Is Ford Running on Empty?

The difference is in the torque and the RPMs at which it is produced.
Domestics do not generally wind up the engines, to produce higher HP figures
for advertising purposed, as do the Japanese. Thus their engines develop
more torque at the proper RPMs, and that show up in much better performance.
I also will result in better real world fuel economy if one lives in hilly
or mountainous areas of the country



"lymee" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:16:05 +0000, My Names Nobody wrote:
>
>>
>> Kinda like most Mustangs sold huh? LOL
>
> Not really comparable.
> FWIW the base cars usually are the best sellers, mostly due to rental
> companies getting them.
>
> The V6 Mustang (2005+) is quite fast, has a decent
> exhaust sound and is a lot of fun to drive especially a ragtop model.
>
> The GT adds on top of that, but it's really not *THAT* much of a
> difference in everyday driving for average people.
>
> Of course the enthusiasts and Mustang nuts like ME appreciate the
> difference.
> But average Joe using it to commute to work?
> Nahhhh...
>
> Some say the V6 actually feels better handling the corkscrew turns because
> the nose is lighter by about 150lbs or so.
>
> The V6 and 4 cyl Camrys are like night and day just like the V6 and 4
> cyl Mazda 626 were, in their day.
>
> I have had both versions of the Mazda and Camry as rentals for a week or
> more and IMHO it's a major difference in driveablity.
>
> I actually thought there was something wrong with the 4 cyl Camry I
> rented.
> It was that slow and even worse throttle response was sluggish.
>
> Ford was real smart offering a good performance V6 in the entry model
> because most people will never be able to appreciate the extra the GT
> offers.
>
> Their wallet will appreciate the lower insurance costs however
>
> Seems Pontiac and Saturn have done the same with the Sky/Solstice.
>
> I think Dodge slipped a little offering that V6 in the Hemi models.
> Then again Dodge was selling a 2.x liter 4 banger for Caravans
>
> Big mistake IMHO.
>

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?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

"lymee" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 19:18:02 -0700, NoOption5L wrote:
>
>>
>> Me... I'd bet the farm on the a new SRT Hemi...
>>
>> Patrick
>
> Me too.
> And don't even talk about fuel economy, efficiency and cornering ability.
> The new Dodges clean house in that neck of the woods.
> I drove the 5.7 Hemi and while I don't really like the styling, it was a
> seriously powered ride!
> You literally have to hang on to the steering wheel to keep from flying
> back in the seat.

You should move the seat up a bit. There should be at least a slight bend in
your elbows as you grip the wheel, and your back should be planted against
the seat back.

Try doing it this way, instead of leaning way forward to hold the steering
wheel. I don't understand how anyone can drive with the seat fully
reclined...

)



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Apples to oranges. How about a Barracuda with an old hemi?


mike hunt


> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Mike Hunter wrote:
>> 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
>
> Don't laugh. Find me an original road test where a normal production
> Hemi car posts a trap speed of 109 mph. You don't have to bother
> looking because you won't find any. 105 is it, with most posting trap
> speeds closer to 100. And if you've been a subscriber to Hemmings
> Muscle Machines magazine you'll have noted a few times where they've
> stated the old Hemi cars aren't as fast as the new SRT Hemi cars, or
> more like not even close to as fast.
>
> Me... I'd bet the farm on the a new SRT Hemi...
>
> Patrick
>
>
>> > 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.
>> >
>

Compare the torque

mike hunt


"Mark Jones" > wrote in message
.net...
> lymee wrote:
>> However, the Mustang, even the V6 is simply more fun to drive.
>> It really is.
>> I dunno why, I really don't but IMHO it is a more fun ride.
>> I think it might be because the Dodge feels *heavy*...
>
> The Dodge is heavy. The Charger is about 4200 pounds.
> It is slower than my 1994 Corvette, even though the new
> Dodge has about 75 more horsepower.
>
>

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
would be doing 105.

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

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:34:39 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
> wrote:

>Apples to oranges. How about a Barracuda with an old hemi?
>
>
>mike hunt
>
>

I had a 68 Barracuda Formula S wiht a 383 in it. DAMNED fast car,, in
fact, so fast that it scared me (at age 21) so bad I was afraid to let
off on the accellerator. Problem was the front end only hit the
ground every couple of hundred feet above 130 MPH. Thank heavens
there weren't many Michigan State Police on the Seeney Stretch in the
UP back then LOL

BTW, that WAS the fastest car in the UP till some SUMBITCH brough a
hemicuda across the bridge <sigh> LOL

Fun but not as much fun as my Mustang

Mike Hunter wrote:
> Compare the torque
>
> mike hunt
>
>
> "Mark Jones" > wrote in message
> .net...
>> lymee wrote:
>>> However, the Mustang, even the V6 is simply more fun to drive.
>>> It really is.
>>> I dunno why, I really don't but IMHO it is a more fun ride.
>>> I think it might be because the Dodge feels *heavy*...
>>
>> The Dodge is heavy. The Charger is about 4200 pounds.
>> It is slower than my 1994 Corvette, even though the new
>> Dodge has about 75 more horsepower.

Same difference. The Dodge has about 75 more torque and
it still isn't enough because of the extreme weight. I was really
surprised to see that it weighed so much. That is a little more
than the weight of the huge Chevy Impalas from the early 70's.

Mike Hunter wrote:
> Apples to oranges. How about a Barracuda with an old hemi?

Mike,

I don't know why you think it's apples to oranges.

Anyways, the old hemi 'Cudas were heavy cars -- 3800+ pounds. (The
'68-'70 Chargers were lighter, if only by a bit.) So they had about
the same amount of body mass to move as the new Hemi does.

Patrick


> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Mike Hunter wrote:
> >> 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
> >
> > Don't laugh. Find me an original road test where a normal production
> > Hemi car posts a trap speed of 109 mph. You don't have to bother
> > looking because you won't find any. 105 is it, with most posting trap
> > speeds closer to 100. And if you've been a subscriber to Hemmings
> > Muscle Machines magazine you'll have noted a few times where they've
> > stated the old Hemi cars aren't as fast as the new SRT Hemi cars, or
> > more like not even close to as fast.
> >
> > Me... I'd bet the farm on the a new SRT Hemi...
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> >
> >> > 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.
> >> >
> >

I can only assume you never owned one of those car if that is what you
believe LOL


mike hunt


> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Mike Hunter wrote:
>> Apples to oranges. How about a Barracuda with an old hemi?
>
> Mike,
>
> I don't know why you think it's apples to oranges.
>
> Anyways, the old hemi 'Cudas were heavy cars -- 3800+ pounds. (The
> '68-'70 Chargers were lighter, if only by a bit.) So they had about
> the same amount of body mass to move as the new Hemi does.
>
> Patrick
>
>
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> > Mike Hunter wrote:
>> >> 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
>> >
>> > Don't laugh. Find me an original road test where a normal production
>> > Hemi car posts a trap speed of 109 mph. You don't have to bother
>> > looking because you won't find any. 105 is it, with most posting trap
>> > speeds closer to 100. And if you've been a subscriber to Hemmings
>> > Muscle Machines magazine you'll have noted a few times where they've
>> > stated the old Hemi cars aren't as fast as the new SRT Hemi cars, or
>> > more like not even close to as fast.
>> >
>> > Me... I'd bet the farm on the a new SRT Hemi...
>> >
>> > Patrick
>> >
>> >
>> >> > 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.
>> >> >
>> >
>