Um, there is an LS-series engine in the SSR. All the bolt-on mods will work from the Vette engines. It's just an LS1 destroked from 346 CI. I don't have an LS6, so my LS1 Vette must be slowo No: :grin:
I have to agree with the majority here. The 'new Mustangs' are not a musclecar in the true sense. They get 25 mpg. A 'real musclecar'(GM example,ford,amc, mopars are similar) gets at best 12-15. The 'new mustang' needs a sparkplugs at 100k miles. A 'real musclecar' with its 4.10 gears needs an engine rebuild long before that. The 'new mustangs' with their base V-6 have 200 NET horsepower but the 'real musclecar' base engine, the 140 Gross HP and the spine tingling 220ftlbs of 1600rpm torque of the mighty 230 I-6 that will nail you back in your seat so hard that you cant even grab a dollar bill off the dash, Wow. Now I am not trying to make fun of anyone and please don't take offense because I am not trying to belittle anyone. I am trying to make the point that times have changed. The 'new Mustang' is probably the closest thing we have to a musclecar today. It is made in Dearborn, Michigan where as the new GTO is made down under. The Corvette is well, the Corvette. It is the great American sportscar. The Viper is the newcomer but it is cool and also a sportscar. I'm sure some of the older,wiser members of this board can remember racing (street or track) their musclecars against a Shelby, or Mach 1, Mustang and not always beating them. The typical 'musclecar' is a midsize V-8 American built RWD car. The ponycars are not typical, but how can anyone deny that a 'Hemi Cuda, 396 Camaro, or 428SCJ Mustang are not musclecars, and it is from this heritage that the 'new mustang' is refined from. I will end my rant like this. These cars I just mentioned would have a hard time beating a new mustang cobra stock for stock. I wish I had one.
actually about the ssr its a vortec at least as far as ive seen and heard but ill look into it more i still dont like it though either way. the ls1 is a beutiful motor i love those they are very strong engines i had a chance to ride in a 66' benz 200 with an ls1 and the six speed it ran like nothing i ever imagined oh my god it was fast i remember me and my freind were giddy as some 3rd grade school girls riding in that car it was the fastest thing i ever rode in and it was like a rollercoaster the way it felt.
And all along I thought my V6 Buick Grand National just might have been a musclecar. Darn it! :rant: HeavyD, I think you're out in left field somewhere. OK, you're a Chevy guy; nothing wrong with that but come on! Your arguments against the Mustang describe the last generation Chevy Camaro (and Firebird) as well. The base model (now defunct) F-cars were powered by a 200 HP 3800 V6. (Where is Ford attempting to pass off their V6 Mustang as a musclecar, like you say anyway? The new GT & Cobra models do have V8s you know.) Real muscle cars are all steel? If I'm not mistaken, the GM F-cars had more plastic on them then the Mustang; ie. hood, front fenders, door skins, front & rear fascias and decklids/spoilers. Many consider the Camaro/Firebirds to be musclecars you know. I whole-heartedly agree that a musclecar should 'NOT look like a RICER-WANNABE'. The Mustang surely doesn't look like one though. The new GTO, however...o No: Say what you will about the Mustang but it was outselling the Camaro/Firebird combined 2:1 and is still being produced. As for your advice to Ford about making better trucks, that's laughable. :Smarty: Two years ago Ford F-Series celebrated its 25th anniversary as America's best-selling truck, and its 20th anniversary as America's best-selling vehicle car or truck. No small feat, especially for a truck that needs improvement in your opinion. That being said, understand that I am primarily a GM fan myself, like you, and I've never owned a Mustang. I miss the all-steel, (read: way heavy!) 1968 Firebird convertible I used to have. I do own a 125,000-mile 1997 Ford Expedition based on the F-Series and it's been a solid, dependable family vehicle for years with no signs of letting up. This is America and you're certainly entitled to your dislike of Fords. I just see your arguments against Ford and the Mustang as baseless, hence my rambling. PS. Chevy's current Nomad concept car is the first vehicle I've seen in eons that actually might draw me into a showroom one day and I've never owned a Bowtie machine before either.
Re: Re: New Mustangs, not muscle cars. Don't forget the LS-6 Chevelle was also a few option box checks away from being a base-model Chevelle with inline-6. The GM stylists these days are so original they had to rip the pages from the original corvette-stylists book and use a car that was actually on display in the show circuit sometime around 1950-52. Of course smoothing a few edges and and updating it a little bit. A great design I've admired since first seeing it in an old book in the 3rd grade (really!), but doesn't inspire a GM fan's admiration for current GM designers. Lutz must be on anti-depressants by now.:rant:
I agree with this guy...... The era of true "musclecars" is dead. There is no true definition of what makes a muslecar, this arguement could go on for pages. We all know the old BB Buicks had the most power (equal to a 426 Hemi) and those are both factory figures which may or may not be accurrate. Gone to a local car show lately? The disagreement over which cars can enter the Musclecar class illustrates this neverending arguement. Give a trophy to someone who doesn't have a GTO, Chevelle, or a Road Runner and observe the reaction. Authors of articles and other publications all seem to differ about what qualifies as a musclecar, often times leaving Buick and some others out completely. It seems as though the most popular Chevies, Fords, and Mopars get that reckognition. That's the reason why the Mustang, basically the only car left with some 60's heritage is referred to as a musclecar. Chrysler is trying to tap into that with their new "Hemi". The only car GM has left with heritage is the 'vette, which never was considered a musclecar in the first place, although some of them are proven to be real shakers right out of the box. GM needs to build a rear wheel drive car with an american made v8 that looks like a true retro car and performs better than their fastest car of the past. But don't call it a musclecar, those days are gone for good.:beer
Re: I agree with this guy...... It may also have something to do with the 03-04 Mustang Cobra: Factory supercharged 410 hp 288 CI V8 Idles calmly at 750 rpm Six speed T-56 double overdrive manual transmission Cruise at 2250 rpm at 80 mph in 6th 155 mph chip limited top speed 21 mpg Independent rear suspension with stock 3.55 gear 12.7 second quarter mile times at 110 mph right off the showroom floor All through a quiet 2.5" exhaust system with two cats $1500 of pulley, exhaust, chip and CAI will net low 11s while maintaining all street manners All that on 91 octane pump gas, plus room for four, at 20K less then the Corvette. What stock muscle car, Buick included, could do any of that that? Never mind making a left turn at speed. It may be unfair to the Cobra to call it a muscle car! Cheryl :3gears:
mustang cheryl, i agree with you. the numbers you posted about the cobra are very impressive and all true. technology in cars has come a long way since the muscle car came on the scene in the 60s. if you really like performance the fact is the 2004 cobra is the best performance buy out there.
OK, no doubt some of the new introductions are extremely fast, but seriously, they're only using the term muscle car for marketing reasons ($$$$$) and wish they'd STOP IT! They really need to coin a new phrase for this. Muscle car defined an era. The official era is closed. Technically speaking it was '64 to '70. It officially began with the GTO and officially ended with the decree of lower compressions for unleaded fuel. Muscle car meant shoveling a big block engine into what was supposed to be an econo-package. They were low-frills packages. That's it for correct application of the term. Camaros, Firebirds and Mustangs were "Pony Cars", but were allowed to join the muscle car gang after shoehorning a big block in. The Corvette is a "Sports Car" - not a muscle car, but also was allowed in once a 427 was crammed in. It's just NOT the same to compare then to now. Today's cars come with a few more decades of very advanced technology in suspensions, drivetrains, and very smart computers monitoring every part of the engine's performance. The Grand National brought back some awesome muscle, but that's really an era all it's own. It was way ahead of its time and should probably wear something like a Modern Muscle title as the official kick-off of the new muscle era. I can't sign off without the final comment of PERSONALITY. Please... the new GTO is technically the fastest GTO ever. Sorry, like most of the others it just plain flunks the personality test. Buick will probably be back in the game before too long and they'll probably produce the fastest Buick ever. That's real nice, but I'd still rather have a old GS.
mustang victor, was that last paragraph in your post wishful thinking ? id love to see the return of a supercharged v8 gs that could kick some butt. buick disappoints every year with their new models. hopefully theyll wake up and remember what the words performance and horsepower mean.
First let me say that I prefer the low end torque of a BBB or a Monster Mopar any day to the hi rev small blocks of today. Now, with that said let me add that I'm glad to see at least one or two car makers are giving us the kind of choices they are today. Ford has been way down at the bottom of my list until I read my new Car and Driver today. The 2005 Mustang is a car with personality and, if you want, affordable performance. They even got rid of the indepedent rear suspension to give the feel and simplicity of the live axle. Can you say, straight line drag racing? Sure it looks a little bit retro but it looks aggresive and doesn't mimick euro or ricer styling. It looks like an American street fighter. Who cares about the term "muscle car"? It's about the rush you get when your butt is pinned to the seat and your head is pulled to the back of the car when you hit the noise pedal. This is a car that is focused on these things and doesn't cost any more than an average family sedan or mid level minivan. That's what worked for muscle cars and my hat is off to Ford for giving us the chance to do it again. I will probably buy one of these just because none of the car makers I like are willing to bother. It's 2004 now. Let's preserve the wonders of the past and admire the accomplishments of today. Oh... and 24-29 MPG sounds cool too.
Technically, I like all cars. And some imports(as long as they get you to and from where your destination is), but preferrably american cars. I hope none of us has forgotten that buick is still in the "game of the fast and more than acceptable horsepower and torque." Buick is still in the game, what about the park avenue ultra, especially since buick has brought portholes, nice rims, and the dual exhaust style in to effect, and what about some of the newer GSX's, The newer buicks are nothing like the old ones, but i tell you what, there's cars out there that are as slow as dogs, and thank god buick isn't one of them! I have faith that sometime buick will bring back a car that reflects the past a little, like the park avenue. As long as im concerned, you can tweak out an old buick to beat anything, just gotta have the money, time, and stuff. Anyway, here is something to show that buick is still in the game:http://cgi.msn.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=6139&item=2453457697 Oh, and by the way, im not trying to get people to buy this, it's just one of the only things that I can think of to show that buick has a performance/luxury model out there, check it out.
:rant: and the wrong-wheel-drive! That's one of my primary reasons for my distaste of most cars made today. Never had a FWD, never will. Luckily, the Big 3 see the light and are now developing new rear-wheel-drive car platforms. :beer
Ok, I know I will get flamed for this but here goes anyway: Its 2004. the old musclecars had their day and held their own for 30 years but its over. The only reason to own one now is nostalga, the new cars will hand your ass to you on a platter, plain and simple, in every department except -perhaps- acceleration. And you can argue price but any true restoration that gets you close to truly owning a "new" old car will cost the same as many of the new cars. At least they are using the term "musclecar" in a positive spin, ie, to make their products exciting, and they may be, just becasue you don't agree doesn't make it wrong, does it? We could have them using "muscelcar" associated with pollution, selfishness, being irresponsible, wasted resources, old mindsets, or any other of a hundred terms someone could have drogged up to get their point across. Enjoy your car, whatever it may be. later Tim
Tim, I collect cars from the era, muscle or not, because it was a time when new cars were exciting to people. People would go to the dealership like it was a car show when the new models were released. That stopped happening about the time that all of the big three gave away "brand identity" for efficiency and economy. These days it's hard to tell a Honda from a Ford from a Chevy. You get a Yamaha engine in a Ford, Toyota in a Chevy, Mitsubishi in a Dodge, Chevy in almost every GM car. My 1969 Riviera is all Buick and it is like no other Buick. That's why I like cars from that era. That's why I like what Ford is doing with the 2005 Mustang. It's different than anything else and is the kind of car that can be considered exciting. I agree with the last half of your previous post 100%.
Dale, I too thought it was a dodge comercial because of the DC owned Coranado Frieghtliner pulling them. I would say thats par for corse a Dodge pulling a Chivy to the track but I won't. Dustin lets recap engine options for the Dodge and Chevy trucks for 2004 Dodge: 3.7 v6 215@5200hp 235@4000 4.7 v8 235@4600hp 295@3600 5.7 HEMI 345@5600 375@4400 (345 ci) 8.3 v10 500@5600 525@4200 5.9 i6 diesel 305@2900 555@1400 (361ci) Chevy: 4300 v6 195@4600 260@2800 (262ci) 4800 v8 285@5600 295@4000 (293ci) 5300 V8 295@5200 330@4000 (325ci) 6000 v8 300@4400 360@4000 (364ci) 8100 v8 330@4200 450@3200 (496ci) 6600 Diesel 310@2900 590@1600 (403ci) If that Hemi is such a piece then what is the Chevy engines? Please note that the 345ci Hemi makes more horses than the 496 Chevy. Hemispherical heads do have a benifit not hype. I can't wait till it apears in the Intrepid this year. Rick, The Neon did come equipt with a semi-hemi (polyspherical) engine when introduced. Don't get me wrong. I am not bashing anyone or brand just stating facts.
Re: Re: I agree with this guy...... [Rant On]The cobras list out near the price of a base model Vette, the back seat is cruel punishment for anyone that you wedge in there, and it is slower stock than a 6-spd Vette. Not to mention, you won't see the Vette depreciate anywhere near as quickly as the mustang. I ran an '03 Cobra at e-town that supposedly had 650 rear wheel hp. I ran 11.72 to his 11.94, and he was on drag radials with every bolt-on imaginable. My only mods are airbox, converter, gears and tuning and a race weight of 3290 with me in it. I get 27-28 MPG highway too. Don't buy into the blue oval hype too much, they love to over-rate their engines while the old general has been under-rating stuff for years. Not to mention the weak bottom end of the 4.6l engine installed in those cars. [Rant off]
