4 doors? Mustang V8? RWD? Manual? Yes, please.

[JST]

It took the Brits, unshackled by BMW, to build a 4 door sedan with Mustang power and a manual transmission. Why won't they sell it over here? Why won't Ford build us something similar? Arrgh.

The MG ZT260 V8. Which is pretty cool. But not as cool as the upcoming, Cobra powered MG ZT380 V8.

http://www1.mg-rover.com/mg_GB_en/static/node3849.html

[Plaz]

Yet slower 0-60 than a 330. Must be heavy.

[JST]

Yet slower 0-60 than a 330. Must be heavy.

Probably, though in my experience British 0-60 figures tend to be conservative. May be due to a different testing methodology.

[lemming]

just read about that vehicle in autoweek (that awful j-bird on the cover).

260hp seems agricultural for 4.6 litres, doesn't it?

they did test it at the 'ring and MG's official opinion was that the M5 and m3 were a bit too "softly sprung".

isn't that funny? given the complaints stateside about the "harsh" M3 suspension.

[JST]

just read about that vehicle in autoweek (that awful j-bird on the cover).

260hp seems agricultural for 4.6 litres, doesn't it?

they did test it at the 'ring and MG's official opinion was that the M5 and m3 were a bit too "softly sprung".

isn't that funny? given the complaints stateside about the "harsh" M3 suspension.

260 is the hp figure for the 2 valve, normally aspirated SOHC Mustang engine--it makes the same power in the Mustang, actually. The 4 valve version makes a slightly more respectable 300-320 hp; keep in mind that neither engine has any sort of VVT. In any event, it's only agricultural on paper. A Mustang GT, whatever it's faults, is still a very quick car in a straight line (5.5 to 60). Credit goes to 302 lbs-ft of torque.

The 05 Mustang will have a 3 valve VVT aspo SOHC 4.6 making 300 hp; presumably the MG will have that engine in 05.

[lemming]

just read about that vehicle in autoweek (that awful j-bird on the cover).

260hp seems agricultural for 4.6 litres, doesn't it?

they did test it at the 'ring and MG's official opinion was that the M5 and m3 were a bit too "softly sprung".

isn't that funny? given the complaints stateside about the "harsh" M3 suspension.

260 is the hp figure for the 2 valve, normally aspirated SOHC Mustang engine--it makes the same power in the Mustang, actually. The 4 valve version makes a slightly more respectable 300-320 hp; keep in mind that neither engine has any sort of VVT. In any event, it's only agricultural on paper. A Mustang GT, whatever it's faults, is still a very quick car in a straight line (5.5 to 60). Credit goes to 302 lbs-ft of torque.

The 05 Mustang will have a 3 valve VVT aspo SOHC 4.6 making 300 hp; presumably the MG will have that engine in 05.

i've never liked ford v8s.

it's the GM in me.

however they make 'em, blown or n/a, ford engines still underwhelm me.

[JST]

just read about that vehicle in autoweek (that awful j-bird on the cover).

260hp seems agricultural for 4.6 litres, doesn't it?

they did test it at the 'ring and MG's official opinion was that the M5 and m3 were a bit too "softly sprung".

isn't that funny? given the complaints stateside about the "harsh" M3 suspension.

260 is the hp figure for the 2 valve, normally aspirated SOHC Mustang engine--it makes the same power in the Mustang, actually. The 4 valve version makes a slightly more respectable 300-320 hp; keep in mind that neither engine has any sort of VVT. In any event, it's only agricultural on paper. A Mustang GT, whatever it's faults, is still a very quick car in a straight line (5.5 to 60). Credit goes to 302 lbs-ft of torque.

The 05 Mustang will have a 3 valve VVT aspo SOHC 4.6 making 300 hp; presumably the MG will have that engine in 05.

i've never liked ford v8s.

it's the GM in me.

however they make 'em, blown or n/a, ford engines still underwhelm me.

IMHO (as a Ford guy) it wasn't until the early 90s that GM started to field anything like competitive engines, and even then I'd take a 302 over a 305 and a 351 over an LT1. The LS1 was really the first modern GM V8 engine that was clearly superior to its Ford equivalent.

These days, the LS1 and LS6 are obviously better than the 4.6, with its inelegant blown iron-block design. All the same, the engine in the Mustang GT is nothing to complain too loudly about. It gets the job done and is cheap, which is important in that class of car. I am very intrigued to see whether the new Mustang engine can close some of the distance with the LS1/6.

[lemming]

GM's present slate of pushrod v8s are old fashioned, but they sure seem up on power compared to the cammy ford v8s which don't have the guts to push the cars around like you'd expect from a v8.

wasn't thrilled with either the gt or svt cobras at bondurant.

the base c5 engine is okay. the z06 engine is better.

am eagerly awaiting the c6 engines. the benchmark for the c6 z06 is 500hp from about 7 litres.

in any case, the MG car is in the same category as the GTO, the cts-V, the m5 and s4. a little heavy for my taste.

[clyde]

isn't that funny? given the complaints stateside about the "harsh" M3 suspension.

M3 "harsh" suspension? :lol:

[clyde]

IMHO (as a Ford guy) it wasn't until the early 90s that GM started to field anything like competitive engines, and even then I'd take a 302 over a 305 and a 351 over an LT1. The LS1 was really the first modern GM V8 engine that was clearly superior to its Ford equivalent.

These days, the LS1 and LS6 are obviously better than the 4.6, with its inelegant blown iron-block design. All the same, the engine in the Mustang GT is nothing to complain too loudly about. It gets the job done and is cheap, which is important in that class of car. I am very intrigued to see whether the new Mustang engine can close some of the distance with the LS1/6.

I am a Ford guy at heart (hence RX-8 :paranoid: ), but I still have a real soft spot for the L98. I am a prototypical American in that I want gobs and goobers of torque, and I want it all down low. Let me beat the high-strung, high-reving, windbag POS next to me and I'm a happy guy. I don't need much, really. :D

[Rob]

Wait!! You said this:


I am a Ford guy at heart (hence RX-8 :paranoid: )

Followed by this?


I am a prototypical American in that I want gobs and goobers of torque, and I want it all down low. Let me beat the high-strung, high-reving, windbag POS next to me and I'm a happy guy. I don't need much, really. :D

:lol: The RX8 is a great car (I know b/c I read your review), but I don't think it has a whole lot of torque down low, does it?

[Roadstergal]

I prefer light and revvy to big and heavy and torquey.

[lemming]

I prefer light and revvy to big and heavy and torquey.

just for the record: the corvette is about the same weight as a loaded boxster S --these other cars in the super GT bruiser class are 3700 pounds and up.

i keep hoping for a dohc revvy v8 from GM, but that would likely cost more to build per engine than the total cost of the vehicle right now.

[clyde]

Wait!! You said this:


I am a Ford guy at heart (hence RX-8 :paranoid: )

Followed by this?


I am a prototypical American in that I want gobs and goobers of torque, and I want it all down low. Let me beat the high-strung, high-reving, windbag POS next to me and I'm a happy guy. I don't need much, really. :D

:lol: The RX8 is a great car (I know b/c I read your review), but I don't think it has a whole lot of torque down low, does it?

Weird, ain't it?

[lemming]

automobile has the new corvette review'd.

6.0 litres, 400hp 'base' engine.

500hp z06 re-confirmed.

take that, ford boys.

[JST]

automobile has the new corvette review'd.

6.0 litres, 400hp 'base' engine.

500hp z06 re-confirmed.

take that, ford boys.

And a 45K price point. The 300 hp Mustang GT will sell for 20K less. These cars just don't compete.

OTOH, I note that C&Ds blurb on the new SVT Mustang says that Ford hasn't given the project engineer an upper price ceiling, that it will have IRS, and substantially more power than the current 390 horse version. My guess? 39K for the coupe, 450 hp.

But that's just a guess.

[bren]

Maybe it's the anti-Ford in me but I don't see the Mustang, in any configuration, to be competition for the Vette.

[dan]

isn't that funny? given the complaints stateside about the "harsh" M3 suspension.

who complained?

[clyde]

Maybe it's the anti-Ford in me but I don't see the Mustang, in any configuration, to be competition for the Vette.

It's not the anti-Ford in you...the Mustang (and any variant) isn't competition for the Vette and was never meant to be. There have been rumors from time to time of something in development, but this is one niche that Ford completely surrendered to GM (Chevy) when they started to fatten up the T-bird in the 50s.

An SVT Mustang is no more a Corvette competitor (nor meant to be) than an RX-8 is an M3 competitor.

[clyde]

isn't that funny? given the complaints stateside about the "harsh" M3 suspension.

who complained?

Whoever said it was "harsh?"

[lemming]

automobile has the new corvette review'd.

6.0 litres, 400hp 'base' engine.

500hp z06 re-confirmed.

take that, ford boys.

And a 45K price point. The 300 hp Mustang GT will sell for 20K less. These cars just don't compete.

OTOH, I note that C&Ds blurb on the new SVT Mustang says that Ford hasn't given the project engineer an upper price ceiling, that it will have IRS, and substantially more power than the current 390 horse version. My guess? 39K for the coupe, 450 hp.

But that's just a guess.


oh, i wasn't thinking so much rustang as i was GT, just comparing the upcoming 7.0 litre v8 Z06 or even the secret blue devil with the GT 5.4 litre blown v8.

as much as i like forced induction, i'd take the cubic inches and higher redline.


and for bonoboy: car and driver always complained about the suspension harshness.

[dan]

Whoever said it was "harsh?"

that's what I meant :roll: