mike hunt


"Blue Mesteno" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "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/
>

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...