The Pure Joy of Driving....

RuSsMaN

Ok, so a lady friend of mine wants to sell her car, so she called me. It's not just any car, it's a 2005 Roush Mustang. Granted, not a supercar, my dad won't let me call it a hotrod, he says hotrods have Flatheads. Can I call it muscle car? It's not a 72 Chevelle LS6, or a 69 Hemi Cuda.

I tell you what, I'll just call it FUN. What a GREAT car. I've driven a V-6 'new' Mustang, and for what it was, it was decent, but it wasn't fun. This car is just that, FUN. The closest I've been recently to this kind of pure driving joy was with the Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4 Twin Turbo I sold for the same lady a couple years back. (yeah, she's single and has a small, semi exotic car collection) I think that the VR4 was actually faster, but man it didn't make me smile like the Roush Mustang does.

It's not that fast, compared to other vehicles I've been lucky enough to drive, but it's plenty fast enough. It FEELS fast, even just loafing through the gears. The drivers view over the broad hood, and the old style, round analog gauges really set the mood. I'm not sure what the Roush mods (level one) are exactly, mostly interior and exterior trim, and some minor intake / exhaust work - but it WORKS. Don't get me wrong, she will dig, you can smoke em in 1st, squeal em in 2nd, and get a solid chirp in 3rd. It has a nice tight clutch, and a short throw shifter that is in the perfect spot (for me anyway).

The tone is right on. I personally would probably make it louder, but at highway speed, or cruising it's quiet enough to carry on a normal conversation and not even notice it - but put the spurs to her, the intake and exhaust howl as the front end lifts slightly like a speedboat on a smooth lake, and is perfectly balanced.

It may not handle the best, it may not win any drag races, but let's just say, I'm literally thinking of errands to run, just for the pure joy of driving it. The sound, the view, the feel - what a GREAT car. Sadly to say, coming to an online auction near you (any tips for stall tactics welcomed )

Cheers,
Russ

(yes, she had road rash on the front spoiler, actually paid a local Ford dealer over $1000 to repaint the front end, 1 Texas summer later right after the warranty expired, it started to peel)

billbillw

Hell yes! Roush Mustangs are great! They usually have really good handling (for a solid rear axle pony car). I think they might have different stages of mods though. I know some of them are downright wicked fast with supercharged 500hp at foot. I'm guessing that one might be a milder one.

RuSsMaN

Yeah, this isn't the 'level 3' supercharged 427, it's the slightly modded stock 4.6 litre GT, but it's still a ton of fun.

I wish I had this in highschool, I might be president by now, or at least married to a **** star.

BIZILL

call it whatever you will. so long as it's fun, i could care less if it was a hopped up pinto. give me some fun. after owning my first truck i swore i'd never buy another car as long as i live. but my '94 z-28 was pretty fun back when i had it, but i'd bet that '05 roush is more so.

bobman1235

billbillw wrote: »

They usually have really good handling (for a solid rear axle pony car)

Wait, the newer body style Mustangs still have a solid rear axle? Why?

concealer404

bobman1235 wrote: »

Wait, the newer body style Mustangs still have a solid rear axle? Why?

It's like running around with your shoelaces tied together!


It's because the drag racers prefer it. Or so Ford says. Oh, and "Because it's not broke, we won't "fix" it."

Can't blame them. Remember the Cobra IRS debacle? That was utter trash.

Fireman32

Sweet ride Russ. I loved riding around in Lou's mustang.

Systems

I'm with your dad:)

George Grand

RuSsMaN wrote: »

I wish I had this in highschool, I might be president by now, or at least married to a **** star.

Married to your hand maybe.

doggie750

hmmmmm, you want fun? Try the 2wheels!.....buy yourself a BIKE. GIXXER rules.

concealer404

doggie750 wrote: »

hmmmmm, you want fun? Try the 2wheels!.....buy yourself a BIKE. GIXXER rules.

Yikes dude... i almost die enough everytime i drive to work with all the idiots on the road, enclosed in my metal cage with 4 wheels.

If i bought a crotch rocket, i would only ride it on backroads.

RuSsMaN

George Grand wrote: »

Married to your hand maybe.

Seriously George?

Me in this car, freshly combed mullet. You in a Caprice Classic, head full of Crisco.

Who would Jenny McCarthy leave with? Yeah, I said it.

shack

RuSsMaN wrote: »

Seriously George?

Me in this car, freshly combed mullet. You in a Caprice Classic, head full of Crisco.

Who would Jenny McCarthy leave with? Yeah, I said it.

Tiger Woods?

Jstas

There is nothing wrong with a live axle, they can be made to perform quite well and they have superior strength to an IRS 3rd member.

A live axle isn't always the greatest on the street but on a race track where it's smooth and fast, a live axle can perform just as well as an IRS. It performs better on a drag strip which is where most Mustangs see race duties.


Roush, in 2005, had 3 stages. Stage 1, 2 and 3. They also had limited edition models.

Stage 1 had
- 17-inch wheels
- sport springs
- revised, side mounted exhaust
- Roush body kit (air dam, side skirts and wing)

Stage 2 had
- Revised, side mounted exhaust
- Roush body kit (air dam, side skirts and wing)
- 18-inch wheels
- Bilstein shocks
- High-rate springs
- stiffer anti-roll bars
- revised control arms

Roush claimed the Stage 2 had performance numbers on par with a 911 Turbo

Stage 1 and Stage 2 could be had on V6 or V8 models.

Stage 3 had
- all the Stage 1 and Stage 2 goodies that applied
- an Eaton supercharger
- revised intake manifold
- upgraded fuel systems (to handle the supercharger)
- air-to-water intercooler
- lighter flywheel (on the manual transmission only)

Stage 3 came in 3 packages, Sport, Rally and Premium.


The stock Mustang GT's 4.6L engine made 300 horsepower. Roush's exhaust system was good for 20-30 extra ponies, or at least that's what I've seen on dyno runs. The stage 1, which is likely what you have, is good for about 320 horsepower. It weighs a teensy bit less than the stock GT because there is half the exhaust system but it's only like 50 pounds. The cars could also be customized further with sticker and paint options not necessarily available on the stock Mustang.

With stock Mustang performance for the GT being around 13.5 seconds in the 1/4 mile and 0-60 times in the 4.9-5.0 second range the car was pretty stout to begin with. That's alot of performance for right around $26K. The Roush isn't much faster. Probably a 13.3 in the 1/4 mile but 0-60 times are not affected very much.

The Roush Stage 1 doesn't seem like much and it probably isn't but then again, Ford put out an impressive laundry list of gear on the Mustang to begin with in 2005. Aluminum 4.6L 3-valve SOHC V8 with variable camshaft timing, limited slip differentials with carbon fiber disc packs, the stronger Tremec TR-3650 with closer ratios and shorter throws, 31 spline axles with 3.55 gears in an 8.8 inch rear, stiffened suspension, 12.4 inch disc brakes...the list goes on. It sold very well and the Roush Stage 1 package gave it a bit more growl and and better handling with the Roush look so your Mustang stood out from the rest. The Shelby packages offered directly from Ford's SVT department were more potent but the Roush was more affordable. In 2007, when the Roush R models started coming out, Roush began handing Shelby their butt. Now we have balls-to-the-wall Mustangs galore to choose from with versions from SVT, Roush, Steeda, Shelby and Saleen, albeit used ones from Saleen but still potent nonetheless.

The nice thing is, Roush will still turn your Stage 1 in to a Stage 2 or 3. All you gotta do is give them a call. Your local Roush partnered Ford dealer can do the install work as well and it's warrantied like a new car.




The 3000GT VR4 might have felt faster because it was AWD and scooted off the line pretty good. But the twin-turbo, AWD version of the 3000GT was pretty porky, tipping the scales at around 3800-3900 pounds. It had about 300-320 horses and 325 pound feet of torque, similar numbers to the Roush you have. However, the Roush probably tips the scales right around 3300-3400 pounds and has much less driveline mass and unsprung weight. That 400-600 pound difference is like tying a fat guy to the trunk lid of the Roush and then another fat guy to the hood. The Roush likely handles better and is more responsive and it probably runs faster through the 1/4 mile too. I think the 3000GT beats it to 60 by a few tenths of a second though. 4.5-4.7 compared to the 4.9-5.0 for the Roush. And yes, I know what the 3000GT is and yes, I have driven one. It was my own "lady friend's" Dodge Stealth version but it was mechanically identical to the 3000GT.



If I were you, I'd ask her if I could purchase the Roush. The car is only a stage 1 so it's not super desirable but it does say Roush on it. Right now though, I wouldn't put blue book value over $20K and it's likely more like $17K-$18K. I doubt she will see much more than that at auction, she might see less given the way the market is.

Is it on the level of an LS6 Chevelle or a HEMI 'Cuda? Performance wise, it'll destroy either one in all but a drag race. Value wise, not even close. But it is a limited edition Mustang with a name with historical significance on it. Might not be worth much now but wait 20 years when current Mustangs get scarce and it'll be a valuable ride.

The Mustang was never really a "muscle car", it started the "pony car" craze and that's what it is. Mustangs and Camaros are Pony cars. Muscle Cars are usually sedans of the more economical variety in a 2 door sedan form. Then the manufacturer shoehorns the biggest engine they got under the hood and gives you a seatbelt to strap on for the ride. A Taurus SHO would be more like a Muscle Car than a Mustang is. But the Mustang defines a class of cars and it's tops. It beat all comers and shutdown the Camaro/Firebird and Dodge was never quite able to mount a formidable challenge. There was the 'Cuda/Challenger twins but they didn't quite compete with the Mustangs and F-bodies in anything more than a drag race. They were nose heavy and the Trans-Am challengers and 'Cudas didn't even use the HEMI because it was such a boat anchor. They ran a destroked and high strung version of the 340. So I wouldn't call the Mustang a Muscle Car. I'd call it a Pony Car which is just as good if not better.

billbillw

Wait...No more Saleens? I hadn't kept up with that. That was always my favorite of the bunch.

Oh, now I see. What happened. Sold to another company. Looks like they are coming out with a 2010 model, but I don't know if it will have the same engineering quality that the old ones had.

bobman1235

Jstas wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with a live axle, they can be made to perform quite well and they have superior strength to an IRS 3rd member.

A live axle isn't always the greatest on the street but on a race track where it's smooth and fast, a live axle can perform just as well as an IRS. It performs better on a drag strip which is where most Mustangs see race duties.

But the vast majority of Mustangs (not necessarily the Roush pimped ones, but stock "chumps like me buy them" ones) are never going to see track time, and are just going to be on the road. Going in a straight line fast is awesome but I think most normal people would prefer an IRS when driving on normal roads.

Then again, I can't remember the last time I drove a car with a live axle so I only know the basics and am talking out my ****, I was mostly just surprised.

madmax

I consider that a muscle car. Nice!
madmax

Jstas

bobman1235 wrote: »

But the vast majority of Mustangs (not necessarily the Roush pimped ones, but stock "chumps like me buy them" ones) are never going to see track time, and are just going to be on the road. Going in a straight line fast is awesome but I think most normal people would prefer an IRS when driving on normal roads.

Then again, I can't remember the last time I drove a car with a live axle so I only know the basics and am talking out my ****, I was mostly just surprised.

Most people only know what color they want their car to be.

Mustangs get beat on by people like that. Mustangs are affordable for the average joe. Find me a car from Europe or Japan with 300+ horsepower that can be had for just the high side of $26K. Good luck with that. A Mustang needs to be durable because it's affordable. The Cobra got away with it because it's price puts it out of the means of the average joe. Besides, the Cobra's IRS might have been a compromise to fit the body mount points but it was far from a "debacle". It worked out quite well and aside from axle hop at the drag strip causing the suspension to load and unload in a not so safe manner, it was buttoned down pretty well. Besides, anybody with a brain didn't get the Cobra for the drag strip. They bought the Mach 1 with the N/A 4.6L punching out an under-rated 320 horsepower. It had a live axle and could outrun the Cobra in a 1/4 mile because it was more effective at putting the power to the ground.

The live axle is stronger, much stronger than any IRS setup. That's why pickup trucks use them. They take abuse and don't need that much maintenance.

Besides, Ford has long been known to support their racers. They put out a Mustang and they know that people are going to race them. Hell, they put out the CobraJet package which is a purpose built drag car.

Just because people out there have the assumption that IRS is superior in every way doesn't mean it is. Even the original SVT Cobras back in 93 had a live axle and they were dominant on the race courses in amateur and professional series. The Cobra Rs in 93 and 95 were even more so.

Besides, the Shelby variants use a live axle now too because Carroll Shelby didn't want the IRS because it can't handle the power of the GT500's engine.

Only bench racers on the Internet maintain that IRS is superior to live axle and anyone who uses a live axle is dumb. Don't be a bench racer.

The only benefits an IRS system has over a live axle is over bumps. Especially bumps in corners. Otherwise, an IRS is substantially heavier in the unsprung weight department, it is more delicate/fragile, more expensive to design/build/maintain and ride quality compared against a properly sprung and dampened live axle is so similar it's practically unnoticeable. For an example, see the Lincoln Town Car and other Panther platform variants.

billbillw

If properly setup, a rigid axle can do just as well or better than a IRS setup.

Car and Driver just compared the newest Roush Stage 3 .vs. the newest Lingenfelter Camaro SS. They actually found that the rigid axle Roush rode better on the streets than the IRS Camaro did. Of course, that won't always be true, but you can engineer/tune a rigid axle so that it rides/performs very well for street use.

shack

After the long run of the Fox body Mustangs (78-93) Ford had the idea to revamp the whole thing. HiPo, DOHC, multi valve V6, FWD, all independent suspension, etc, etc. The fairly loyal and vocal customer base got their attention and they decided to go with the SN-95 body (94-04), and gradually update the workhorse 5.0 to the new 4.6 modular motor (which they did in 96). It was the right choice. The "NEW" Mustang was renamed as the Probe...and we know how successful that was.

Ford's strategy with the Mustang is (and has been) to tweek the forumla that has worked for 45 years. Nothing radical (let the tuners like Shelby, Saleen, Roush, etc do that) and if it works...generally stay close to the concept as long as it works. It has also helped keep costs in line so they can sell Mustangs (lots of them) and make some money doing so. Ford played with the idea of a LRA and came to the conclusion that the solid rear axle worked just fine, it was basically bullet-proof and NOT CHANGING would in no way hurt sales.

Ford has made few mistakes with the Mustang which is why it is still around and still a viable platform 45 years later. Even those who claim the 74-78 Mustang II was a terrible mistake forget that it was probably the right car at the right time and they sold LOTS of them. When the time was right...here came the Fox body and the rest...is history.

concealer404

Well... i wouldn't use the Probe as a negative example.

The Probe was a great car in it's own right. Even though Ford really had no hand in it other than the body panels.

Mazda chassis, Mazda motor, Mazda transmission, Mazda suspension.

George Grand

She's leaving with you hands down, and bringing Jim C. along, which is exactly what you deserve.

shack

concealer404 wrote: »

Well... i wouldn't use the Probe as a negative example.

The Probe was a great car in it's own right. Even though Ford really had no hand in it other than the body panels.

Mazda chassis, Mazda motor, Mazda transmission, Mazda suspension.

It is relevant in that it WAS to become the Mustang.

I don't care how good (subjectively) the vehicle that became the Probe may have been...bottom line...had they followed through with that plan there is a good chance that the Mustang would no longer be a production vehicle. The sales of the Probe were woeful and even badging it as a Mustang would not have saved it because it was not a product the loyal Mustang customer base would have purchased.

gdb

You want some Mustang fun? Get you a 69 Shelby or Mach One with a big block under the hood. There's usually several for sale at the Carlisle events in PA for not too much $$$. Lots of haulers from Texas attend also!:)



http://www.carsatcarlisle.com/ce/index.asp

Jstas

shack wrote: »

After the long run of the Fox body Mustangs (78-93) Ford had the idea to revamp the whole thing. HiPo, DOHC, multi valve V6, FWD, all independent suspension, etc, etc. The fairly loyal and vocal customer base got their attention and they decided to go with the SN-95 body (94-04), and gradually update the workhorse 5.0 to the new 4.6 modular motor (which they did in 96). It was the right choice. The "NEW" Mustang was renamed as the Probe...and we know how successful that was.

Your dates are off by about 10 years.

The Probe started in the late 70's and had 5 different concepts starting in 1979 through to 1984 and named Probe I through V. However, after the oil embargo lifted and gas prices plummeted, Mustang enthusiasts expressed great displeasure in the "new" Mustang which was the Prove IV in 1982. Ford actually listened and took the Fox-platform based Mustang from 1982 and evolved the Mustang for 1983. They shelved the Probe design and continued to develop the concept, releasing another one in 1984. The Mustang soldiered on to the present day and the Probe was slated for released in the late 80's.

The Probe was released in '89 on the Mazda GD platform and replaced the Escort EXP in the lineup. It came with one of 3 engines. The 2.2L Mazda F2 engine, the 3.0L Ford Vulcan V6 and the 2.2L turbocharged Mazda F2T. It sold moderately through 1992. In 1992, Mazda trashed the GD platform and made the MX-6 on the GE platform. Since the Probe, MX-6 and 626 were kissing cousins, Ford followed suit and updated the MX-6 with Ford sheetmetal. Both were released for the 1993 model year. The engine options changed as well with the 2.0L 4 cylinder which I believe was sourced from Ford of Europe but it might be a Mazda engine. It also had a 2.5L V6 which was a Mazda KL-DE.

The interesting thing about the KL-DE is that it was one of the first production engines to use the variable Resonance Induction System which used two sets of runners with air flow guided by a computer controlled set of butterfly valves. It used long and short runners and switched between them to gain optimum power for high and low RPM's. It worked well enough but made the engine sound raspy and buzzy.

Jstas

concealer404 wrote: »

Well... i wouldn't use the Probe as a negative example.

The Probe was a great car in it's own right. Even though Ford really had no hand in it other than the body panels.

Mazda chassis, Mazda motor, Mazda transmission, Mazda suspension.

That's a load of buffalo biscuits. All Probes used Ford automatic transmissions and the V6 from 89-92 was Ford's workhorse Vulcan V6 and the 93-97 Probe used a Ford 4 cylinder engine. The Probe, MX-6 and 626 were products of the Ford-Mazda joint venture called AutoAlliance International and it's still in operation. Ford's Auto Alliance plants in North America also built the Probe and Mazdas sold here. It currently builds the Mazda 6 and the Ford Mustang.

gdb

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VoqK2X1OA7Q&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VoqK2X1OA7Q&hl=en_US&fs=1&&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>



<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/n2_ylNRz65Y&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/n2_ylNRz65Y&hl=en_US&fs=1&&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

shack

gdb wrote:

You want some Mustang fun? Get you a 69 Shelby or Mach One with a big block under the hood. There's usually several for sale at the Carlisle events in PA for not too much $$$. Lots of haulers from Texas attend also!:)

While the CJs (the 390 was a station wagon motor) are certainly lots of fun for seat slamming acceleration, the small blocks were much better motors for the 69-70 Mustangs IMO. Both the 351 Windsor and Clevelands offered a much better balanced package of performance. Both could deliver much more HP over stock if one wanted to do a little wrenching (a little easier with the C block) and save a lot of weight over the front end which helped handling quite a bit. The Boss 302 may be the best factory built Mustang of the first several generations. The lesser known 1971 Boss 351 was could have been a great car...but that body was just too big. Even the little 302 (same block as the predecessor 289 and the later 5.0) could be tweeked a bunch and made nice road cars, not just straight line ponys. The nice thing is the small blocks are much cheaper.

And I am not biased because I own a 69 Mach I with a 351W 4v and a 69 Coupe with a 302....not at all.

exalted512

My best friend has a SVT Cobra...I haven't got the chance to drive it...and he won't race me yet
-Cody

shack

There was still plans as late as 88 for the design that became the probe Probe to replace the Fox Mustang. Ford relented (again) and made minor changes to the motor (MAF in particular) to help with fuel mileage and started designing the SN-95 which became a reality for the 94 model year.

heiney9

Jstas wrote: »

The interesting thing about the KL-DE is that it was one of the first production engines to use the variable Resonance Induction System which used two sets of runners with air flow guided by a computer controlled set of butterfly valves. It used long and short runners and switched between them to gain optimum power for high and low RPM's. It worked well enough but made the engine sound raspy and buzzy.

Perhaps for the US market. VW's VR6 motor in Europe had a short production run, IIRC, and used Variable Resonance Induction called the VSR. Eventually it was deemed to expensive for the American market and it was then only available throught Volkswagen Motor Sports.

The original VW produced VSR intake brings big bucks now and can used with all VR6 12V motors. Schrick Tuning produced a replica based on the original VW design called a VGI (Variable Geometery Intake)

Well I just wrote this whole thing up and then did a Google search and realized the VSR never made it into actual production.

Interesting nonetheless, even if a little off topic.

The Volkswagen Group VR6 engine was introduced in Europe by Volkswagen Passenger Cars in 1991, in the Passat and Corrado; and in North America the following year. The Passat, Passat Variant (estate/wagon), and US-specification Corrado used the original 2.8 litre design; the European-specification Corrado and the 4WD Passat Syncro received a 2.9 litre version with 140 kilowatts (190 PS; 188 bhp). This version also had a free flowing 6 centimetres (2.4 in) (2.5 in) catalytic converter, sharper camshafts, 4 bars (58 psi) fuel pressure regulator, enlarged inlet manifold, and larger throttle body.

The 2.9 litre engine, as destined for the Corrado, was originally designed to benefit from a dual-tract variable-length inlet manifold - called the VSR (German: "Variables SaugRohr"), and made by Pieronberg for Volkswagen Motorsport. This gave extra low-down torque, but was deleted before production on cost grounds, and was instead offered as an aftermarket option. This design was later sold to Schrick, who redesigned it and offered it as the Schrick VGI ("Variable Geometry Intake").

In 1999 the VR6 offered Variable Intake Geometry. It can be a rather poor design as the bearings in the "flapper valve's" wear out and rattle like a sumbitch.

Sorry for the derail.

My buddy has an '08 Mustang GT 5sp and while I have never been a huge Mustang fan his is very nice and a blast to drive. As fun as my modded VR6 GTi. Ford got the essence right with this series Mustangs and the Special Editions, etc. just make something already really good that much better. I still doubt I'd own one, but if I did it would be the newer style, etc.

H9