Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Forum Top Advertisment

Collapse

2015 Mustang Debuts

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • pucsicsal
    replied
    The correct answer to any question is always Miata, LSx or BMW.

    Mustang might be one of them now too.

    Leave a comment:


  • bawareca
    replied
    I didnt want to sway the thread in this direction,but now when you mentioned it I cant really disagree

    Leave a comment:


  • emilio700
    replied
    Originally posted by bawareca View Post
    And BMW's first engine without a throttle body is N20 from 2002.As you mentioned it regulates the torque output via the variable valve lift,or so called Valvetronic.The new M5 twin turbo V8 engine has no TB either,and when driven hard or on the track this car has virtually no lag.
    We all know that BMW's are the ultimate driving machine

    Leave a comment:


  • bawareca
    replied
    Originally posted by ucfbrett View Post
    I don't mean to be pedantic, but there is such an animal:
    I stand corrected-Germans got it right again

    Originally posted by emilio700 View Post
    You're drawing a conclusion.
    You too
    I just only wanted to correct you that the variable valve timing is not separate for each bank(which is the term for left and right row cylinders in V8,or front 3 and rear 3 in case of a I6),which would be useless.The following rant about the technological marvels was more about Tage J.I am actually a big fan of the Corvettes,and have always been,but Tage is playing it a bit too much.The same way as the C7 looks too busy.Just saying.
    And BMW's first engine without a throttle body is N20 from 2002.As you mentioned it regulates the torque output via the variable valve lift,or so called Valvetronic.The new M5 twin turbo V8 engine has no TB either,and when driven hard or on the track this car has virtually no lag.

    Leave a comment:


  • emilio700
    replied
    Originally posted by bawareca View Post
    As brilliant as LS engines are, pointing the variable valve timing as a huge technology marvel in 2013 is comparable to the Mustang switching to IRS. Variable valve timing is 20 year old technology,direct injection 10.
    You're drawing a conclusion. In response to Billy's question about whats different I said it's got DI and continuously variable cam timing. I wish my LS7 had both and the extra cooling. No marvels there. The Infiniti G37 of a few years ago has no throttle, instead using continuously variable valve timing and lift to control torque output. BMW's and SAAB's were making ignition and fuel changes during the combustion cycle with data from piezo combustion pressure sensors 10 years ago.That is trick. The LS still has pushrods man.

    Leave a comment:


  • Red_5
    replied
    Originally posted by ucfbrett View Post
    I don't mean to be pedantic, but there is such an animal:
    Oh, I think you meant it.

    Leave a comment:


  • ucfbrett
    replied
    Originally posted by bawareca View Post
    Just for a little correction,there is no such animal.You dont want separate cam timing for each bank,you want different one for the intake and exhaust valves.But guess what,pushrod engine has only 1 cam,so you advance or retard everything.There are some tricks to differentiate the exhaust from intake timing,but that doesnt mean much.As brilliant as LS engines are,pointing the variable valve timing as a huge technology marvel in 2013 is comparable to the Mustang switching to IRS.Variable valve timing is 20 year old technology,direct injection 10.
    I don't mean to be pedantic, but there is such an animal:

    Leave a comment:


  • anorexicpoodle
    replied
    A turbo 4 pot mustang just made the short list of potential new DD's in a few years (bumping the focus ST), especially if the weight numbers come in right.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stuntman
    replied
    I think the current viper has a variable can timing in its pushrod motor...

    Leave a comment:


  • bawareca
    replied
    Originally posted by emilio700 View Post
    I'm no expert on the LT-1. DI is the major difference. Continuously variable valve timing for each bank is the other. That is really trick in a pushrod V8. Bunch of other stuff but those are the two that stand out.
    Just for a little correction,there is no such animal.You dont want separate cam timing for each bank,you want different one for the intake and exhaust valves.But guess what,pushrod engine has only 1 cam,so you advance or retard everything.There are some tricks to differentiate the exhaust from intake timing,but that doesnt mean much.As brilliant as LS engines are,pointing the variable valve timing as a huge technology marvel in 2013 is comparable to the Mustang switching to IRS.Variable valve timing is 20 year old technology,direct injection 10.

    Leave a comment:


  • Richard EVO
    replied
    Originally posted by hakeem View Post
    Anyone know when this thing is available? I need a new car in March.
    Probably mid-to-late next year. Won't be out by March for sure.

    So when do we get to find out how much it weighs, which is the 800 pound Gorilla in the room . . .

    Leave a comment:


  • emilio700
    replied
    Originally posted by Stuntman View Post
    I'm intrigued too. Tire size, weight? >100hp more. Should be a formula for success.

    Emilio - educate me on the LT motor of the C7. Why did they depart from the LS?
    I'm no expert on the LT-1. DI is the major difference. Continuously variable valve timing for each bank is the other. That is really trick in a pushrod V8. Bunch of other stuff but those are the two that stand out.
    C6 Z06 is woefully undercooled, shocker I know. C7 base model has separate exchangers for diff and trans. C6Z has some ghetto shared setup built into the main rad and it's all, well inadequate.
    Remains to be seen but I have a feeling the C7 will be much happier on track in stock form that any of it's predecessors were.

    Quick google search Gen V Small-Block V-8: Specs and Details on the C7 Engine – News – Car and Driver

    Sorry for the derail. I'm looking forward to driving one of these new Mustangs on track.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stuntman
    replied
    Originally posted by Loose Caboose View Post
    It will be interesting to compare the stock, track numbers for the turbo 4 with FRS numbers.
    I'm intrigued too. Tire size, weight? >100hp more. Should be a formula for success.

    Emilio - educate me on the LT motor of the C7. Why did they depart from the LS?

    Leave a comment:


  • emilio700
    replied
    Originally posted by Stuntman View Post
    Really? I like the C7. Anyway, Porsche has been using struts for decades... And the Camaro has struts.

    I'm not too familiar with the Integral Link rear suspension layout but can't wait to drive it.

    The Turbo 4 should have an awesome weight distribution and crank out a bit more power.
    C7 is too busy to my eye. Too much surface detail. Extra chamfers and creases just for the sake of making the design more complex looking. It does not have any organic flow. I like the proportions of the C7, just not the details.
    The C4 was too bland and generic looking. The C6 got the balance between surface detail, character and some design eloquence. That's why I bought one. C7 = transformers.

    Drivetrain is badass though. Better BSFC and power per liter than my LS7, better cooling. Jelly. I would love a CTS wagon with the C7 6.2L, 8 speed auto, magnetoheterological shocks, 18" wheels and 5500lbs towing capacity.

    All else being equal, a wishbone will always outperform a strut. Basic physics and fundamental mechanical principles dictate that. In practice, struts take up less space, are cheaper to build and can be built well enough to be competitive at a world class level. Plenty of great handling cars with them obviously. Put the same engineering resources and $$ behind a wishbone design and it will work better though. WRC and WTC cars do phenomenal things with struts .. because they have to.

    Brice mentioned that the modular engine is too wide for wishbones. Didn't know that.

    The turbo version with "Performance Package" sounds like it might be a great track day car. The performance bogie was the Boss 302 which was already a pretty good track car out of the box.

    Leave a comment:


  • Loose Caboose
    replied
    It will be interesting to compare the stock, track numbers for the turbo 4 with FRS numbers.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X