I think about an automatic at the track and my first thought is how smooth is the shifting if it occurs at the limit of adhesion? I ask from pure curiosity, as I've only ever driven manuals at 10/10ths.
I think about an automatic at the track and my first thought is how smooth is the shifting if it occurs at the limit of adhesion? I ask from pure curiosity, as I've only ever driven manuals at 10/10ths.
Knurled wrote: The car is, what, $30k? And premium is an additional 3-4 bucks a week?
As a family we do about 30-40K miles a year. Call it 600 miles a week. 600 miles at 22 mpg is 27 gallons of gas. There's about a $0.40 - 0.60 difference from 87 to 93 octane. That's over $10 a week or $500 a year. I put 93 in the Porsche, but it's not happening for anything that's the main family hauler.
mblommel wrote:z31maniac wrote:Meh I don't agree. Some people just don't like buying premium gas all the time.mblommel wrote: I do miss the V6....Meh if a few dollars per tank of fuel is a deciding factor, you (general you) were never going to buy it or you (general you) can't afford it anyway.
Generally if an engine is timing-limited on 87, it'll get better mpg on 93 with more aggressive timing. A friend did some testing with the 3.5 ecoboost in his F-150. Result was, slightly more power on 93, slightly better mpg too. He commuted for a month on 87 and a month on 93 and calculated the fuel cost per mile at the end. They were pretty much identical with a 25-ish cent difference in cost per gallon for 93.
Kreb wrote: I think about an automatic at the track and my first thought is how smooth is the shifting if it occurs at the limit of adhesion? I ask from pure curiosity, as I've only ever driven manuals at 10/10ths.
If they're not quite smooth enough on downshifts, there's always the option to manually step down through the gears as you come into a turn and then throw it back to auto mode once you're on the throttle (to avoid the trans downshifting on track-out). I tend to do that in the Jeep when driving hard as downshifts under load seem to be a bigger shock to the tires than upshifts (so it upshifting under throttle on corner exit is much less of an issue than a sudden downshift).
Adrian_Thompson wrote:Knurled wrote: The car is, what, $30k? And premium is an additional 3-4 bucks a week?As a family we do about 30-40K miles a year. Call it 600 miles a week. 600 miles at 22 mpg is 27 gallons of gas. There's about a $0.40 - 0.60 difference from 87 to 93 octane. That's over $10 a week or $500 a year. I put 93 in the Porsche, but it's not happening for anything that's the main family hauler.
How much better is the economy on premium vs. regular?
I used to drive 30-36k per year, and I would feed my car premium even though it was $4.50 per instead of $3.90. I knew that it was cheaper per mile that way.
Ricky Spanish wrote: ...All of them are off the table for me - I stopped by the dealership with my kids Saturday morning to test them out. Somehow, such a big car has so little back seat room. The Camaro, in comparison, is like a Cadillac in the back...
Pony cars used to be advertised as a 2+. Basically a 2 seater with back seats. If the Camaro you looked at was a newer one then it has the back seats of a Cadillac because it is a Cadillac. The version before was a Holden.
When I need to upgrade my Mustang (I presently have a 2000) I will still have lots of manual shifts to choose from. I doubt I will still be driving when I am up to a 2018 but if I am, the motor car laws will probably make a manual illegal anyway.
As far as I know. The Ecoboost runs on 87oct or higher. You don't HAVE to use premium on these cars. I know I rarely do in our ford. My XJR on the otherhand, well at 14mpg I just don't even count how much mandatory premium is costing me 
Knurled wrote:Adrian_Thompson wrote:How much better is the economy on premium vs. regular? I used to drive 30-36k per year, and I would feed my car premium even though it was $4.50 per instead of $3.90. I knew that it was cheaper per mile that way.Knurled wrote: The car is, what, $30k? And premium is an additional 3-4 bucks a week?As a family we do about 30-40K miles a year. Call it 600 miles a week. 600 miles at 22 mpg is 27 gallons of gas. There's about a $0.40 - 0.60 difference from 87 to 93 octane. That's over $10 a week or $500 a year. I put 93 in the Porsche, but it's not happening for anything that's the main family hauler.
This was one of those things nobody ever believed me on. Back when I had my Hyundai Tiburon, I used to do 25000 miles a year commuting back and forth to work. On 93octane. I would regularly get 33mpg. on 87, I would get 30. This was mixed back road and in town driving. The extra three gallons a mile added up enough to make the price difference negligible but allowed me an extra day between fillups
I have a 2013 V6 Performance package car. It was $23K with the Ford incentives so a significant savings over any of the GTs I found at the time. Even at that it was still way over what my budget should have been at the time. Car guy or not, money is money. We don't all have endless supplies of cash.
Having driven all three (EB, 3.7 and 5.0) the EB makes a lot more low end but does not sound so good. The 3.7 sounds and runs nice between 5 and 7K and the 5.0 is just plain awesome. Low-end torque is the real downside to the 3.7. I've pondered headers and a tune which is said to fill in the bottom end a lot, but it's my DD so I've left it stock so far. Out of the box, Randy Pobst got one around the Streets of Willow faster than a BRZ so it's more than fast and sporty enough for public road use.
Regarding the fuel economy/octane question, in 62k miles I've never noticed a difference between 87 and 93. I'm around 24 MPG in mixed use commuting. If I hold it under 70 on a relatively flat road it will show a bit over 30 MPG on the interstate but as soon as you go above 70 it drops quickly with the 3.31s. The standard 2.73 axle is obviously better on economy but a poor match to motor that is really soft under 4K. It really needs 3.73s or 4.11s, but that would never fly CAFE-wise.
As far as them being missed? Not likely. There's not that many people out there like me. Same reason there's not than many Pontiac Sprint Six Firebirds and LeMans anymore. Great performance, unique and cheaper than a 400, but never did sell well. How many people remember that Pontiac sold a OHC I6 with a 4 barrel carb in the 60's?
Doesn't matter - no reason to buy a Mustang with anything less than the V8. Can't afford a new GT just buy a used one.
Driven5 wrote:Klayfish wrote: That's why I've held off from buying a V6. I know it's faster than it "feels", but if I'm buying a Mustang, I want it to be hairy chested and give me a concussion every time I mash the pedal.That's just a side effect of the modern automotive refinement being added to all types of cars, driving up the performance required to get a certain level of multi-sensory experience in the vast majority of cars on the market. I would argue that this is just as applicable to the V8 Mustangs, as it is the V6 Mustangs.
I think that's a concise way of characterizing the 'problem'. I first noticed this about 5 years ago when i got some experience with a 6.2 Cramit SS, 5.0 Mustang, and 5.7 Challenger in short succession, all with 6spd manuals. I remember being really underwhelmed by the 400hp Camaro due to the over tall gearing taking most of the drama out. The 5.0 Mustang actually felt a little low on torque for a v8 'musclecar'. Surprisingly enough, the 5.7/6spd Challenger was the most entertaining in a short test drive, despite being the 'slowest'. The combination of low-mid torque, gearing, and noise gave it the most satifsfying overall experience.
Having said that, i also think that being jaded sucks and I try really hard to avoid it. Pretty much anything with 300hp that's not obscenely heavy is 'fast' to me. It saddens me to hear people being so non-chalant about cars that are crazy fast compared to yesteryear. I know to some extent the way that i drive helps me keep speed in perspective. Anything would feel slow with no context. Sometimes i think people are just flooring it in too boring of places. I can make 300hp seem like too much for the circumstances at pretty much a moment's notice.
Lately i've been driving a 2.2L 4 cyl turbo car on 8 psi. With a little torque steer it's far from boring. I think isolation and lack of any sensation of danger are probably the main enemy of fun in new cars that are objectively fast enough that if grandma has an unintended acceleration incident she probably won't live through it.
smokindav wrote: Doesn't matter - no reason to buy a Mustang with anything less than the V8. Can't afford a new GT just buy a used one.
You don't get it. The reason we HAVE V8 Mustangs and Camaros available for sale is because E36 M3-ton of six cylinder base models get sold. Otherwise the bean counters would have killed them a long time ago. I like that there are new Mustangs at dealerships so I'm not happy seeing the base model being undercut but losing a viable engine.
In reply to smokindav:
At the time (Feb 2013), only a 2010 and earlier 3 valve GT would have been cheaper. The 3.7 is as quick as the 3 valve v8s, so what's the advantage? There would be a number of disadvantages to buying used however.
What's the determining factor here? Performance? Sound? Other aesthetic considera tions?
It does demonstrate why the 3.7 won't be missed though. I've noticed that more often than not, aesthetics and social acceptance are more important to most buyers than functional considerations 
You'll need to log in to post.
