|
Killbot posted:These 2013 Mustangs are drat awesome. Makes waiting for the 2014 one that much harder. Ida know... I like the track package features and the Recaro seats, but I like the looks of my 2012 more.
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2011 19:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:12 |
|
|
kimbo305 posted:I look forward to 1->5 skip shifts. Seven cylinder deactivation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2011 01:40
|
|
|
YAY! The poo poo talking between Ford and GM muscle car bosses is back! http://www.autoblog.com/2011/11/18/camaro-zl1-chief-engineer-says-youre-welcome-to-ford-mustang/
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2011 05:22
|
|
|
frozenphil posted:YAY! The poo poo talking between Ford and GM muscle car bosses is back! Holy poo poo, 251 comments while it is still on the first page! That has to be an autoblog record right there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2011 06:12
|
|
|
At this rate, everyone should just hold off for the 2017 models which should have oh about 1280whp.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2011 07:21
|
|
|
Lowclock posted:At this rate, everyone should just hold off for the 2017 models which should have oh about 1280whp. Mustangs have become GPUs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2011 07:32
|
|
|
frozenphil posted:Mustangs have become GPUs. And will be re-named the Ford "Bitcoin".
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2011 08:04
|
|
|
Devyl posted:And will be re-named the Ford "Bitcoin". Not until the next big squeeze on muscle cars, when everything starts dropping.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2011 13:38
|
|
|
As Nero Danced posted:Not until the next big squeeze on muscle cars, when everything starts dropping. Is that a poop reference? In my AI?!?!gently caress man, this is just turning into GBS. Besides, we all know we'll have to wait until GM updates their camaro again anyways.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2011 15:16
|
|
|
Hey guys, I'm trying to replace the pads on my '03 V6, and I'm running into an issue on the rears. I can't compress the drat pistons. I've got the special tool you need to rotate it, but rotating isn't causing it to compress any, it just keeps on spinning. I'm having this issue on both sides, so I've been thinking it's more me and less something broken. This is actually my first brake job, so any help would be appreciated as I have no clue what I'm doing now that it's not going according to plan.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2011 23:44
|
|
|
Did you open up the cap on the brake fluid resevoir?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2011 00:01
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:Hey guys, I'm trying to replace the pads on my '03 V6, and I'm running into an issue on the rears. Is the piston actually rotating? Does the tool you got have pins or some other way for them to grab the piston in order to turn it, or is it just a flat disc that sits on the piston?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2011 00:16
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:Hey guys, I'm trying to replace the pads on my '03 V6, and I'm running into an issue on the rears. Hi, same thing happened to me on my '03 GT. It took me nearly 6 hours with a helper working a c-clamp while I rotated the piston. Good luck, and next time don't wait so long if you would like to avoid this again. The rear calipers have a detent or something that once the piston goes past it makes it hard as balls to get back. I seriously considered just buying new rear calipers, heh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2011 01:41
|
|
|
C-clamp + vice grips Press in on the c-clamp, rotate the piston Press in on the c-clamp, rotate the piston Do this for 30 minutes and you will be fine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2011 02:12
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:C-clamp + vice grips The way the caliper is laid out makes this an absolute bitch.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2011 03:50
|
|
|
frozenphil posted:The way the caliper is laid out makes this an absolute bitch. I know, I have worked on a few. It's the best way I have found though. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2011 04:00
|
|
|
ssjonizuka posted:Is that a poop reference? In my AI?!?!gently caress man, this is just turning into GBS. No, I was referring to the dropping value of bitcoins and a potential fall in horsepower ratings in a few years (God I hope this doesn't happen, this power war has rekindled my interest in muscle cars). Guess my joke kinda sucked. But if you want to see a poop reference, be my guest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2011 06:36
|
|
|
How about instead of horsepower they add less weight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2011 23:24
|
|
|
Thanks for the advice guys, but those assholes wouldn't budge, so I have new calipers on the rear and they work perfectly. Good thing I got into the replacement mindset because the front calipers are seized now that the new pads are in. So a pair of new calipers are sitting by the car while I type this to pass the time waiting for the front brakes to cool down to less than lethal temperatures after the drive to pick up the new ones. I'm stuck in a friend's back yard 80 miles from home at 6 pm in November trying to fix this and I have to go to work tomorrow at 8. I think I am a true AIer now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2011 23:49
|
|
|
otaku69 posted:How about instead of horsepower they add less weight. Get an Elise. Mustangs are big American V8 coupes--always have been and always (hopefully) will be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2011 05:35
|
|
|
Bullshit, the 60's mustangs were fairly light.  (Ignore all safety equipment and solid roofs please.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2011 05:37
|
|
|
otaku69 posted:How about instead of horsepower they add less weight. Here's a quick homework assignment, find a car made in the last 2 years that comes close to the power/weight of the latest gen Mustang GT. Safety standards make cars fat. Not everything should be a loving Miata.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2011 16:52
|
|
|
Tighter safety standards also generally mean more expensive development costs and use of higher-quality materials which are also, naturally, more expensive as well. Yes, Ford could probably change the Mustang to use some lighter-weight materials and lose some pounds, but it'd also cost more to produce, which would mean it'd cost more to buy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2011 17:53
|
|
|
I bought a 1999 Cobra last year and this year I've been going to as many autox's as possible with a few lapping days here and there. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2011 22:49
|
|
|
otaku69 posted:How about instead of horsepower they add less weight. "Make it weigh less" is almost a stock reply at this point. Everyone says it about everything, along with its close brother "make it smaller." It's not like you can just magically make a car weigh less without significantly altering the design of the car; moreover, the reality is that smaller cars are less comfortable. I'm still of the opinion that, as of right now, there isn't any merit to the commonly argued point that the other shoe will soon drop and power ratings will plummet. Fleet wide fuel efficiency standards aren't the same animal as individual unit emission standards. Angry Grimace fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Nov 22, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 00:44
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:"Make it weigh less" is almost a stock reply at this point. Everyone says it about everything, along with its close brother "make it smaller." It's not like you can just magically make a car weigh less without significantly altering the design of the car; moreover, the reality is that smaller cars are less comfortable. It's inevitable man. We're talking about 54.5 MPG as a fleet average. If you don't think that's a MASSIVE change then you're underestimating how efficient cars are today. It's a 60-something% improvement from where we are today. The new Mazda3 is pushing a 14:1 compression ratio on a 2 liter engine and they're barely besting 40mpg on a reasonably small car. I'm not calling for the death of high performance but *something* is going to have to change in a major way in the next 10 years. I'm not sure if it means performance becomes a lot more expensive or the auto industry actually comes through and innovates it's way out of the hole they're going to be in. Porsche has proven that you can have a very efficient high performance hybrid but I'm not sure 10 years is enough time for that to trickle down into the budget sports segment. Personally I think Ford is in a much better position here, I don't want to go all LOL pushrods here but GM engine tech hasn't impressed me at all in the last few years. Yeah they're making big power but it's all displacement and superchargers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 14:45
|
|
|
kronix posted:It's inevitable man. We're talking about 54.5 MPG as a fleet average. If you don't think that's a MASSIVE change then you're underestimating how efficient cars are today. It's a 60-something% improvement from where we are today. The new Mazda3 is pushing a 14:1 compression ratio on a 2 liter engine and they're barely besting 40mpg on a reasonably small car. mustangforumposter.txt  The new regulations are not going to force any changes to GM/Ford's business because GM/Ford and their lobbyists are the ones who wrote the new rules. Why would they write rules that would hurt themselves? V8 engines and trucks aren't going anywhere. Stop worrying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 17:52
|
|
|
kronix posted:It's inevitable man. We're talking about 54.5 MPG as a fleet average. If you don't think that's a MASSIVE change then you're underestimating how efficient cars are today. It's a 60-something% improvement from where we are today. The new Mazda3 is pushing a 14:1 compression ratio on a 2 liter engine and they're barely besting 40mpg on a reasonably small car. Most reports don't mention that it's CAFE fuel mileage that they look at. Cars like the Prius already exceed the 2025 EPA mileage just to give you an idea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 18:00
|
|
|
Muffinpox posted:Most reports don't mention that it's CAFE fuel mileage that they look at. Cars like the Prius already exceed the 2025 EPA mileage just to give you an idea. Yes but we're talking about fleet average which means for every Ford F150 getting 30 MPG CAFE, you'll need to sell another car that does 79. There are exceptions built in for trucks but nothing for high performance cars that I can see. I'm not so sure what the "footprint" of the Mustang is so I can't be sure how bad it is. I know you didn't say it but I never said V8s are dead, just more expensive and likely less mainstream and automakers most likely will not be looking to push them in high volume because you must offset them with small car sales. This all assumes the auto companies don't push back and get the standards relaxed
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 19:17
|
|
|
kronix posted:Yes but we're talking about fleet average which means for every Ford F150 getting 30 MPG CAFE, you'll need to sell another car that does 79. There are exceptions built in for trucks but nothing for high performance cars that I can see. I'm not so sure what the "footprint" of the Mustang is so I can't be sure how bad it is. No, trucks are in a seperate category, the current V6 F150 at 19mpg already meets all CAFE for the next 10 years. Also because F150s are flexfuel vehicles they actually get like 65mpg. quote:For the fuel economy calculation for alternative fuel vehicles, a gallon of alternative fuel is deemed to contain 15% fuel (which is approximately the amount of gasoline in a gallon of E85) [22] as an incentive to develop alternative fuel vehicles.[23] The mileage for dual-fuel vehicles, such as E85 capable models, is computed as the average of its alternative fuel rating—divided by 0.15 (equal to multiplying by 6.666) -- and its gasoline rating. Thus an E85-capable vehicle that gets 15 mpg on E-85 and 25 mpg on gasoline might logically be rated at 20 mpg. But in fact the average, for CAFE purposes, despite perhaps only one percent of the fuel used in E85-capable vehicles is actually E85, is computed as 100 mpg for E-85 and the standard 25 mpg for gasoline, or 62.5 mpg.[12] quote:This all assumes the auto companies don't push back and get the standards relaxed Why won't anyone in Washington speak up for those poor car companies/the UAW/ARE MUSTANGS 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 19:38
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:No, trucks are in a seperate category, the current V6 F150 at 19mpg already meets all CAFE for the next 10 years. Also because F150s are flexfuel vehicles they actually get like 65mpg. I'll be honest I had no idea about the flex fuel exemption, that changes things a lot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 20:04
|
|
|
kronix posted:I'll be honest I had no idea about the flex fuel exemption, that changes things a lot. It doesn't change things a lot, the "bonus" from flexfule is limited to 1.2mpg across the vehicle range, and it's also going away in 2020. But it's enough for the domestic truck makers to make all their trucks and large cars flex fuel and gain a significant edge.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 20:16
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:mustangforumposter.txt poo poo like this pisses me off. Larger passenger cars are the most adversely effected by this bill. So, this bill will essentially punish people for preferring cars over light trucks. It looks like I'm going to have to jump on the SUV bandwagon along with everybody else. This almost make me hope that gas prices hit $20/gallon in 2020. It seems like the domestic manufactures are doing nothing to change the way they operate, so I guess we're going to have the rely on the INVISIBLE HAND to completely gently caress them over. (Are crossovers considered cars or light trucks?)
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 22:47
|
|
|
Part of the problem is that Americans always want more, more, more in terms of space. I drove in a Hyundai Accent taxi with two other people, all our luggage, and the taxi driver, on a one and a half hour airport transfer. Was it great? No, but it was sufficient. Likewise, I've seen five grown men fit in a Lada 2102 when the situation calls for it. Large cars and cars with extra power are an extravagance, and even as a Mustang owner, I wouldn't particularly mind if I had to pay a bit extra for the privilege of having 300HP+ and a bit of extra space. Sadly, we simply have to be more concerned about efficiency, and those of us (myself included) who are essentially actively working against that should probably endure some sort of consequence for it. We already financially punish smokers and drinkers for their actions which have detrimental effects to society to a degree which I would definitely call far out of line, what should make car owners different?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 22:58
|
|
|
Why the gently caress are we talking about fuel efficiency and light trucks in this thread?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 23:40
|
|
|
frozenphil posted:Why the gently caress are we talking about fuel efficiency and light trucks in this thread? Because it's become commonplace to hear the assertion that power ratings will be rapidly declining soon due to CAFE standards.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 00:56
|
|
|
Have there been any new rumors/reports about the 2015 redesign? Fake edit: eww please tell me these images are totally wrong. That is gently caress-ugly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 02:10
|
|
|
Dick Burglar posted:Have there been any new rumors/reports about the 2015 redesign? Eh, that's not bad in my opinion. The butt looks a little too Camaro-ish, but I can deal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 03:38
|
|
|
After seeing the cool direction the 2013 tail lights are going, that just looks like a huge step back. And the step back steps in dog poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 03:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:12 |
|
|
Dick Burglar posted:After seeing the cool direction the 2013 tail lights are going, that just looks like a huge step back. And the step back steps in dog poo poo. It looks a lot lower than the current Mustang
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 04:04
|
|
