Quote:
Originally Posted by fdjizm
So thats it? the SRA is what you were talking about in technology? i hope you havent been ignoring all the praise the mustang is getting on its handling capabilities with its old SRA, and btw you realize pushrod engines are old too right? but if it works it works right? i dont see a problem with SRA neither do millions of people or the magazine reviews so where is your point?
|
Honestly...is that it...I took all that time being clever and looking stuff up to lighten the mood around here and that is all you are going respond with is more questions...man.
Some kids I swear.
But to answer your question, read any review of that Mustang including the GT-500 and you will see that the suffers from un planned jumps when loading the suspension in corners, awkwardness to repetitive switches in direction and suffers deeply from the lack of a panhard bar to settle the rear when making transitions.
About the 4.6 3 valve motor...it is garbage, it was garbage when it was a 2 valve SOHC and it will continue to be garbage until they scrap it. The motor is weak, it is in no way efficient and to anyone that says they can get 30 miles to a gallon in a mustang GT I am calling you a liar. That being said the LS motors are documented over and over again getting better than 28 mpg in almost every trim level.
And to be honest any vehicle that runs an overhead cam or overhead valve motor vs. a pnematic system is behind the times compared to the new tech. What limits us in our muscle cars is what is affordable at the time. GM's LS3 hell their LS series of motors have been developed over the past 15 years with racing design as the influence and with every generation they make more and more power and still manage to beat the gas guzzler tax with exception to the LSA/9.