That's alot of blubber!Of course it does, it's a freakin whale of a car.
Actually the Challenger is not all that much bigger now. Longer, yes by 10", but widths are just about the same. Weight, no matter what Ford has, will still be at least 500 lbs less. Which to me is good.Yes definitely big:clap2:
That longer wheelbase contributes to that comfortable ride on real world roads. Challenger has room for one more person and a much larger trunk.Actually the Challenger is not all that much bigger now. Longer, yes by 10", but widths are just about the same. Weight, no matter what Ford has, will still be at least 500 lbs less. Which to me is good.
Good for extra crash protection.That's alot of blubber!
Look at the diesel market and how long common rail diesel engines have been produced (Since 2001). Everything is still expensive and there are a lot of CR engines out there in just the light truck market. Now maybe it is not enough to bring the economies of scale in to play to drop the price on the technology, but I would have thought that you would have started to see some price relief by now. The after market has embraced it no doubt and it is by far the best technology and I am not against it. I just don't want to pay for it.DI is the future, and people should embrace it.
I'm kinda an old man (40) and I was in high school when EFI was just starting to take off. I remember all the people saying fuel injection was crap and would never be good for high performance applications, carburetor 4lyfe and all that. Look where we are now.
When enough cars go DI, you'll absolutely see a thriving after market for HPFPs and DI injectors develop.
twin turbos!! Are my first mods, tired of waiting lolI agree with this as well. I personally don't want the added expense of DI on the motor. It performs well, but when researching parts for my EB FX4, I found that the stock fuel system is maxed in the 520-550HP range. I heard (from Full Race) there are some companies working on fuel system upgrades but I wasn't given names. I am a diesel guy and DI is an expensive toy I would prefer to avoid. Seeing some of the problems OEM's have had, it is something I would rather avoid. People have been making quad digit power numbers on our current fuel technology for a long time. I should be able to get by without it and have more money for other mods.
Yeah I think a set of BorgWarner EFR turbos will be finding their way under the hood. I would really like to see FullRace build a TT EFR kit for this new Mustang. Unfortunately the only domestic product I have seen them play with is an EB F150. Everything else has been imports.twin turbos!! Are my first mods, tired of waiting lol
BW EFR Turbos are great, I can't wait for Ford v8 5.0 ecoboost just got to get my own v8 5.0 ecoboost on the new G6.Yeah I think a set of BorgWarner EFR turbos will be finding their way under the hood. I would really like to see FullRace build a TT EFR kit for this new Mustang. Unfortunately the only domestic product I have seen them play with is an EB F150. Everything else has been imports.
I have a 2011 SHO with about 45K miles and have been really impressed with the fact that it is very smooth and very powerful for pushing a 4400 lb car down the road. DI, as previously stated, allows for the potential of more compression ratio because the risk of detonation is mitigated by the fact that you theoretically don't have to introduce the fuel charge until the piston has already started down. IF you could maintain dry flow through the intake runners into the combustion chamber (like in a high performance racing or aircraft engine it would pretty much be a win/win deal. Enter mandated EGR and the noxious and often damp vapor from the crankcase which has a tendency to bake itself onto the backside of the intake valves. In my opinion, this is the only negative with DI since you don't have fuel suspended in the air coming into the combustion chamber via the manifold runner which, along with any additives in the fuel, tend to clean deposits off the intake valves. The engineering challenge is to separate the wet sludge and catch it upstream. Ford seems to have done a pretty good job at this....I have not seen any issues with my car. Some of the big European manufacturers did have problems with this and in several cases they were not trivial. Assuming Ford engineering has a good functioning separator, I would love to have the added benefits of DI on the Coyote. My understanding is that all the architecture has been designed into the engine from the beginning.I have a VW GTI with a DI 2.0T engine, and I'm not very impressed with it. It makes decent power and gets decent mileage, but lately it has been very rough running @ 1500-2000 RPM. I've heard a bit about problems with carbon build-up on the valves, but haven't investigated yet to see if that is happening to me.
All I know is that with only 50,000 miles, the engine is not running nearly as well as it was when new, yet my 350Z with 177,000 miles runs like new. There's something to be said for a stream of gasoline cleaning the intake valves constantly.
So, I like the idea of DI, how it can cool the compressing air allowing a higher compression ratio, how it frees up the intake charge volume and allows better breathing, and how the high fuel pressure can aid in atomization and potentially improve combustion, but I'm not yet convinced that all the bugs have been worked out.
Course my issue could be something completely different (like actually owning a VW ;) ).
-T
GM did make a big deal about their oil separation techniques on the new LT1, to solve this exact problem. Hopefully they were able to engineer a good solution as well. Good to hear that your EcoBoost is holding up well and does not exhibit signs of carbon build-up. DI will certainly be the preferred method going forward, and does yield benefits if done right.I have a 2011 SHO with about 45K miles and have been really impressed with the fact that it is very smooth and very powerful for pushing a 4400 lb car down the road. DI, as previously stated, allows for the potential of more compression ratio because the risk of detonation is mitigated by the fact that you theoretically don't have to introduce the fuel charge until the piston has already started down. IF you could maintain dry flow through the intake runners into the combustion chamber (like in a high performance racing or aircraft engine it would pretty much be a win/win deal. Enter mandated EGR and the noxious and often damp vapor from the crankcase which has a tendency to bake itself onto the backside of the intake valves. In my opinion, this is the only negative with DI since you don't have fuel suspended in the air coming into the combustion chamber via the manifold runner which, along with any additives in the fuel, tend to clean deposits off the intake valves. The engineering challenge is to separate the wet sludge and catch it upstream. Ford seems to have done a pretty good job at this....I have not seen any issues with my car. Some of the big European manufacturers did have problems with this and in several cases they were not trivial. Assuming Ford engineering has a good functioning separator, I would love to have the added benefits of DI on the Coyote. My understanding is that all the architecture has been designed into the engine from the beginning.