Search results

Looks tighter towards the two front corners, the airbox seems to take a more extreme angle towards the rear (suggesting it's avoiding something towards the front driver side corner, the items around the engine look more closely spaced, and mainly, looks like the engine is much closer to the hood...

Aftermarket throttle bodies will never give "huge" gains unless you're already at the bleeding edge of performance, especially with the 3V and on. Case in point, my supercharged 3v, with built lower, pushes 580 to the wheels on E85 and the throttle body maybe added 6-8 peak hp, but...

Man that really looks cramped in there compared to what we've seen the last few years. I don't want to say it's tighter than the sn95s, but it really looks that way. F/I manufacturers will have their work cut out to get everything to fit.

Not sure I remember where but one of the sites to post specs was quoted as saying the rear seats were larger in every regard and the trunk can now accommodate two regular sized golf bags without any seat folding. So the answer, I'd think is both.

That comparison is totally irrelevant. Most of the big trucks are big trucks. It's not even apples and oranges you're comparing, it's more than that. The two were designed with entirely different purposes in mind.

I think this mustang will feel lighter than any in recent history, regardless of weight loss. Better braking, better suspension, lower center of gravity, and better f/r weight bias will all work together to make the car much nimbler. If the weight loss rumors are true, it can only get better.

Love it

Damn. Those shots do this thing justice.

I think Ford wasn't doing a release of a mustang at all, but planned Kennedy's assassination, then topped it off by faking the moon landing. The canned car was then buried in lake loch ness, where images were captured by potato to cause mass hysteria. Also, half-life 3, confirmed.

Exactly. Magazine photos were terrible. They made a smaller, shorter wider stang look taller, inflated, and narrow at the rear.

I dig it.

If I were ford, any test vehicle with a flat plane crank would be in a base looking car, and sport more mufflers, baffles, and resonators than 3 other typical cars combined. I wouldn't count the fact that we haven't heard one be proof that it's not in development.

After driving my accord with a sunroof for a while, I think I'd like a glass roof option. I hardly ever open my sunroof, but I leave the shade off of it just because it makes for a much more open driving experience. I'm going for a daily driver in the next mustang, so the performance aspect of...

Wow. If that's the case, I bet the recent and sudden activity from Ford did prompt C&D to rush this out, while the design [since it's still an "unknown'] is still relevant to their readers. Sounds like they were almost too late to the "spy shot" party.

I'm finding that I'm having to use the phone in the car lately. Perhaps I need to transition to a hands free means anyway. It all depends how the autos are geared with the i4 and (hopefully) the later ecoboost v6 models. Those are the models I'm most interested in because I'm looking for a...

Wow! Those taillights are horrible. I saw one about a month back and thought it was a '13 model with trashy aftermarket taillights. I had no idea they were the factory pieces. Agreed: no idea what Chevy was smoking.

The approximate width of the render should be able to be determined by the width of the license plate, as they're standard. I can't do it, but I'm sure many here would be able to.

I'd rather have an ecoboost v8 for the same cost and mpg than the ecoboost v6 or i4. I'd rather have a factory boosted v6 or i4 than an aftermarket boosted v8. I want a daily driver to have some fun in. I don't need a space shuttle.

How about after 1 lap of track time and heat soak kills it?

B B B But what about the displacements?