Qcman17
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 14, 2019
- Threads
- 5
- Messages
- 1,086
- Reaction score
- 2,989
- Location
- Ottawa, Canada
- First Name
- Cam
- Vehicle(s)
- 2019 Mustang GT A10 Velocity Blue 301A
A slushbox so good even Norm might buy it
Sponsored
While Cadillac's V8-6-4 was a total disaster, the cylinder deactivation that is with FCA's Hemi works pretty well. I never even notice it, back when driving my kid's car.I'm not crazy about the cylinder deactivation idea. I'd rather pay even a hefty gas guzzler fee over having that crap on my car.
are you suggesting Ford needs to send Guido over to his house? To 'splain some things?Now he did mention that if lost function in his left leg...
Pretty sure you can turn that on an off for viewing pleasure as seen in the MCU.No, the shockwave produced in vibranium on vibranium collisions would liquefy the passengers.
I'd like to see price reduction as well. On the face of it just saying price reduction it might seem foolish at first or like you or I am asking for too much. However, I think Mustang prices are way too high just based on how much they increased in the last 6 years. The base GT increased from $32,925 to $37,315 - 13% - in those 6 years. I doubt Ford's costs have increased by 13% in that time. If they have, Ford has made some mistakes and needs to improve. Although the cost of living has gone up 9%, which would mean a GT cost of $35,888 is similar compared to other products in cost as a $32,925 GT in 2015 dollars. However, the Mustang has not changed much in all that time, so tooling costs should have been paid for. Ford should be trying to pass those savings on to the customer. I'm ok with the Mustang being on an old chassis, but if Ford charges me as if they did a full redesign - it just makes me less interested in buying a new car.1st of all, Price reductions. A Dct trans option, a factory supercharger option for gt’s, brembos standard on all gt’s and ecoboost high performance models. Tremec replacement for all mt-82’s!
Cylinder deactivation is just extra complexity and more things to go wrong. And cylinder deactivation does something that I don't want the engine to do. It's not good for the rings to be sliding up and down the cylinder bore with no load on them. It causes glazing of the rings, which means they don't seal as well. So the engine won't make as much power or last as long.While Cadillac's V8-6-4 was a total disaster, the cylinder deactivation that is with FCA's Hemi works pretty well. I never even notice it, back when driving my kid's car.
That would be nice.I would like features to be a la carte - I do not want all the extra junk just because I want something offered in a package. Of course this violates my previous desire. Making manual only packages is ... a package.
That would really be nice. Nice enough that Chevy got as close as NHTSA-mandated equipment requirements would let them with the 5th gen Z28.How about offer a race version - completely stripped down to bare necessities but with track/drag options. OK, I know this is not cost effective but if you really want to go racing, make a pure race car version besides the Shelby versions. To me, they still have too many creature comforts and could use some weight loss.
I never noticed the cylinder deactivation in my Corvette and I’d bet very few would notice either. 29 mpgs in a car like a Corvette is nothing to blow off, I was impressed by the system.I'm not crazy about the cylinder deactivation idea. I'd rather pay even a hefty gas guzzler fee over having that crap on my car.
the Mustang V8 powerplant development costs nothing. The F150 shoulders that. They sell in 2 month as many F150 as an entire year's worth of Mustangs. The 2.3EB was also LONG since paid for. And anyway the relaunched Ranger will now likely finance any further 2.3EB development should that be needed.direct injected engine costs more to produce than a port injected engine, so now I'm talking myself into thinking that the price of a new GT isn't totally unreasonable.
I said production costs, not development costs. But to be fair, production costs for a DI + PI engine can't be that bad compared to a PI only engine. Probably $100 each for a high volume manufacturer.the Mustang V8 powerplant development costs nothing. The F150 shoulders that. They sell in 2 month as many F150 as an entire year's worth of Mustangs. The 2.3EB was also LONG since paid for. And anyway the relaunched Ranger will now likely finance any further 2.3EB development should that be needed.
I expect the 2.7EB will be married up to partial electrification in the next roundup.
I see on the website, one can order Adaptive Cruise Control, on a Mustang with a manual transmission. How, exactly, does that work? How does the ACC handle downshifting and upshifting, as your speed varies between 0mph and 100mph ?I would like to see that Ford commit to a manual in a Mustang for as long as it has an ICE!! If you want to endear manual drivers, this would do it. Put it in writing!
I do like the package/models that had manual only requirements like the GT350, PP2 and (before the uproar) Mach 1 HP. Gives people a reason to grab a manual. If you want certain features, you must drive a manual.
Is some ways I agree with you.I would also like more badging for the packages. Would have been nice to have on my car PP2 or Performance Package 2 on a small plate somewhere on the car, inside or out. I paid for the options, why not showcase it? Even if all it was is that they made some aspect of the exterior unique like having all the chrome bits gunmetal and this was exclusive to the Performance Package cars, would be ok too.
by assuming you're not a twat who isn't paying attention and doesn't notice the RPMS going below 1500 and you needing to use the clutch pedal and/or shift lever.How does the ACC handle downshifting and upshifting, as your speed varies between 0mph and 100mph ?