The Pure Joy of Driving....

gdb

shack wrote: »

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.

I'll admit to knowing very little about Mustangs or Ford in general, except that I like the older ones a lot! ( I drive GM) I still remember the ride a schoolmate gave me in his (I think) sleeper looking, Cobra Fairlane with a BIG motor!!:D

http://musclecars.howstuffworks.com/classic-muscle-cars/1969-ford-fairlane-cobra-428.htm

Jstas

The Cleveland engines' (Ford 335 V8) secret was the heads. They were CFM kings. They breathed heavy and the easiest way to make more power was a big intake with a couple of carbs on top. They were under rated in power and with a stroke as little as 3.0 inches, they could spin pretty fast as well. They made great drag racing engines because compared to the FE engine it was meant to replace, it was lighter and had a wider power band.

But those cylinder heads flowed massive numbers. They rival even today's aftermarket heads for the Windsor V8. So much so that the cost in attaching the 335 heads to a W engine is worth the power gain.

However, the 335 is inefficient compared to the W engine and required a good deal of RPM to hit it's power band. The Windsor engine is equally high strung but it's smaller size and wedge shaped combustion chambers gave it much more preferable low-speed behavioral characteristics. The Cleveland was a torque monster but peak levels were not reached until well above 2,000 RPM. This made it thirsty and the W engines hit peak levels around 1500-2000 RPM and up. Much better for street use and fuel economy. The Windsor was also lighter and more compact and fit the new unibody designs better. The 335 series was discontinued in 1982.

But, the 335 series produced the BOSS 351 which many believe is the most potent and rare BOSS engine. The only engine they rank higher is the even more rare 351C-4V HO. The one engine that gained the most fame was the "CobraJet" engine in the drag wars and that was a 335 series engine as well and it is much more available as well as holding much more aftermarket support.

Jstas

heiney9 wrote: »

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").

Thank you for doing you're own research so I wouldn't have to just to show you where you were incorrect.


But yeah, that VR6 intake system was quite impressive. The Corrado VR6 benefited the most from it. The platform handled like it was on rails to begin with and just swapping the intake pushed power over 200 ponies and many guys were doing ECM re-maps and pushing power up to around 300. It gave Porsche like power and handling for VW prices. That intake really let the VR6 breathe and turned it into a nasty little mill. I knew some guys that were using big turbo kits with that intake and taking advantage of the big flow numbers on the top end to make crazy power at the drag strip.

heiney9

Jstas wrote: »

Thank you for doing you're own research so I wouldn't have to just to show you where you were incorrect.


But yeah, that VR6 intake system was quite impressive. The Corrado VR6 benefited the most from it. The platform handled like it was on rails to begin with and just swapping the intake pushed power over 200 ponies and many guys were doing ECM re-maps and pushing power up to around 300. It gave Porsche like power and handling for VW prices. That intake really let the VR6 breathe and turned it into a nasty little mill. I knew some guys that were using big turbo kits with that intake and taking advantage of the big flow numbers on the top end to make crazy power at the drag strip.

I've often thought of spending the money on either an original VW VSR (used) or the Shrick VGi for my already mildly modded VR6 GTi, but the cost is pretty prohibitive as I'm just not into spending that kind of money on mods.

FWIW, the original 12V VR6's sound a lot sexier than the later 24V Vr6's with the VGI.

H9

concealer404

shack wrote: »

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.

The concept Probe and the production Probe are a bit different, though.

The production Probe is nothing more than a rebadged Mazda MX6. Ford didn't develop a single piece of it. That's what i was getting at lol. The production Probe wasn't developed to be the "Mazda Mustang."

But yes, i agree with you, had they followed through with the concept of what the Probe was to be before they axed it and went with a Mazda rip-off, the Mustang would no longer be around.

Nobody wants a FWD Mustang.

bobman1235

Gah, I had a VR6 in a '93 (I think) Passat and the thing was nothing but trouble. When it worked though, that thing screamed.

concealer404

As for the VRIS setup, yep, the KLDE/KLZE was one of the first to use it. Mazda's own BP also uses a variant of it, though it doesn't have quite the "kick" that the KL-series has. You can certainly hear it "switch" in my Escort, though.

heiney9

Yeah, 93 was the first US year, not unusual to have some issues. My 1997 GTi VR6 has been relatively trouble free. As is an absolute blast to drive. Chipped, short shift kit, Bilsteins/H&R, Tectonics Stainles/Borla exhaust, cold air intake...........it growls and while isn't a stop light burner feels faster than it is. The midrange torque and sound makes for a Fun Drive, which is what this thread is about.

Jstas

concealer404 wrote: »

The concept Probe and the production Probe are a bit different, though.

The production Probe is nothing more than a rebadged Mazda MX6. Ford didn't develop a single piece of it. That's what i was getting at lol. The production Probe wasn't developed to be the "Mazda Mustang."

But yes, i agree with you, had they followed through with the concept of what the Probe was to be before they axed it and went with a Mazda rip-off, the Mustang would no longer be around.

Nobody wants a FWD Mustang.

The Ford Probe/Mazda MX-6 are a joint venture. Ford did a great deal of drivetrain work on the car. They also built the cars in the North American market as well as the tooling.

Are you actually going to check your facts or are you going to keep talking out your hind-end?

concealer404

Jstas wrote: »

The Ford Probe/Mazda MX-6 are a joint venture. Ford did a great deal of drivetrain work on the car. They also built the cars in the North American market as well as the tooling.

Are you actually going to check your facts or are you going to keep talking out your hind-end?

Looks like i'm going to keep talking out of my hind end, because there sure isn't a single Ford part on my car.

What drivetrain work are you talking about, exactly?

It's a 100% mazda motor. It's a 100% mazda transmission. It's a 100% mazda chassis.

Not REAL sure what i'm missing here.

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.

Yes, the 88-92 Probe V6 used the Vulcan. Mated to the Mazda H-series transmission.

The 2.0 litre is absolutely NOT a Ford motor. It's the Mazda FS-DE.


The later GE chassis automatics, you could very well be right. I'll admit that i never bothered to research the automatics.

"Joint venture" in this case looks awfully like "Hey Mazda, we like your design. Can we put our own body panels on your car? In return for you doing all the design work, we'll assemble a few for you."

JPSmario

Jstas wrote: »

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

.

Maybe 20 years ago. 911 Turbos in the last 15 years or more have been well above 300 HP with fat torque curves and at least a couple of hundred pounds lighter. But Roushes are known to handle well.

Jstas

concealer404 wrote: »

Looks like i'm going to keep talking out of my hind end, because there sure isn't a single Ford part on my car.

What drivetrain work are you talking about, exactly?

It's a 100% mazda motor. It's a 100% mazda transmission. It's a 100% mazda chassis.

Not REAL sure what i'm missing here.

Yes, the 88-92 Probe V6 used the Vulcan. Mated to the Mazda H-series transmission.

The 2.0 litre is absolutely NOT a Ford motor. It's the Mazda FS-DE.

The later GE chassis automatics, you could very well be right. I'll admit that i never bothered to research the automatics.

"Joint venture" in this case looks awfully like "Hey Mazda, we like your design. Can we put our own body panels on your car? In return for you doing all the design work, we'll assemble a few for you."

Who are you getting your information from?

The Automatic transmission in the Gen1 Probes is a Ford 4EAT-G which is derived from a Mazda G4A-EL. The manual is a Mazda design, I'm not sure which one. I believe it's the G5M.

The Gen2 Probe used the G5M manual again. The Automatics were Ford's CD4E which Mazda also used and named the LA4A-EL. The other automatic was the GF4A-EL which was a G4A-EL that Ford and Mazda reworked, hence the F in the model name. It is essentially a G4A-EL with seven solenoids, a rotor type pump and no throttle cable. Consequently, these were design changes Ford proposed when trying to shoehorn the pig of a 4 speed in to the Probe chassis and when it was being considered for use in the Mondeo redesign in 1997.

The I4 in the Gen 1 was a Mazda engine in production. The pre-production engine was a Ford CVH. They used the Mazda engine in the production model but it wasn't ready for the concept/pre-production model. I missed that when I was looking for the history.

Just because you "don't have a single Ford part on your car" means that it's a Mazda. I promise you that my brother's 1990 Probe LX has plenty of Ford part numbers even on the ones that I know are Mazda parts. I've pieced it back together enough times to know.

I have found no evidence of a "Mazda H-series transmission". I have no idea what you are talking about.

The joint venture was not just for the Probe/MX-6/626. The joint venture also involved the Mercury Cougar and how Mazda got access to the Mondeo chassis to develop the GF platform in 1997 for use on the 626 and Capella. Also, with Mazda's sharing of technology, they gain access to the Ford Ranger and Ford Explorer, sold as the B2300/B4000 pickup truck and the Mazda Navajo SUV. Ford originally received a version of the original Mazda B-series to sell as the Ford Courier back in 1979.

But honestly, you're too young to have even been alive when the Ford/Mazda joint venture started. You are harping on recent developments and the relationship goes back to 1979. Ford saved Mazda's bacon with a huge cash infusion and owned 7%. By 1997, Ford hand increased it's stake to 33.9%, a controlling interest in Mazda. Mazda is effectively Ford when a controlling interest like that is established. Ford appointed Henry Wallace to lead Mazda and they restructured the entire company. Ford bailed on 20% two years ago and Mazda bought back another 6.8%. Ford's ownership is down to around 5% but they still have technology agreements in place.

All of your precious Mazda parts you keep harping on were developed post 1979. Many use established Ford parts and improved upon them. Ford and Mazda shared the efforts and saved themselves about a billion dollars in independent R&D costs over the years. You are trying so hard to find some identity that your precious Mazda is not a Ford nor does it have any Ford parts that you can't see the whole picture. Your Mazda is a Ford. Just as my brother's Ford is a Mazda. They are one in the same and separated only by badging. Both companies had hands in developing them as well as numerous other vehicles like the Ford Explorer.

billbillw

Yes, yes, yes, Mazda and Ford have shared parts and re-badged vehicles for each other. No surprise there. Everybody knows it. About the only thing that Mazda has that is pure Mazda is the rotary engine. Even my '08.5 Mazdaspeed3, built in Yamaguchi, Japan, has many Ford parts in it.

Drop it already.

RuSsMaN

George, Shack, kudos to you sirs.

ohskigod

bobman1235 wrote: »

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

because it's pure win. too bouncy? put a watts link on...youre done. My stang with the link (and granted, many oher suspension mods) is fantastic. I can supercharge it and know my rear end will not grenade itself.

fatchowmein

RuSsMaN wrote: »

I tell you what, I'll just call it FUN. What a GREAT car.

I spend 2-4 hours a day in pure wretched commuting around DFW but I bet suffering in bumper to bumper traffic is a lot less miserable in that beauty. Thanks, Russ, that mid-life crissis feeling is kick'n in.

sucks2beme

Yeah, it's nice, But make mine a Shelby Mustang!
Now, if work would just stop laying people off every other month,
it would be mine.

Jstas

fatchowmein wrote: »

I spend 2-4 hours a day in pure wretched commuting around DFW but I bet suffering in bumper to bumper traffic is a lot less miserable in that beauty. Thanks, Russ, that mid-life crissis feeling is kick'n in.

Not when you gotta keep pushing that clutch in for 2-4 hours.

[Deleted User]

The stage one Roush Mustang is nothing really but a name. I have owned many Mustangs. This was during the time of the VR4's, Supra's, Z's and to be quite honest, the Saleens were that much better. Unless you had that Cobra R version with the 351 displacement during the 90s, the 4.6's from 96 and on were nothing. My five point oh 95 Mustang would blow them away. The great thing is upgrading was cheap, but I spent more on maintaining the thing than upgrading. I had several fox bodies. The new Cobras had problems during the mid 90s, the Independent Rear Suspension was nice though. Anyhow, displacement over rpm's anyday.

Halen

billbillw

Jstas wrote: »

Not when you gotta keep pushing that clutch in for 2-4 hours.

I do it just about every day. 1.5-2 hours in the morning, 45 minutes in the evening.

Its still more enjoyable in the MS3 than it would be in a boring sedan w/auto.

concealer404

Jstas wrote: »

Who are you getting your information from?

My car, the MX6/Probe forums, the Mazda dealership, Mazdaspeed (the division that supplies my parts at a discount because i use the car for sanctioned motorsports events) (Come see me at the Grassroots Motorsports $2010 Challenge!!!! /shameless plug), etc etc etc

The I4 in the Gen 1 was a Mazda engine in production. The pre-production engine was a Ford CVH. They used the Mazda engine in the production model but it wasn't ready for the concept/pre-production model. I missed that when I was looking for the history.

Right. It's the F2/F2T. That's not what i was talking about. YOU said that the 2nd gen Probe/MX6 4-cylinder motor was a Ford 4-banger. No. It's not. It's the Mazda FS-DE. The only Ford motor used throughout the entire run of the Probe/MX6/626 was the Vulcan in the 88-92 Probe V6.

Just because you "don't have a single Ford part on your car" means that it's a Mazda. I promise you that my brother's 1990 Probe LX has plenty of Ford part numbers even on the ones that I know are Mazda parts. I've pieced it back together enough times to know.

Well of course it's going to have Ford part numbers... It was sold by ford and supported by their parts departments. They gotta order them somehow.

I have found no evidence of a "Mazda H-series transmission". I have no idea what you are talking about.

Then you need to look harder. I'll give you a hint. I have a Mazda "H" transmission in my car. There's some evidence. Your brother's car has a "G" transmission if it's a manual. There were two different types of manual transmissions used in the 1st gen MX6/Probe, and three total variants of those. One "G" transmission, and two "H" transmissions.



The joint venture stuff. Yes. I'm well aware of. To the best of my knowledge, the only designs that Mazda "stole" (simply for lack of a better word, i'm not insinuating foul play) are the trucks. The rest of the shared platforms are predominately Mazda design. The Escort and the Probe are just two of the examples.

But i also asked you tell me exactly what hand Ford had in the drivetrain of the Probe. (Barring the Probe V6 Vulcan ****.) You haven't done so.


Anyways, i'm sorry for the threadjack about the Mustang... semi on topic, but not really. So, i'm done dick-waving, and i'll go ahead and repopulate my IL. My mistake, and i apologize.

Sincerely,

Ben. Proud owner of two Mazdas. (1990 MX6 GT, 1993 Escort GT.)

Jstas

concealer404 wrote: »

My car, the MX6/Probe forums, the Mazda dealership, Mazdaspeed (the division that supplies my parts at a discount because i use the car for sanctioned motorsports events) (Come see me at the Grassroots Motorsports $2010 Challenge!!!! /shameless plug), etc etc etc



Right. It's the F2/F2T. That's not what i was talking about. YOU said that the 2nd gen Probe/MX6 4-cylinder motor was a Ford 4-banger. No. It's not. It's the Mazda FS-DE. The only Ford motor used throughout the entire run of the Probe/MX6/626 was the Vulcan in the 88-92 Probe V6.



Well of course it's going to have Ford part numbers... It was sold by ford and supported by their parts departments. They gotta order them somehow.




Then you need to look harder. I'll give you a hint. I have a Mazda "H" transmission in my car. There's some evidence. Your brother's car has a "G" transmission if it's a manual. There were two different types of manual transmissions used in the 1st gen MX6/Probe, and three total variants of those. One "G" transmission, and two "H" transmissions.



The joint venture stuff. Yes. I'm well aware of. To the best of my knowledge, the only designs that Mazda "stole" (simply for lack of a better word, i'm not insinuating foul play) are the trucks. The rest of the shared platforms are predominately Mazda design. The Escort and the Probe are just two of the examples.

But i also asked you tell me exactly what hand Ford had in the drivetrain of the Probe. (Barring the Probe V6 Vulcan ****.) You haven't done so.


Anyways, i'm sorry for the threadjack about the Mustang... semi on topic, but not really. So, i'm done dick-waving, and i'll go ahead and repopulate my IL. My mistake, and i apologize.

Sincerely,

Ben. Proud owner of two Mazdas. (1990 MX6 GT, 1993 Escort GT.)

No, sorry, I'm done with you. I have given you pages upon pages of explanation and evidence from actual, REAL resources and it's clear that your only intent is to attempt to have a sparring match with me over this. You keep living in your own twisted little reality, kid. It's clear that you have no clue what you are talking about and are just taking guesses and regurgitating what other misinformed people have told you. I don't know why I bother to waste my time on you, you're a lost cause.

concealer404

Lol!!!!

For the record, the "H" transmission was used in the 1st gen MX6 GT Turbo, the 1st gen Probe GT Turbo, and the 1st gen Probe V6 (different bellhousing, same gearset), because the "G" transmission is not strong enough to cope with the output of any of those three cars, let alone the output of my particular car.

There's your evidence.

billbillw

You are both acting like 'kids'. Way to derail a nice thread.

concealer404

I apologize. I'm going to send a message to Doro or someone to see if we can just get all of that deleted. Started out on topic with the concept Probe stuff, then just spiraled after my information was attacked. My fault.

Mustangs are better anyways.

nooshinjohn

concealer404 wrote: »

Mustangs are better anyways.

Camaro's RULE!!!:D:p and they do things out of the factory that Ford has to hire out because they cannot get it right to start with!;):cool:

concealer404

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Camaro's RULE!!!:D:p and they do things out of the factory that Ford has to hire out because they cannot get it right to start with!;):cool:

I agree with you, but i'm VERY interested to see what the 2012 Mustang is like. Sounds like it won't be outgunned much anymore.

billbillw

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Camaro's RULE!!!:D:p and they do things out of the factory that Ford has to hire out because they cannot get it right to start with!;):cool:

Actually, the last time Car and Driver (July 09) tested a factory Camaro SS vs a factory Mustang GT, the Mustang took top honors. They actually had a Challenger RT in the mix too.

The Mustang might be down slightly on power, but what do you expect when it only has a 4.6L. The Mustang out charmed and out handled the Camaro. Better gas mileage too.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparisons/09q3/2010_chevy_camaro_ss_vs._2010_ford_mustang_gt_2009_dodge_challenger_r_t-comparison_tests/2010_ford_mustang_gt_page_4

shack

nooshinjohn wrote:

Camaro's RULE!!!:D:p and they do things out of the factory that Ford has to hire out because they cannot get it right to start with!;):cool:

I guess that explains why GM shut down Camaro production for 9 years. I guess that also explains why the "Brand New" 2010 Camaro was out-sold by the "dated" 2010 Mustang for 2009.

Thanks to a good December, the 2010 Ford Mustang topped the new 2010 Chevrolet Camaro in sales in 2009. Ford sold a total of 66,623 Mustangs while Chevrolet sold 61,618 Camaros.

nooshinjohn

billbillw wrote: »

The Mustang might be down slightly on power, but what do you expect when it only has a 4.6L. The Mustang out charmed and out handled the Camaro. Better gas mileage too.

There is no accounting for some peoples tastes...

shack wrote: »

I guess that explains why GM shut down Camaro production for 9 years. I guess that also explains why the "Brand New" 2010 Camaro was out-sold by the "dated" 2010 Mustang for 2009.

I agree, it was a stupid move that was forced by other stupid move GM has made over the years...