Ford Mustang 2012 review

[BingBangBop]

Yeah, but at $160K, I'd go for the old one at $30K-$40K even though it is significantly slower (2.3 seconds for the 0-60 vs. 2.8 seconds for the 0-60). You really are much closer to "super car" pricing even though you aren't quite at the $500K-$1M yet. I agree that that 1/2 second will really make a big difference in the experience though. It will never matter anyway, for multiple reasons I'll never buy anything like that. Primarily, I'd end up killing myself for I'm just not a good enough driver and I'm basically a chicken so it would never be driven the way it ought to be and I'd still kill myself.

I also don't care to watch videos of the Stig because you really don't learn anything other than the final time of a professional driver. It is the video's of the presenters that are most enjoyable to watch even if they aren't technically professional drivers because they add their own (or perhaps the writers) unique perspectives. Perhaps would be different if the Stig actually talked about his experience but that never happens.

 

[BingBangBop]

I looked up a formula-vee. Really, you believe that that is competative to the Atom? They are limited to a 40HP Voltswagen Beetle engine and transmission. They allow them to be modified, but still you will never be able to modify it enough to get 300HP...

 

[ddrueding]

I also don't care to watch videos of the Stig because you really don't learn anything other than the final time of a professional driver. It is the video's of the presenters that are most enjoyable to watch even if they aren't technically professional drivers because they add their own (or perhaps the writers) unique perspectives. Perhaps would be different if the Stig actually talked about his experience but that never happens.

I completely agree. It would be great if they posted a time for a mid-level driver on each car. Vehicles that are a huge handful (like the ZR-1, 911 or Viper) would take a beating, and cars that make it easy to go fast (GT-R, R8, Exige) would be rewarded.

 

[Santilli]

I looked up a formula-vee. Really, you believe that that is competative to the Atom? They are limited to a 40HP Voltswagen Beetle engine and transmission. They allow them to be modified, but still you will never be able to modify it enough to get 300HP...

The experience of driving an open wheel race car is what it's really about. At 1000-1200 pounds, even an 80 HP FV is VERY quick. It's also very cheap, compared to an Atom. Having your ass 3 inches off the floor with blinding acceleration is sensation of speed, much like you get in a 10 second motorcycle.

The atom idea is not new nor all that fast. Steve Mcqueen originally took a Formula 5000 car and put a VW bug body on it to hide it from the film company execs.

Numerous C&D articles detailed guys taking Indy cars and making them street legal in Kali, prior to the real facists taking control.

F5000 was designed to be a relatively cheap form of indy car racing, using a small block chevy as the starting point. That means double cubic inches, or, 327 x2- 700 hp in a 1200 pound car.

Likewise, Indy cars have ranged from 800-1200 HP, depending on the time, and the top speed. Same weight range.

So the Atom is not really a new idea. It's been done, and far better, with far more horsepower and torque.

The real beasts are the canam street legal cars. McLaren M40, Porsche 917. 1200-2000 HP, and huge tires, with aeros. Porsche had a 2000 hp canam version in testing if McLaren got close to their 1200 HP 917 that dominated the series.

The 494 cu in aluminum Chevy big blocks that McLaren used weren't exactly low powered slouches either. Around 1000 HP, and you could buy one in a crate from Chevy for about 5 grand.

Should have put one of those in my mustang.

 

[Bozo]

Many years ago (I was 11) I raced a go-kart. I was timed on the back stretch of the race track at 40+mph. Today I still think I was doing 100mph. The sensation of speed when you are in the open air with your ass an inch or two off the ground is awesome :-D

 

[Santilli]

Been looking at the Ford Focus. Seems the neat ones aren't sold in the US. RS 305 and RS 500.

I'd love the Focus size car with the 3.7 liter V-6 305 HP in it.

 

[Stereodude]

You must have missed this.

 

[ddrueding]

You must have missed this.

Sweet. Kitted out the way I like for under $30k. All it needs is adaptive cruise control and a dual-clutch.

 

[Santilli]

What I miss is the Mustang 3.7L 305 HP engine being offered in the Focus.

The focus engines, 2.0L, are VERY highly tuned and seem to use ungodly compression ratios for the garbage octane gas we have today. Amazing how they get so much power out of such bad fuel.

160 HP is a LONG way from a 305 HP version offered in Europe.

 

[Stereodude]

The focus engines, 2.0L, are VERY highly tuned and seem to use ungodly compression ratios for the garbage octane gas we have today. Amazing how they get so much power out of such bad fuel.

160 HP is a LONG way from a 305 HP version offered in Europe.

:scratch: Is your reading comprehension really that bad?

252 != 160

 

[Santilli]

You should try getting engine information from the Ford website. The current offerings are here:
http://www.ford.com/cars/focus/specifications/engine/

As for reading comprehension:
What does this mean?
"Coming late 2012"

In other words, not offered now.

Europe has a 305 HP version of that engine.

Leases look good with these pretty much race car spec engines that are not likely to last outside warranty.

 

[Stereodude]

I don't even know where to start. It's clear you don't want to have a discussion that involves facts. Enjoy pining away that the "neat ones" aren't sold in the US.

 

[MaxBurn]

Is the ST all wheel drive? I didn't see mention of it. If not that is too much power for FWD IMO.

 

[ddrueding]

Indeed. Spend $6k more and get a Golf R.

 

[Stereodude]

Is the ST all wheel drive? I didn't see mention of it. If not that is too much power for FWD IMO.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. The previous generation European only RS was FWD and even more powerful and all the reviewers raved about it's performance and handling.

Indeed. Spend $6k more and get a Golf R.

Sure, what's another 20%?

The Focus ST is a GTI competitor, not a Golf R competitor.

 

[time]

You should try getting engine information from the Ford website. The current offerings are here:
http://www.ford.com/cars/focus/specifications/engine/

I agree that the info is confusing, but that's the standard Focus, not the ST.

As for reading comprehension:
What does this mean?
"Coming late 2012"

In other words, not offered now.

That would be delivery late 2012 - if you look more carefully, Ford is taking orders right now.

Leases look good with these pretty much race car spec engines that are not likely to last outside warranty.

You couldn't be more wrong. The turbocharger is a mandatory component of EcoBoost and Ford has accordingly designed the engine to be robust in all sorts of applications. In Australia it's an option in the Falcon, a mass-market 'family car'. It replaces an already pretty good 24-valve 4.0 liter straight six, losing only 10% of the torque and a handy 3% of the vehicle weight while decreasing fuel consumption by about 20%. The resulting 0-100 km/h times differ by only a tenth of a second and it's hard to tell much difference in day to day driving (they probably have the same torque at 2000-2500 rpm).

Given that the new model Focus ST is slightly lighter than the old but has more power and torque, I'd expect it to perform similarly to a Mazda 3 MPS, which is more powerful but heavier. Also, Ford is relying on active steering correction to counter torque steer whereas Mazda limits the power delivery in low gears, so you'd expect the Focus to be quicker in the first two gears. So I'd guess < 6 seconds to 60mph and 1/4 mile in the low 14s, which is about the same as a 300hp V6 Mustang. Of course, any contest would be over as soon as you stopped driving in a straight line.

 

[Santilli]

How long has this engine been around? It's an Aluminum block, and cylinder head, with 12.0:1 compression, generates 160 to 252 HP out of 122 cubic inches, and is turbo charged. That's all great under warranty. However once it's outside warranty
your dead. Warranty is 5 years 60,000 miles, usually which ever happens first. Bumper to bumper is 3 years.

While boost doesn't have to be really high for 160 hp, it's got to be stuffing a lot of air to get 252 hp out of that setup. Turbos create heat, and heat destroys engines, rubber, and engine components, like gaskets.

I'm just not convinced ANY aluminum engine can take that kind of stress without being massively over built, ala the 928 Porsche 5 liter engine.

My perspective is based on old data and technology so I might well be wrong.

Odd, but the focus is about the same specs weight wise as the original mustangs. Powerwise the originals went from an excellent, very strong straight six 170 Cubic inch engine, to the Boss 429.

I wonder if the 305 V6 I'm driving is that quick, since it does tip the scales around 4200 pounds, and the original mustangs weighed 2900-3200 pounds, with much stronger engine options.

 

[Santilli]

Overall mileage for the week has been 24 miles to gallon. Not much less then my Toyota, and a hell of a lot more fun.

 

[time]

Turbos create heat, and heat destroys engines, rubber, and engine components, like gaskets.

Ever heard of an intercooler?

The 2 liter Ecoboost is a state of the art engine. I know what you are saying - and you may turn out to be right - but Ford has gone to inordinate lengths to ensure durability in the Ecoboost range.

 

[time]

Not much less then my Toyota, and a hell of a lot more fun.

No offense, and I admit I'm biased, but wouldn't anything be more fun than a Toyota?

Sounds good though; I'll consider hiring one if I ever visit the US.

 

[Bozo]

No offense, and I admit I'm biased, but wouldn't anything be more fun than a Toyota?

Sounds good though; I'll consider hiring one if I ever visit the US.

My XB is a lot of fun to drive. If you don't mind being in a Toaster. ;-)

 

[Bozo]

Greg, why don't you get one of these, and be done with it. :-D

 

[Chewy509]

Greg, why don't you get one of these, and be done with it. :-D

Why not one of these ? 6.7L engine, only 221KW of power, but a huge 1100Nm of torque...

 

[time]

Awesome. I need one of those for my daughter who's learning to drive.

 

[Bozo]

Why not one of these ? 6.7L engine, only 221KW of power, but a huge 1100Nm of torque...

Link broke???

 

[Santilli]

Saves time. 80 is the new 65. The mustang takes 25% time off commute
To san mateo. I leave late arrive early.
I'm going 80 over hills I go 65 in th toyota. Mileage is.up to 27.
The car is growing on me.

 

[Santilli]

"As expected, Shelby didn't just up the power and call it a day. The Shelby 1000 and 1000 S/C both got modifications designed to put all that extra power to good use. Shelby replaced the rear end with a new 9-inch unit, and installed a custom aluminum driveshaft. Shelby also made sure the 1000 could do more than go fast in a straight line — it wanted to make sure the new high-power Mustang could handle a corner or two, and stop.

2012 Shelby 1000 Rear Three Quarter
Click to view Gallery
Shelby essentially replaced the GT500's entire suspension to create the Shelby 1000. The company installed a custom Eibach adjustable suspension, its own K-members, control arms, and Watts link system. Braking duties are handled by Shelby six-piston brakes up front and four-piston brakes in the rear. Both cars wear three-piece forged aluminum 20 x 9 wheels up front and 20 x 11 wheels out back, with "high performance tires" mounted on the Shelby 1000, and Michelin Super Sports on the Shelby 1000 S/C.

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests...by_1000_and_1000_sc_first_look/#ixzz1upaCs1vw


That's the part would want done.

Driving the Mustang reminds me of one other thing about corners: No matter how well the car handles, the ultimate determination of handling is tire adhesion vs. weight.

Most of the corners I drive it through are 40-100 mile an hour capable. Long high speed freeway turns, on and off ramps, etc. The Mustang rolls a bit, sets up, and the tires take over.

I've spent nearly all of my HP driving in solid axle, high performance cars. I guess I'm used to the Mustang setup and other then being an automatic it seems normal to me.

The weird part is it seems kind of nose heavy. Anyone have a road test showing front rear bias? The six has to be lighter then the V-8's.

Maybe it's the 3700 pound dry weight that I'm feeling.

It's funny how the little things bug you. I'd love to go surfing right now but putting surfboards on a rent a car I could do with the right racks.
It's the little stuff: The electronic key. How do you take that in the water? My current setup is to throw the alarm beeper in the car after turning it on, and putting the
keys in a ankle strap. However, they are thin, non-electronic. Looks like I'll have to figure something else out.

 

[Handruin]

For $200,000 there are a LOT of options for cars to select from that this Mustang would become irrelevant. You would have to be an epic Mustang fan to want to consider the car at this price.
The mustang is nose-heavy. Your answers for weight distribution on the V8 is in here and the V6 here.

V8: Weight distribution, as tested, f/r (%) 55/45
V6: Weight distribution, as tested, f/r (%) 54/46

Also, it's a bit more that simple tire adhesion vs weight. Both of those are dynamic during driving regardless of the vehicles weight. It's likely true that the less the car weighs, the easier it is to manage the adhesion, but the suspension and frame rigidity play a role in all this also. It's not just how well it sticks, but how well it manages the sticking on an almost guaranteed uneven surface.

As for the electronic key, why not look into the valet key while surfing? Those are typically a basic manual key that will simply unlock the door and start the vehicle for you.

 

[time]

55:45 is the same as the current Audi S4 - the older V8 model was 62:38 (or so I've read)!

I agree that $200,000 is a bizarre joke for a Mustang, which apparently still can't break 4 seconds for 0-60. Unsurprising given that the existing Shelby models already can't put all their power down to the road.

 

[Handruin]

55:45 is the same as the current Audi S4 - the older V8 model was 62:38 (or so I've read)!

Which means it's also nose-heavy. I never liked what the V8 did to the previous S4. When you found that metric, was it with the auto or the manual on the S4? I can't seem to find a reliable number, but the auto does weigh more than the manual. There was some discussion I read about how in some cases under acceleration this becomes closer to 52/48 as the weight transfers. Surprisingly the S4 is only very slightly heavier than the Mustang at 3847 lbs vs an estimated 3800 lbs for the mustang. What the hell are they putting in the mustang to make it so heavy. At least some of the weight of the S4 can be attributed to AWD components and interior dressings (sound deadening, gizmos, more sound deadening...).

I agree that $200,000 is a bizarre joke for a Mustang, which apparently still can't break 4 seconds for 0-60. Unsurprising given that the existing Shelby models already can't put all their power down to the road.

I can understand why it may appeal to some as an awesome elite mustang, but said individual really needs to love mustangs to go this route.

 

[ddrueding]

I can understand why it may appeal to some as an awesome elite mustang, but said individual really needs to love mustangs to go this route.

But surely you could build a 10-second car that looked like a mustang for less than $200k? For that kind of money you could get a welded tubular spaceframe, a nice composite body, a motor with some technology in it (direct injection, variable valve timing, forced induction) forged out of some modern metal, and still have enough left over for a nice interior (heated and vented recaros, iPod for multimedia, etc).

 

[Santilli]

The reason it goes for 200 grand is it says
"Shelby" on it.

Look at the absurd prices the Shelby 350 and 500 are pulling, not to mention the value of the
289 and 427 REAL Cobras.

They are collectors items and guys like Jay Leno are willing to buy it just because they can, and it says Shelby on it.

There are a lot of millionaire car nuts and Shelby is catering to them.

As for not pulling 10 seconds:

Detroit has a LONG history of street racing, and people having barely streetable cars racing for big bucks.

The general standard is you have to be able to drive the car to and from the race. No trailers allowed.

Generally all Detroit iron has problems keeping the rear wheels hooked up. The answer to under 10 seconds is a narrowed rear end
with drag tires. Another part of it is to go straight front axle so the weight shift on acceleration puts all the weight in the air, and onto the back wheels.

With a drag setup the numbers should be in the 9's for that horsepower, proper gears, rear end, and tires.

However, the suspension stuff is road handling stuff. Shelby isn't designing a drag car but a super fast touring car that handles well.
I think he feels 0-60 is not what the car is for. It's for super high speed handling at very high speeds. In other words he's trying to drive the brick
that the Mustang is through the wall at 150 miles an hour using sheer horsepower.

The car that you should buy is not a Mustang, but the GT 40. Even the Top Gear guys loved that car.

I think it's a nostalgia thing that guys like me love Mustangs, from their history. Ford and Shelby are taking advantage of that to charge a premium for their products.

I was looking at the Chevy Camaro. It's less money, more horsepower, and lighter, with an independent suspension rear end.

Of course rear view and windows are even worse then the Mustangs.

 

[BingBangBop]

Anyone that wants a Camaro is merely a person that covets a Corvette in their heart.

 

[MaxBurn]

I find the cited gas mileage at the speeds and hills mentioned pretty impressive. I generally only see 25MPG overall in my car and it can range as high as 31MPG drifting along back roads or down to 14MPG or less when driving horribly. Is the mustang V6 a direct injected one yet?

 

[Santilli]

Here is the spec page for the Mustang engines:
http://www.ford.com/cars/mustang/specifications/engine/
"Sequential Multi-port Electronic Fuel Injection "

It seems like the automatic almost disengages coming down steep hills or mountains.

It does get up and move pretty well. It seems to get better mileage using regular gas vs. premium.

The rear end allows 80 MPH with about 1500-1700 RPM. I think that means a 2.73 rearend, or higher.

 

[Santilli]

I can't believe I forgot to mention driving this car to Reno twice in two weekends. Some of the 'hills' I mentioned were at 7000 feet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donner_Pass

It maintained 80-85 over the mountains and handled the sweeping curves very well.

Mileage was about 24 going up the mountains and over 50 coming down.

 

[Handruin]

I don't want to burst your bubble, but I did the same kind of high elevation trek in Utah while traveling to Brian Head Peak near Cedar Breaks National Monument in Dixie National Forest. The elevation is 11,307 and we did it with ease in a basic 2012 VW Jetta with a tiny 4 cylinder.

 

[Santilli]

Burst what bubble? What was your mileage? Going up, coming down, average speed, etc.?

One of my girlfriends had a jetta in 1980 or so. She drove it 85-95 mph and used her female charms to get her out of any ticket. It worked too. That's both the Jetta and the charms.

I kind of think of a 3.7 Liter six as a sewing machine as well.

 

[time]

Overall mileage for the week has been 24 miles to gallon.

I can just about believe that.

I'm going 80 over hills I go 65 in th toyota. Mileage is.up to 27.

When the going gets tough, the tough get better mileage.

Mileage was about 24 going up the mountains and over 50 coming down.

Which is an average of 32. So it gets its best mileage while crossing mountains.

Could be a candidate for Ripley's Believe It Or Not?

 

[Santilli]

On flat highways it gets 35-37 MPG. Problem is that as soon as you factor in any driving when you get there, you are back down to 24-27. It's a bit of sticker shock when your gas bill goes from 45 to 60, but the tank is 3 gallons larger then the Toyotas, so it's really not much different.

Non on to new adventures:

http://www.hyundaiusa.com/santa-fe/

Drove one of these with the 2.4 175 HP over the weekend. I was getting to enjoy the room, visibility better then the mustang, and then the gas mileage and fillup changed all that. When you go from 27 to 22 It starts making a big difference.
70 bucks to fill up for 3 days driving.

It was used to run to Sac once each day, two days, and one trip, 40 miles, Friday.

The problem is the gearing. It's turning nearly 3 grand, RPM's at 80.

Turned that in, and on to the Mazda RX 6:

http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/displayPage.action?pageParameter=modelsMain&vehicleCode=MZ6#/home

2.5L 170 HP supposed 30 mpg on Highway. WAY lower then the Mustang.
Fun to drive. Handles well, enjoy the slap manual/automatic shifter. No onboard mileage calculator.
Have to figure that out later.

Suspect it's around 25 MPG overall.

Handles well, not a lot of body roll, feels very solid turning hard on freeway on ramps, corners, etc. Tight turning radius, responsive steering, with feel. Well done. Wish I could try the 272 HP version.

Key issues. The gearing gives you 2600 rpm at 80. This sucks. It could very well run with that four at 1500-1700 and give far better mileage.

Fun car to drive, and feels much more nimble then the Mustang. About 800 pounds less then a mustang. They say,

3275 lb, 2.5-liter, 4-cylinder engine, 19.2 lb/bhp

Still, it's out due to the gearing. 4.3??? WTF? That's drag racing stuff.

First gear is only useful for drag racing from street lights and bumper to bumper traffic. With higher gearing it should be fine for overall performance.

I guess I missed the Select Shift Automatic Trans in the Mustang. It appears kind of clunky compared to the Mazdas' slap up for lower gear, slap back for higher gear.