Ford Mustang Forum banner

do you think down the road ford might make a slower mustang?

2K views 18 replies 11 participants last post by  az.dsrt 
G
#1 ·
cuz looking back the classic mustang gt was cool then during the mustang II they were slower (cuz of oil crisis)

then during foxy bodies they got a bit better (stock)

but then during early sn95 they went down to 210 HP (wth??? why did ford make it less power and then sell it???)

but now they going up in power with each new model....

so why did the early sn95 gt have less power than its previous models??
 
#2 ·
Don't look too much into the "early sn numbers" compared to a '93 - that is more a result of Ford revising the way it calculated/advertised HP. The engine from '93 to '94 is identical in all the important regards. CAI and thorttle body is a bit different but the '94-'95 I BELIEVE should flow better...

Will they ever go backwards? Doubt it. It is a competition, and the Mustang is no econo-box, so fuel consumption is typically not a Mustang buyer's first consideration. I doubt that Ford will ever decide to market the Mustang as a commuter vehicle, which if they did would demand a shift to a focus on mileage as opposed to HP and the like. In its class the competition is "most HP with best mileage possible" - quite different from "best mileage possible and at least fast enough to merge into traffic on the highway"...
 
#3 ·
It really was not the oil crisis with the MII......the economy was in the crapper....smog regs were being implemented (the 1st cats came out in 1974) and to meet tailpipe emissions every mfg was de-tuning their engines.

as stated, a lot of this is a numbers/formula game....and no, the #'s will not go backwards unless some new regs get passed like the have in Europe.
 
#4 ·
long live the "new pony car wars!"

I think the performance improvements will continue for a while, until the global warming alarmists finally have their way with us and completely outlaw all burning of fossil fuels, or make it so expensive that we won't be able to run them, or impose fuel efficiency standards that will make them illegal. I think we have at least another 5 good years.
 
#5 ·
Power was down on everything in the mid 70's because manufacturers were trying to meet sudden new emissions regs, which nobody had done before...and they thought the only good way to do it was with low compression and no power. Eventually technology caught up and now things are a hell of a lot better.
 
#7 ·
The intake flowed worse in 94. They needed clearance for the SN's lower hood.
However the pessimist in me says Ford chocked off the 302 so the asthmatic '96 2V 281 wouldn't look as bad as it really was. I owned a fox 302 and drove a '96 GT, the difference was significant. I preferred the 302 hands down over the '96 281. I have loved Mustangs since I was little but I was totally turned off by the '94 - '98 GTs. They choked off the 302 in 94-95 and the '96-'98 281 GT is a dog. In '99 they finally worked out the heads (PI's) on the 281 GT (and I prefer the style). (The 4v didn't have the early 2v breathing problems).

And yes I do believe if things don't change soon, this government will force automakers to dial back power to meet tougher cafe requirements.

.....
 
#8 ·
The revised horsepower rating from Ford for the '93 Mustang is only 205 HP. Which would be LESS than the rating for the '94. Makes no sense...

Unless...Ford was gimmicking it. Nothing more.

The differences stock to stock between the '93 and the '94 is nominal. The '94 weighs more which partly explains its less sporty feel (combined with better suspension, IMHO, which gets rid of much of the lumber-wagon ride that some folks mistake for performance).

All this aside - Mustangs have always been marketed as an "affordable" muscle/performance car. Not a Corvette, obviously, or a Porsche - but a fast car (relatively) that feels a lot sportier than a lot of other offerings out there, with good brakes and decent handling, that a "normal" person could realistically aspire to. As long as that is the case, refinements in performance should continue...
 
#9 ·
The only issue I see Ford having going foward is making the mustang too expensive. They have shifted thier focus away from competing with american cars. They are now targeting BMW, Porsche, and a lot of the luxury and high end sports cars. You get BMW M series performance in a package that costs half as much, but that still is $40K+. The S197 mustang had a starting price of $25K for a base GT. Don't get me wrong, I love that the new mustang is competing with these cars in performance and quality, but they are also raising the price point of the mustang to the point where it is not as affordable as it used to be. It is still a good value if you are comparing it to the cars it is competing with, but it is also getting more expensive then it has ever been.
 
#11 ·
. . . . The S197 mustang had a starting price of $25K for a base GT. . . . . .
The new 2015 mustang is supposed to have a starting price in the $24K range. That is for a 300+ HP V6 (comparable to the 4.6 V8) in a car that is lighter than the S197 and has a lot of other features that are "better" then the original S197. So it is still available with a pretty good price point, as long as you don't load it up with all the high end options.
 
#10 ·
but now they going up in power with each new model....
Logic suggests that as long as car weights keep increasing, power will have to increase just to keep pace. Else lose market share to the competition.

Logic also suggests that there is a limit to the increases power (or even just usable power) that will happen. Whether that ends up being because of power-restricting CO2 standards, or cars simply becoming too powerful for the vast majority of people who are NOT enthusiasts, or something else entirely really won't matter in the end.


Norm
 
#12 ·
Cars will continue to be more and more powerful and faster as technology and new building processes are developed.

Can you think of a modern car (2005+ even) that had a new model year slower than it's predecessor?

I'm excited for the day when carbon fiber becomes more readily available and is utilized on a regular basis. That'll be the day.

Nick C.
 
#13 ·
Cars will continue to be more and more powerful and faster as technology and new building processes are developed. .
As long as it is not prohibited by law, which could happen again just like it did in the '70's.

I'm excited for the day when carbon fiber becomes more readily available and is utilized on a regular basis. That'll be the day..
Funny you mention that . . . carbon fiber has been readily available since the 1980's, I know because I worked with it back then. But the problem has always been, and still is, that it is relatively expensive . . . .something like $50/pound for fabricated parts, versus maybe $1-5/pound for steel or aluminum. The costs have come down quite a bit (our ballpark back in the '80's was $100/pound) but not as far as I thought it would by now.

As the cost for fuel skyrockets due to CO2 regulation, carbon fiber composites should become more cost effective and will probably be used more; at the same time that the price for a "mustang" goes from $25K to $100K plus, to cover the cost, and force us to buy Teslas instead.

Enjoy it while you can, these are the "good old days" for performance cars!
 
#17 · (Edited)
I believe we are about to see the end of the era of gas only high power engines. Tomorrows performance cars will probably be hybrids. No not the Prius hybrids, the Porsche and McClaren and Ferrari type, where superbatteries can double the HP to the wheels on a moments notice. Imagine a 40 MPG turbo 4 that can put out 250 HP + 250 HP of High tourque electric motors an a car weighing 3500 lbs. Definately Yee Haaa potential.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top