which do you think is faster?

[TW]Fox · 24 Jun 2007 at 21:06

Cyber-Mav said:
its not that heavy as you make it out to be, but i guess its just me thats thinking of fuel economy at the same time as power.

if it was me i would choose to have a mustang with a 2.0 130ps mondeo engine in it. bu i see where you guys are comming from.
a mustang with mondeo engine may be just as fast as the 4.0 v6 but americans would just look and say , bah its a 2.0 don;t want that.
just the way i looked at the 4.0 and though whoa thats gonna be quick.

I think you should stop posting whilst you still have some credibility.

JRS · 24 Jun 2007 at 21:08

[TW]Fox said:
I think you should stop posting whilst you still have some credibility.

He had credibility at any point in this thread?

DRZ · 24 Jun 2007 at 21:08

JRS said:
He had credibility at any point in this thread?

Nope...

wassap · 24 Jun 2007 at 21:12

For someone who is supposedly 60,you talk some utter nonsence cybermav

Cyber-Mav · 24 Jun 2007 at 21:13

just to say you do get mondeos with 1.6 ltr engines:

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/data-detail.aspx?deriv=13850
link above to mondeo 1.6 and that weighs 1265kg

another mondeo but a 1.8:
http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/data-detail.aspx?deriv=23647
weight 1384kg

so small engines can pull heavy cars and i know that the 2.0 mondeo 130bhp mk2 does over 130mph, mate use to have one, and that had 130k on the clock.

its just me then that thinks the mustang wastes petrol for the performance it gives. but it is in a market now where if they put a small engine in it even if its just as quick if not faster than the large engine ones people will not buy it/.

JRS · 24 Jun 2007 at 21:26

Cyber-Mav said:
just to say you do get mondeos with 1.6 ltr engines:

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/data-detail.aspx?deriv=13850
link above to mondeo 1.6 and that weighs 1265kg

Yes, and it's an utterly dreadful car with that engine. The Times motoring section a few weeks back actually recommended one to somebody - I half-considered writing in to ask just why they thought it would be a good idea to recommend a really, really, really, really, really bad car.

Cyber-Mav said:
another mondeo but a 1.8:
http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/data-detail.aspx?deriv=23647
weight 1384kg

I'm not seeing your point.

Cyber-Mav said:
so small engines can pull heavy cars and i know that the 2.0 mondeo 130bhp mk2 does over 130mph, mate use to have one, and that had 130k on the clock.

its just me then that thinks the mustang wastes petrol for the performance it gives. but it is in a market now where if they put a small engine in it even if its just as quick if not faster than the large engine ones people will not buy it/.

Once more, with feeling....

The Mustang V6 is not about performance. But it does need to be capable of independent movement. Putting a smaller, lower powered engine in there than the one it has right now would seriously jeopardise it's chances of actually being able to pull away from standstill.

Yes, they could put a smaller displacement engine in of a better design. They're probably doing that for the MY08-onwards cars, and if they do it will be based on the Duratec 3.5 litre motor. I don't know exactly why they stuck with the Cologne V6 for the Mustang this long, I expect it's because it hasn't needed anything better.

wassap · 24 Jun 2007 at 21:31

It would be interesting to see how much torque the big yank lumps make compared to the smaller EU engines.

Lets face it unless its diesel Eu engines dont really fare well past, say 150k.

JRS · 24 Jun 2007 at 21:42

Oh, while I'm at it - Mustang V6 economy figures officially are as follows:

19mpg (US) city
28mpg (US) highway

I make that around 23mpg city, 33-34mpg highway using imperial gallons. Not exactly horrendous, though certainly not quite as good as a Duratec engine would be.

Cyber-Mav · 24 Jun 2007 at 21:43

how long do thse american engines last?

i always hear stuff on tv about talk of 67 dodges etc, always though those could be cars rarly driven like classics, do they do lots of mileage?

i know the iveco trucks in my area do do 1.5 million miles but those are big tucks and diesle engines.

you right though its rare to hear of petrol engines in the uk that have managed to do massive mileages.

DRZ · 24 Jun 2007 at 21:46

Cyber-Mav said:
how long do thse american engines last?

i always hear stuff on tv about talk of 67 dodges etc, always though those could be cars rarly driven like classics, do they do lots of mileage?

i know the iveco trucks in my area do do 1.5 million miles but those are big tucks and diesle engines.

you right though its rare to hear of petrol engines in the uk that have managed to do massive mileages.

Rare? Look at the auctions - flooded with cars getting on for 150k miles and still going strong.

Cant remember which engine it was (maybe JRS will know) but wasnt there a yank engine with a claimed 100,000 mile service interval?

Big & lazy yes, but ridiculously easy to maintain.

Oh how I miss Mickey_D in situations like this

PMKeates · 24 Jun 2007 at 21:48

DRZ said:
Oh how I miss Mickey_D in situations like this

Where is he??

JRS · 24 Jun 2007 at 21:53

Cyber-Mav said:
how long do thse american engines last?

My Olds is on ~240k. Massively understressed 5 litre V8 with sod all power (about 170hp) but enough torque to motivate rather a lot of car.

Cyber-Mav said:
i always hear stuff on tv about talk of 67 dodges etc, always though those could be cars rarly driven like classics, do they do lots of mileage?

A friend of mine has a '70 Vista Cruiser with a 350ci V8. It's done 400k. It's never been rebuilt. The transmission is also on 400k. It also hasn't been rebuilt.

Cyber-Mav said:
i know the iveco trucks in my area do do 1.5 million miles but those are big tucks and diesle engines.

Big engine, slow revving, fastidiously maintained. Not desperately surprising that they last a long time is it?

Cyber-Mav said:
you right though its rare to hear of petrol engines in the uk that have managed to do massive mileages.

See, the thing about America is that it's very, very big. And the thing about the UK is that it's quite a bit smaller. American cars always had to be built to drive really, really long distances - you wind it up to highway speeds and you stay there for a while. Hence big, slow revving motors connected to automatic gearboxes. Perfect setup for the job.

DRZ · 24 Jun 2007 at 21:53

PMKeates said:
Where is he??

Not around these parts by choice IIRC

JRS · 24 Jun 2007 at 21:54

PMKeates said:
Where is he??

Gone.

PMKeates · 24 Jun 2007 at 21:55

JRS said:
Gone.

Incredible shame.

JRS · 24 Jun 2007 at 22:00

PMKeates said:
Incredible shame.

It is, as he's a true gent and he was well-liked on here.

Cyber-Mav · 24 Jun 2007 at 22:03

sounds like diesle engines would be perfect for american cars, how come diesle has not taken off as well in america as it has in the uk and europe?

JRS · 24 Jun 2007 at 22:10

Cyber-Mav said:
sounds like diesle engines would be perfect for american cars, how come diesle has not taken off as well in america as it has in the uk and europe?

It has, in pick-up trucks and the like. But the diesel fuel that was available in the US for a long time was poor quality, and it hurt any engine that wasn't utterly bomb proof. Add that to the reputation diesel engines got from stuff like the Olds LF9 (which used to grenade itself due to deterioration caused by the **** quality diesel available) and you can see why they never really caught on in large numbers.

About the LF9 - I've posted on here about it before, but I'll summarise it again. The injectors used to decay thanks to the crappy fuel being put through them, which created abnormal cylinder pressures. On an engine designed to take this problem into account this wouldn't be quite so dire. But on the LF9, these pressures ended up lifting the heads off the block. Water then entered the cylinder from the coolant channels, the engine hydrolocked and BOOM! Thar she blows!

Even running on good quality diesel I still wouldn't trust anything with the LF9 in it. I've heard far too many stories, seen far too many trashed engines. Now, the Duramax diesels in current use at GM....they're good, strong motors. So are the Cummins turbodiesels Dodge use in their trucks.

g0th2000 · 24 Jun 2007 at 22:11

They couldn't meet US emissions standards due to the low quality of typical US diesel IIRC.

I believe they're doing ultra-low sulphur stuff over their now which should see an increased uptake of European diesels.

PS denied

JRS · 24 Jun 2007 at 22:14

g0th2000 said:
They couldn't meet US emissions standards due to the low quality of typical US diesel IIRC.

In recent times (i.e. the last 15 years) that's been it. But they scuppered the market long before that really became a problem. Trucks get away with it as they're tested to different (lower) standards.

g0th2000 said:
I believe they're doing ultra-low sulphur stuff over their now which should see an increased uptake of European diesels.

It's slowly becoming available across the US and Canada. It'll take a lot to break them out of the reputation they have though.