2011 Ford Mustang V6 rated 31 mpg highway - Page 3

dReWpY · 03-05-2010, 09:21 PM

i cant wait on the new daily driver to hit my drive way.... 370 hp and >3000pounds of all wheel goodness

Dave · 03-05-2010, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drewpy

i cant wait on the new daily driver to hit my drive way.... 370 hp and >3000pounds of all wheel goodness

an evo?

dReWpY · 03-05-2010, 09:39 PM

ok, im waiting on the PO to figure out where the fuck his boost leak is coming from... then/if its mine... pics next week

Cutty72 · 03-06-2010, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drewpy

i cant wait on the new daily driver to hit my drive way.... 370 hp and >3000pounds of all wheel goodness

I'm thinking more on the lines of 395 hp and 735 ft/lb torque > 5500+ lbs of 4x4 goodness myself when I get back.

Dave · 03-04-2010, 10:13 AM

four seats doth not a sportscar make. Sport coupe or pony car would be acceptable monikers

karl_1052 · 03-04-2010, 10:40 AM

I might have to test drive one of these things when they come out.

Homeslice · 03-04-2010, 10:56 AM

Well I'm not a physics major, but if you take 2 engines with the same displacement but different HP, I don't see how more horsepower ALWAYS means less fuel economy UNLESS someone is actually taking advantage of it by accelerating harder. And I doubt the EPA test is doing that, does it?

Personally I think the increased weight of today's vehicles is more to blame.

z06boy · 03-04-2010, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Homeslice

Personally I think the increased weight of today's vehicles is more to blame.

That too in some cases for sure. I'm pretty sure that my 1992 Mustang LX 5.0 was lighter than the new Mustang. I did not look it up before posting this so I may be wrong and get slammed for saying it.

Adeptus_Minor · 03-04-2010, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by z06boy

That too in some cases for sure. I'm pretty sure that my 1992 Mustang LX 5.0 was lighter than the new Mustang.

By about 500 lbs, actually, according to Edmunds.

z06boy · 03-04-2010, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adeptus_Minor

By about 500 lbs, actually, according to Edmunds.

Sounds about right but I wasn't sure...thanks.

As far as the CRX mentioned...I'm pretty sure they were even less than 2200 lbs. I think one of my 4 that I owned was around 1800-1900 lbs...fun little car.

03-04-2010, 10:40 AM	#6
karl_1052 sergeant hatred Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Ottawa Moto: The bus Posts: 2,723	I might have to test drive one of these things when they come out. __________________ My wife was afraid of the dark...then she saw me naked and now she's afraid of the light.

03-04-2010, 10:13 AM	#5
Dave Chaotic Neutral Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Cherry Hill NJ Moto: GV1200 Madura, Hawk gt Posts: 13,992	four seats doth not a sportscar make. Sport coupe or pony car would be acceptable monikers

03-04-2010, 10:56 AM	#7
Homeslice Elitist Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: SF Bay Area Moto: Gix 750 Posts: 11,351	Well I'm not a physics major, but if you take 2 engines with the same displacement but different HP, I don't see how more horsepower ALWAYS means less fuel economy UNLESS someone is actually taking advantage of it by accelerating harder. And I doubt the EPA test is doing that, does it? Personally I think the increased weight of today's vehicles is more to blame.