[Laminar]

http://jalopnik.com/5147709/2010-for...leeper-awakens

365hp, 350lb-ft, twin turbo V6, AWD with paddle shifters. Ford claims it can take a BMW 550i (0-60 in 5.4s, 1/4 mile in 13.7) and still get 3 more mpg. And at about $38,000, it's nearly half the MSRP of the BMW.


In b4 "It's a Ford"

[Dakar V]

Aside from the grill, looks Volvo-ish.

[starman]

Now all people need is the lack of fear of losing their job and these will sell like crazy!

[IceEnclosure]

Looks like a Volvo with some Lancer/Gallant thrown in.

Performance numbers are nice though.


If we're bringing back old ideas, I'll take a 2010 Syclone, TYVM.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by IceEnclosure 

Looks like a Volvo with some Lancer/Gallant thrown in.

Good call.

[klb5090]

yea i'll pass, nice try ford.

EDIT: allow me to state that the use of a 0-60 time and quarter mile time is IMO the worst way to compare cars

[klb5090]

The problem comparing the SHO with a BMW 5 series is this small badge on the left side....

[Dakar V]

Wow that is ugly...

[osiris]

It is ugly.

[waxcrash]

Yeah, it's pretty bad looking. Why do American cars look 10 year behind the Japanese and Europeans?

[sek929]

For bringing back the SHO

For awful design.

I consider the Taurus model from the mid-nineties to be way sexier than this thing, and that's saying something.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

In b4 "It's a Ford"

Originally Posted by klb5090 

The problem comparing the SHO with a BMW 5 series is this small badge on the left side....
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog....howlive_07.jpg

Close enough.

Originally Posted by sek929 

For bringing back the SHO

For awful design.

I consider the Taurus model from the mid-nineties to be way sexier than this thing, and that's saying something.

Which part of the mid-90s? They redesigned in '96.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by klb5090 

yea i'll pass, nice try ford.

EDIT: allow me to state that the use of a 0-60 time and quarter mile time is IMO the worst way to compare cars

Yeah, objective data is the worst. Instead, let's use something subjective like how it "feels," something that can and is easily influenced by the opinion of the reviewer.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Which part of the mid-90s? They redesigned in '96.

Before the redesign, before they looked like this:



Even though that's the year they introduced the V8 SHO, right?

[Dakar V]

The one with the "spoiler" was twice as laughable.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Before the redesign, before they looked like this:

http://blog.viacelli.com/wp-content/...urus_sho-1.jpg

Even though that's the year they introduced the V8 SHO, right?

Yeah, that's the '96-'99 body style, and your picture is of a V8 SHO. Here's a '92-'95 SHO:



There are videos on YouTube of guys with 400hp SHOs kicking Corvette ass on the highway.

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

The one with the "spoiler" was twice as laughable.

Yeah.

[klb5090]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Yeah, objective data is the worst. Instead, let's use something subjective like how it "feels," something that can and is easily influenced by the opinion of the reviewer.

Not what i meant, more like skid pad results or non drag racing type results (Nuremberg times). You of all people Laminar should know the difference between quarter mile time and how fast a car is in a real race. There are many more dynamics than HP, Quarter mile time, and 0-60, and i feel like most of those aren't accounted for in those classic comparisons.

[sek929]

There's just something about that sexy, boxy body that I love.

Also, because my friend owned a 94, man that thing screamed. It also kicked the tar out of a 1988 Ford Mustang GT 5.0

[klb5090]

Really it just looks like they designed a decent looking spoiler and some guy just measured wrong...

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by klb5090 

Not what i meant, more like skid pad results or non drag racing type results (Nuremberg times). You of all people Laminar should know the difference between quarter mile time and how fast a car is in a real race. There are many more dynamics than HP, Quarter mile time, and 0-60, and i feel like most of those aren't accounted for in those classic comparisons.

Right, but we don't have any of that data to go off of yet, just a basic comparison statement from Ford. The SHO is a huge car, though, so we'll see how well the extremely low torque curve and AWD help overcome its heft.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by sek929 

There's just something about that sexy, boxy body that I love.

Also, because my friend owned a 94, man that thing screamed. It also kicked the tar out of a 1988 Ford Mustang GT 5.0

There was one time last year I kept up with a modified 5.0 up to 130...it's always priceless to see their reaction to a four door sedan keeping up with their "muscle car." I also beat a '99-'04 GT on the drag strip, but that was pure driving on my part.

[klb5090]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Right, but we don't have any of that data to go off of yet, just a basic comparison statement from Ford. The SHO is a huge car, though, so we'll see how well the extremely low torque curve and AWD help overcome its heft.

agreed, and i'm not saying they shouldn't publish those numbers, i just don't like in general how they use that as the basis of all things fast.

[klb5090]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

There was one time last year I kept up with a modified 5.0 up to 130...it's always priceless to see their reaction to a four door sedan keeping up with their "muscle car." I also beat a '99-'04 GT on the drag strip, but that was pure driving on my part.

Thats good work, nothing better than the look on a Mustang GT drivers face as i blow past them in my white lunch box.

[sdilley14]

Its going to be tough selling a car that looks like that at that price point, despite the very solid performance numbers. Interior is very important to me and I will admit though that I do like the console and gauges (though the seats and even the gear shifter look pretty ugly).

If I'm spending that much on a brand new car, I'm probably getting a Chevy Volt, Cadillac CTS (by NO means am I a GM guy), Honda Accord, or Honda Civic (all very different cars, I know). That's just me though

[d4nth3m4n]

y'all are on drugs, i think that car looks great. gotta say, i'm pretty excited to see an american car maker actually use some of the design language they've been banking on across the pond(s) over here.

[rickey939]

Love it!

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

There was one time last year I kept up with a modified 5.0 up to 130...it's always priceless to see their reaction to a four door sedan keeping up with their "muscle car." I also beat a '99-'04 GT on the drag strip, but that was pure driving on my part.

A Mustang 5.0 is a muscle car?


I like the new SHO. It isn't very pretty, but it's fast grocery-getter for very little money.

[IceEnclosure]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

A Mustang 5.0 is a muscle car?

V8, Rear wheel drive, gobs of torque, light body 2-door.

My mustang was certainly slower than most of my buddies cars yet I still ran low 13's in the quarter-mile at 103+mph(street tires). When 5.0s were more common, in an average afternoon I could call 3 or 4 dudes over that all had 11-second or better rides(street tires). There's no way around it, 5.0s were muscle cars. I'll go on to say that the 4.6L SOHC cam cars can be very quick if prepared right, and the 4.6L DOHC cars are awesome performers. They're all muscle cars. Edit: Well maybe not the early 4.6 SOHC(96-98 GTs), but otherwise yea. 94-01

I love it when dudes drool over Novas or 'Cudas or whatever, yet dismiss modern cars with better performance. Stock "muscle cars" of the '60's ran 14s on street tires and got terrible gas mileage and handled like ass crackers.

I've stuck the nose of my 'stang up the ass of many a 911 in turns and on/off ramps. Stock motor, 100,000 miles and all.

The stangs that fell to posters in this thread either needed driver-mods, or had an AOD and heavy GT body-cladding or convertible tops or all of these.



Get a 5-spd COUPE 5.0 (GTs are lame), bolt on some headers and an x-pipe. Bump the timing, replace plugs and wires. Run 13s in the quarter. I had additional twisty insurance for the aforementioned Porsches in the form of springs, sway bars, adj. shocks, etc.

So much fun for very little money. Muscle car.

[villalobos]

Between that and the F150 Harley Davidson, Ford is doing a good job adapting its offering to the actual economic climate. Real good....

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

A Mustang 5.0 is a muscle car?

In terms of modern cars, yeah.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by IceEnclosure 

The stangs that fell to posters in this thread either needed driver-mods, or had an AOD and heavy GT body-cladding or convertible tops or all of these.

The '99-'04 GT I took at the drag strip was most likely an automatic. On that run, he did a 14.6 and I did a 14.8, but my better R/T gave me the edge at the finish line.

The fox body was a 5 speed with an exhaust and a cam, from 40-130 he had me by 1 car length, needless to say he was very impressed, and it shows how much better a Contour can be when it doesn't have to launch (FWD ).

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by villalobos 

Between that and the F150 Harley Davidson, Ford is doing a good job adapting its offering to the actual economic climate. Real good....

Blah. The current Harley F150 is just an appearance package. Back when they first came out, though, it came with a supercharged 5.4 putting out 340hp/425tq. That was nice.

[IceEnclosure]

My old roommate had the original HD Supercharged truck. Basically Lightning power for up to 5 occupants.

Love that Eaton whine.. wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[Luca Rescigno]

I don't know about you guys... I like how it looks. Makes me think of a Ford Falcon (an Aussie model). Just aggressive enough without being over the top.

And I don't know if this is true but I'd think with the economy being what it is, these will actually sell fairly well. No, the average person isn't going to rush out to buy a $38,000 car, but what about all those rich people who were thinking of buying a BMW? This might be their definition of "cutting back" (not to mention "doing their part to help the US economy" by buying American).

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by IceEnclosure 

Get a 5-spd COUPE 5.0 (GTs are lame), bolt on some headers and an x-pipe. Bump the timing, replace plugs and wires. Run 13s in the quarter. I had additional twisty insurance for the aforementioned Porsches in the form of springs, sway bars, adj. shocks, etc.

So much fun for very little money. Muscle car.

I've yet to meet a 5.0 pony that could keep up with me, and I don't even drive a "muscle car". Ok, well, maybe it is... just not in the conventional sense. The GT500 is another matter, one of those gave a me a decent run not too long ago (SS package). He couldn't stay with me in the corners, but he did gain ground in a straight line. However, it isn't a 5.0.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

In terms of modern cars, yeah.

That's a sad statement for the genre.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I've yet to meet a 5.0 pony that could keep up with me, and I don't even drive a "muscle car". Ok, well, maybe it is... just not in the conventional sense. The GT500 is another matter, one of those gave a me a decent run not too long ago (SS package). He couldn't stay with me in the corners, but he did gain ground in a straight line. However, it isn't a 5.0.

A car doesn't have to be a muscle car to be fast. And comparing a vehicle that's at least 14 years old against a new BMW M-series isn't fair.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I've yet to meet a 5.0 pony that could keep up with me, and I don't even drive a "muscle car".

True, but a Muscle Car doesn't offer all the amenities your car does.

Here's a question: Are there non-american muscle cars? When I think of the term, I think 70s cars, mostly, but usually american made V8s with little handling.

[Laminar]

Poor handling isn't a prerequisite, but muscle cars originated as hopped-up version of tamer cars - basically a big V8 thrown into a family-oriented coupe. The Mustang wasn't really a muscle car until it got the 428CJ in 1968 (unless you count the '67 GT500).

[Dakar V]

Not a pre-requisite, but more of a likelihood. It's all about power, power, power; straight-line performance.

[Shaddim]

Just about any car can be modified to make it fast, such as the 5L Mustang, but that doesn't make it a "Muscle Car". When I think of such a car I think in terms of performance and image. Shelby has been doing that with the GT500, not Ford, IMO.

... with the exception of the GT, that was a horse of a different color. It was a muscle car and supercar all in one package.

[Luca Rescigno]

I think it's a pretty American thing. There were a few muscle cars or muscle car lookalikes that weren't American.

The Alfa Romeo Montreal looks like a muscle car and has a V8, but it's a small V8 compared to most muscle cars:



The old Holden Monaro fits the description but it was a GM product at heart:



The first-gen Toyota Celica had a bit of a Mustang-ish look to it, but it was definitely not a muscle car:



Similar case with the old Nissan Skyline. Not a muscle car at all (not with a 4-banger!), but it used a lot of the same design cues that muscle cars are known for:

[Laminar]

Now if Ford would just drop the EcoBoost into this car with AWD and a six-speed manual, I would go into debt for it.

[angelmb]

Comparing any car maker like Ford, Citroën, FIAT, Renault, Skoda… to one of the big german dogs is a futile exercise… look at Renault which is leaving the large car market. Euro shock.

Besides that and always seen from the outside, I fail to see how someone could ponder about this Ford (I am not telling it is a bad car) over a Cadillac CTS. What is the price gap?

[Laminar]

The V6 CTS goes for $36,000 to $40,000. The new CTS-V goes for about $60,000, but it does have a 550hp engine. The Taurus is set at $38,000.

[sek929]

I'd like it if it weren't for the grille.

[d4nth3m4n]

a bmw 550i costs $70k? holy crap.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by d4nth3m4n 

a bmw 550i costs $70k? holy crap.

Invoice is $55k, $60k MSRP.

[IceEnclosure]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I've yet to meet a 5.0 pony that could keep up with me, and I don't even drive a "muscle car". Ok, well, maybe it is... just not in the conventional sense. The GT500 is another matter, one of those gave a me a decent run not too long ago (SS package). He couldn't stay with me in the corners, but he did gain ground in a straight line. However, it isn't a 5.0.

Shaddim, do you acknowledge that the term musclecar came about from Novas and 'Cudas and Chargers and such? Just want to make sure we're on a similar page. Because that's where it started, and the meaning hasn't changed much.

Muscle car usually means a V8, lots of torque, RWD, usually cheap family sedan based car. In the early 90's, a 5.0L coupe was $15000 new. It was lightweight, and had way more torque than most cars on the US roads for similar money. That sounds like a muscle car. Then, bring it home, do some little things and the same day you bought it it's even faster!! Definitely sounds like a musclecar!(20 years ago)

Muscle cars are exactly what Laminar said. Also though, I'd include most V8+ powered RWD coupes. Vette, Ford GT, Pantera, Viper, 599GTB(!), and such. I think they're musclecars inherently because they're raucous powerful machines that can lay hundreds of feet of matching black rubber strips at the tip of your right foot. I've been seen often down by the lake pondering whether the newest V8 M3 is a musclecar. It may be.

What do you drive? A modern M-Anything? And you're having chance run-ins with 20 year old 5.0L cars and you're beating them. Unless these guys are "drivin' it like they stole it" and/or have real mods your slick shifting M-Series certainly should take them out. For instance if you have a 2008 M3, they run 12.7ish at over 110mph, which is quite a nice mph. A stock 5.0L(1987-1993) had 225HP/300ft/lbs. It would run high 13s to low 14s at best* stock, usually between 95-100mph. This would be in a coupe or hatchback LX. Stock GTs were a little slower, just because of the extra weight. AOD(automatic) variants were much slower(often running as slow as 15s).

If you're racing these guys on a track I'd be curious as to their setups, because there's some awesome gear out there for fox-body stangs to get running through the twisties. Maximum Motorsports, and Steeda are a couple of my faves. I find it hard to think of any 5.0 car being stock, it's a rarity.

For the sake of this discussion here's pics of the variant of Mustangs I'm taking about.


LX Coupe:








LX Hatch, as used for the GT model, without the extra body crap:






I'm not speaking about the mod-motor GT cars(4.6L SOHC)96-98 V8 powered stangs(GT) sucked in stock form, 99-03 GTs were a little better stock, and take to mods fairly well.


The main thing I think, is that a 5.0L stang(and most musclecars for that matter) was/is/are so easy to mod and work on. We'd pull a car in the garage on Friday afteroon, with 225HP/300TQ. We'd pull it out on Sunday night with 350HP/350TQ. This would be a simple heads, cam, intake swap that can be done in any garage with average tools. This motor in a 3100lb. coupe and good tires could easily run low 12s at well over 110mph.

My brother has nothing but a nitrous system and exhaust on his Camaro Z28, and it has over 400HP to the wheels, and has been running this combination on the street for almost 4 years now. It runs mid 11's on 18" radials at over 116 mph. Musclecar. But was it a musclecar when it was stock(well it still kind of is)? YES! It's a torquey V8 powered RWD 2-door from Chevy!


I have too much fun bench racing.

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

The V6 CTS goes for $36,000 to $40,000. The new CTS-V goes for about $60,000, but it does have a 550hp engine. The Taurus is set at $38,000.

I would freakin love to have a CTS-V. I saw one the other day, glossy black. Definitely stood out from the rest.