| General Discussion Undecided where to post - do it here. |
| Reply to Thread New Thread |
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
|
They weigh in th 3400 to 3500 lbs range depending on model/trim. For example, the 370z weighs 3300lbs (seats 2 only, Mustang sits 4) and the Camaro weights in the 3600 to 3800 lbs range.
Old 4.6L V8 vs new 3.7L V6 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTvs2z9nCPQ V8 = 5-Speed 315hp w/ 335torques The new 3.7L V6 = 6-Speed 305hp w/ 270torques The V6 is like a 5.1 second vehicle. Nearly as fast as the out going V8 and 350z, almost a second faster than the V6 Camaro which lays down the same kind of power with a 6-Speed as well. Ford did GREAT with the new engines in the finally awesome looking Mustang. |
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
|
Pretty nice car, even though it's a Ford. I think my next vehicle is going to be a Ford. They didn't need a bailout and they are trying really hard to innovate new things and tech which is great to see from an American auto maker :P |
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
|
Ford looks like it's running the show in American right now though. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...112700263.html I refuse to own a ford for any reason after all the junk fords we have owned. NEVER had any real problems out of our GM trucks and SUV's. Here is a prime example. This is my mothers 2002 expedition. Electrical problems from day 1 kicking in and out of 4X4 for no reason, washer fluid light on and off even when its full, randomly gives itself gas at stop lights etc etc. The 5.4 is a weak turd of an engine. The paint on the hood has been peeling off for the last 3 years. The previous 1997 she had wasnt much better and out ford work trucks have all had serious engine troubles and brake problems. ![]() P.S. GM just posted a 1.3 billion dollar profit. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews As soon as GM starts selling stock I am jumping on it. EDIT: Almost forgot. GM is thinking about changing the platform of the camaro's to a lighter platform. That might spell a short lived performance advantage that the GT currently has and once again the camaro will outperform the mustang like it has since 1967. |
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
|
They were bailed out in 2006 just not by the government directly. They were worse off than GM and took a big gamble. Plus GM got a ridiculous large loan they could have never gotten other wise. P.S. GM just posted a 1.3 billion dollar profit. Of which they are now, what, on their 3rd CEO sense their bailout? Obama fired the last CEO for making some kind of Government Motors joke, of which is still a legitimate concern. I wouldn't buy anything Chrysler or GM atm, as long as they owe Government and are Socialized companies. I also wonder how they are cooking up these numbers. We all know how Government has been cooking numbers, they own GM and could be doing the same. I'd be skeptical about this. They already cooked GMs loan payback. GM CEO went out there on TV a while ago saying that GM paid a large chunk of the loan back, like 5+ billion or something like that, but turned out Government gave them a second loan to use to repay the first loan. Something that the CEO didn't tell us when he was on TV. [thumbdown] EDIT: Almost forgot. GM is thinking about changing the platform of the camaro's to a lighter platform. That might spell a short lived performance advantage that the GT currently has and once again the camaro will outperform the mustang like it has since 1967. Thinking? They NEED to! Going to be awhile if they really are. Going to be hard for GM to shave off 200(base)~400(loaded V8)lbs without the Camaro being solely on its own platform, like the Mustang is. |
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
|
EDIT: Almost forgot. GM is thinking about changing the platform of the camaro's to a lighter platform. That might spell a short lived performance advantage that the GT currently has and once again the camaro will outperform the mustang like it has since 1967. EDIT: I'd also like to add that I'd take a car less than 3000lbs for performance - at the track, problem is that I drive on the street everyday with other people in larger vehicles and anything approaching 3000lbs or below tends to crumple like a tin can, preferably with me not inside. |
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
|
Plus GM got a ridiculous large loan they could have never gotten other wise. Things aren't paying off big time for Ford. They know they are ****ed if there is a double dip recession. So does the government which is why they are making these moves now. |
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
|
that was Edsel Ford, not Henry Ford, I suggest some checking up on it, there's a lot on the interweb about it as it is well known! Starters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ford http://www.reformed-theology.org/htm...chapter_06.htm Ah, seems GM may also be guilty - from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...nazicars30.htm "But documents discovered in German and American archives show a much more complicated picture. In certain instances, American managers of both GM and Ford went along with the conversion of their German plants to military production at a time when U.S. government documents show they were still resisting calls by the Roosevelt administration to step up military production in their plants at home. Perhaps you should all be buying Chrysler - oh, wait... |
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
|
So it wasn't FORD, but FORD - in either case it was the company supporting Hitler and NAZIs! |
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
|
You're going for efficient, economical motoring? So, yes, efficient, economical motoring and ethnic cleansing. |
|
|
| Reply to Thread New Thread |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|