By on November 17, 2014

The All-new Shelby GT350 Mustang CGI image

“If you want a world class sports car with the following attributes – an iconic horse on the badge, a high-revving 500+ hp naturally aspirated V8 with a flat plane crank, massive Brembo brakes and a manual transmission, you have to buy a Ford. Not a Ferrari.”

-TTAC contributor David Walton on the new Ford Shelby GT350. Discuss.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

145 Comments on “Quote Of The Day: America, F*** Yeah...”


  • avatar
    DeadWeight

    I HATE photo angles of vehicles like the one above. They’re useless and, worse, always deceptive.

    They’d be of great help if half the population took helicopters or jets to works.

    Elroy! Stop the crazy thing!

    • 0 avatar
      hubcap

      Jeez,

      If you took a jet to work the only time you’d get that view is when you pull your GT350 up, jump out, and take a seat in your plane. I can see the helicopter thing though or being higher than the first story in any building.

      Or being on a particularly tall horse.

      Or an elephant. Even better a war elephant.

    • 0 avatar
      gottacook

      Oddly enough, in my case the angle was deceptive in a good way – I saw the top half of the screen first (i.e., the rear three-quarter view of the car) and thought “That’s a first-generation Aston Martin Vanquish.” A beautiful car to be reminded of.

    • 0 avatar
      cirats

      Well do you prefer the photos from angles from which you’d only see the car if you were rolling around on the ground (usually within about 3 feet of the car), which seem to account for about 95% of all automobile photos?? I get your point, but you’re much more likely to see a car from the angle presented here; e.g., looking out a second story window or over a bridge or something.

    • 0 avatar

      Raymond Loewy seems to have liked presenting his designs with a slightly elevated view. It gives you a better idea how the shapes of the car work together. There’s a reason why most things that are designed have an aerial or plan view rendered at one time or another.

      http://www.autogiftgarage.com/carculture/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Loewy-with-53-Stude.jpg
      http://www.galerievivid.com/foto12/raymond_loewy_starliner.jpg
      http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/06/17/automobiles/17LOEWY1/17LOEWY1-articleLarge.jpg

    • 0 avatar
      sportyaccordy

      Or if any segment of the population had the following unlikely combination

      – a driveway
      – a multistory home

      But you have never been one to wait to complain about something.

  • avatar
    Hummer

    5.2L?
    IRS?
    (D)OHC?

    America? Where?
    Yawn much?

    More like “France, **** yea.
    Small engines, compromises, and inferior technology”

    • 0 avatar
      Ubermensch

      You forgot to add “Thanks Obama!”

    • 0 avatar
      hubcap

      I’m curious.

      What size engine, what type of suspension, and what method of cam actuation would make this an “American” car in your eyes?

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Personally I’m an OHV fan myself, although OHC is technically more efficient. I find a vast difference in driving my cars with OHV and OHC both in low rpm and quick acceleration situations. I can’t speak for others but a ‘Murican “feeling” car should be OHV, IMO.

        • 0 avatar
          Fordson

          Come on…there is nothing in the method of valve actuation that dictates that the engine will make more torque at lower rpm or more hp at higher rpm.

          It’s all in the cam profiles…not whether or not the cams are mounted in the head acting more or less directly on the valves or in the block actuating the valves via pushrod.

          Take a look at the OHV 7.0L Z06 engine and the 6.2L OHC engine in a Ford Raptor. Tell me which one is making more torque at 2500 rpm.

          • 0 avatar
            jdogma

            “there is nothing in the method of valve actuation that dictates that the engine will make more torque at lower rpm or more hp at higher rpm” true, but the high inertia of pushrod designs prevents high rpm goals. They each have their place. On a weight to hp basis, pushrod wins and that is why aircraft have them. Pushrod also wins out with CG. When displacement is limited and hp is the goal, OHC wins.

      • 0 avatar
        David Walton

        +1, eagerly awaiting this reply

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        Are you actually serious with this question?
        As if it’s some kinda of conspiracy against the mustang?
        As if the car is actually aimed at impressing American buyers?

        This is no different as if you had said the exact same thing for the fiesta. It’s original focus(non intentional usage) is not the American audience, to imply it is quintessentially American is blasphemy.

        • 0 avatar
          David Walton

          Still eagerly awaiting an actual answer to the question; you’ve got some explainin’ to do after both of your nonsensical posts here.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            Lemme re type all of this…

            There’s nothing nonsensical about anything I said, I’m going to call em where I see em, Not act like Ford pays me a nice stipend every week for every compliment I post.
            There’s nothing quintessentially American about a small engine in a muscle car, that (because of size) must be high strung. Losing the segment leading solid rear axle is also in poor taste. Look at the fullsize SUV market, the only entrants that still have reasonable sales, all have solid rear axles, the journalist praising these changes are usually incapable of understanding the differences other than knowing which one is what they have been told is supposedly better.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            @Hummer

            I’m with you on the future tiny motors in the Mustang if that’s your beef, but seriously though is a 5.x litre motor small?

          • 0 avatar
            stuki

            So, now; 5.2 liter engines are “small” for sports cars? Stupid me thought Honda kinda f’d up by making their S2000 engine too big when it went from a 2 to a 2.4

            And solid axles are segment “leading”….???

            Darnit, Hummy, there’s nothing more ‘Mericun than those ionic steam locomotives that helped win the West…… Now, that’s a real big engine and some real solid axles….

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            So now the Mustang is a sports car?
            News.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            It’s not a sports car, but isn’t an M3 a pony car?

          • 0 avatar
            3Deuce27

            “So now the Mustang is a sports car?” NO!

            It’s not a sports car, but isn’t an M3 a pony car?” NO! Not American. But it is Pony like.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            So what do you call the M3? And why not call the Mustang GT, GT350, GT500 or Boss 302 the same? Also the M3 was a 4-door sedan.

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          “It’s original focus(non intentional usage) is not the American audience”

          OK, so tell me what other country a 5.2L, nearly 16-foot, 3800-lb. coupe is intended for.

          Hint: The only other market where more than a tiny handful of people buy engines that big is the Middle East, and they don’t care about coupes. Everywhere else in the world that is wealthy enough for somewhat normal people to afford a Mustang, a 5.2L motor subjects you to so much in taxes as to not be worth it.

          The idea that this car isn’t for America is absurd. Americans aren’t all troglodytes who think the best car ever made was the ’68 Hemi Charger.

          • 0 avatar
            3Deuce27

            Troglodyte speaks_ The 440 Charger kicked Hemi butt in acceleration because of greater torque production down low. The Hemi had a higher top end due to late torque production because of better breathing due to the cam profile and a higher compression and a little better burn rate. Both produced the same torque(OEM) with multiple carburetors, though, with a different delivery profile. In reality, the 440 produced much more torque.

            I was never, ever, beat by a Hemi at the drags in my 68′ 440″ Charger RT, with or without the Six Pack.

        • 0 avatar
          Sigivald

          … who is it aimed at impressing, if not American buyers?

          It sure *seems* reasonably impressive, as such things go.

          (I’m not the market, because I don’t like muscle cars and coupes; but if I didn’t mind two doors I’d totally be considering a *base* Mustang as a next car.)

        • 0 avatar
          jdogma

          American cars never have followed a formula as you suggest. The Corvette had IRS in 1963, we were the first to turbocharge a production car, we have had rear and mid engined cars. While pushrod engines make sense where displacement is not an issue, solid rear axles are a poor compromise for almost anything except bottom feeder cheap cars. Especially for high hp applications where they load one rear wheel more than the other under acceleration. When roads get rough – and our roads are getting worse – they really suck.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Back in the early ’60s, IRS had all the advantages. And live axles had leaf springs. Keep in mind tires were skinny with tall sidewalls. So keeping the both wheels parallel to the pavement was a none issue.

            Fast forward to today’s super wide wheels and 30 series sidewalls, live axles have slowly come back with the advantage at the track.

            IRS gives you weird camber and toe when pushed hard and deep into turn. And with hard braking or accelerating. Or any combination thereof. The dramatically limits contact patch. Plus dampeners can be tuned to minimize the effects of live axle unsprung weight.

            Given the same car dynamics, and layout, live axles have the ultimate advantage. Check the M3 vs the Boss 3O2. Very similar cars in every way. It embarrassed the M3 quite handily.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Back in the early ’60s, IRS had all the advantages. Live axles had leaf springs. And tires were skinny with tall s!dewalls. There was hardly a need to keep the wheels parallel to the pavement.

            Fast forward to today’s super w!de wheels and 30 series s!dewalls. IRS contact patch is severely diminished when pushed hard and deep into the corners. In combination with hard braking or accelerating, compounds it. It gives you weird geometry camber and toe.

            Dampener tuning can minimize the effects of live axle unsprung weight.

            Given the same dynamics and layout, live axles have the advantage at the track. The M3 and Boss 302 are very similar in every way. And the M3 got beaten ugly at the track. Why do you think that is?

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Ford has been using OHC since the Mod motor was introduced over twenty years ago, this is nothing new. I also believe a 5.2 in the Mustang is pretty wicked, something like that probably won’t accept an 8.0L and doesn’t really need it given its mission. If you want to “WTF” something its the tiny motors in the gigantic pickups, Ford does not appear to have screwed up the Mustang, yet.

      • 0 avatar
        David Walton

        Since when is a 5.0+ liter engine small?

        How many French cars currently on sale exceed 5.0 liters of displacement?

        Veyron (questionably French), but what else?

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          That’s the point, the only people that should be excited about this are those use to small engines like this, but here you are acting like its a 9.7L BBF

          Icky, Doesn’t matter what the original had, technology carries on, controlling detonation is technology no matter if you seem to harken everything your against as some 17th century invention.

      • 0 avatar
        3Deuce27

        Reg; “Ford has been using OHC”_ in a V8. Ford has used OHC architecture in several engines before its use in a production V8.

    • 0 avatar
      MrIcky

      You’re on crack. The original gt350 was a 289 iirc. V8’s in this size range have been around forever in America.

      And their are only 3 things a live axle does better than IRS: Drag racing (ok, maybe a point, but not for the 350), Towing (ummmm, no), and articulation (ummmm, no).

      Updating a car to current standards doesn’t make it a communist plot.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        You forgot live axles are optimal for the circuit track. Are YOU on crack?

        • 0 avatar
          jdogma

          “live axles are optimal for the circuit track” False. Wherever circle track rules allow IRS, there are no solid axles.

        • 0 avatar
          wmba

          Live axles are optimal for the circuit?

          Quick, tell Formula One they’ve been on the wrong track for 55 years. And they only changed from De Dion rear ends to IRS.

          The antedeluvian attitudes I read here about reminiscences of old two valve pushrod engines are just laughable as well.

          But not surprising. The usual old warhorse tales from the usual luddites.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Anything mid or rear engine rules out live axles. Those sorta force IRS. Drrrr.

            So which is more important? Mid engine or keeping optimal contact patch? There’s a trade off for everything. Front engine race cars based on production street cars force IRS, because they don’t start off as race cars. Impossible to add a live axle to an IRS car. So that doesn’t leave many front engine, dedicated racers. Or any. The Caterham is known to run the De Deon solid axle.

      • 0 avatar
        Fordson

        Really. Now I have to dislike a NA engine making 100 hp/liter in order to be American?

      • 0 avatar

        And before the “Windsor” V8 engine was a 289 (later increased to 302, 327 and 351) it was a 260, and, when first introduced, it had just 221 cubic inches of displacement.

        Back in the day, very few pony cars had big block engines. The AMC Javelin and AMX had a bit of an advantage because AMC’s V8 was sort of a mid-block design, a little heavier than the small blocks from the Big 3, but at 390-402 CI, it was lighter than big blocks of the same displacement.

        I’d be willing to make a small wager that most of the V8 engines installed in American cars from 1960-1975 were 350 cubic inches or smaller.

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      ?
      The OHV 2v pushrod motor’s time is coming to an end, maybe not as quickly as the log axle did in the back of the Mustang but its coming.

      http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/engine/1425-jon-kaases-ford-four-valve-mod-motor/

      I post this often since its a 4v motor on par displacement wise as its push rod competition so cube for cube its on a fairly even standing.

      The 4v Kasse motor had more average torque compared to its 2v competition allowing it to win (the top 3 finishers IIRC were Ford MOD based 4v engines).

      For 2014 Engine masters pretty much said don’t come back with your fancy DOHC 4v engine stuff.

  • avatar
    David Walton

    Made in Flat Rock in America by Americans?

    Engineered by Americans living in America?

  • avatar
    Mr Imperial

    I think it’s finally time that the Asian/European-loving crowd should be admitting that the traditional American brands are making some world class (and world-beating) cars. That “american” brands aren’t all junk (ahem, Jeremy Clarkson).

    -Dodge Hellcat Charger/Challenger-you want 700+ HP? First time ever that one doesn’t buy a car with Lamborghini/Ferrari/Bugatti or some other exotic nameplate.

    -Cadillac CTS-V and ATS-V. Better in some aspects than a M-series or AMG badged car. Honestly, 10 years ago, ever thought that there would be a discussion?

    -Chevy Camaro Z-28 and the Mustang GT Laguna Seca edition-honest to God track special beasts.

    -C7 Corvette (in all the special flavors) – faster than a Porsche and Ferrari, and will outcorner it.

    -Dodge Viper and its latest iteration-the beast is now more “civilized” than before, and like the ‘Vette, can out-do the exotics.

    Yes, not 100% made in USA, blah blah blah…..but the world today is a global economy-there’s no going back to that in the Automotive industry (and manufacturing in general).

    • 0 avatar

      You forgot the Focus/Fiesta ST and the Jeep SRT. This is truly the golden age of the American sports car.

      • 0 avatar
        David Walton

        Agreed, although there’s at least one that we’re missing:

        I would personally enjoy seeing a Corvette variant developed under the same ethos as the Z28. They used to make one, it was called the ZO6. The new ZO6, fast as it is, was apparently intended for the AARP, gold chains, Dairy Queen cruise-in, stereotypical, etc. Corvette demographic who enjoy (1) automatic transmissions and (2) convertibles.

        • 0 avatar
          golden2husky

          Your opinion of Vette owners went out of style quite a few years ago…except possibly AARP which starts at 50 years, well because how many supercars can be afforded by those who are 35. And maybe you haven’t been out of the house in a decade or so but the fastest. “best” German and Italian supercars are no longer available with manual transmissions. And maybe if you tried a convertible you actually might find you like it….

          • 0 avatar
            David Walton

            If you read the quote at the very top – a quote for which I am responsible – you will recognize that I am all too aware of the lack of availability of true manual transmissions in anything from Ferrari (or Lambo for that matter).

            I am very confident that my opinion of Corvette ownership demographics will be confirmed when the automatic version outsells the manual ZO6!

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          You can either be a Corvette owner with a Hawaiian shirt, white shoes, and light blue shorts or you can be a 911 owner in a black turtle neck, fingerless gloves, and special “driving moccasins”.

        • 0 avatar
          3Deuce27

          Reg; “intended for the AARP, gold chains, Dairy Queen cruise-in, stereotypical, etc. Corvette demographic who enjoy (1) automatic transmissions and (2) convertibles.” Really! Comments like that, David, would lead one to be skeptical of anything you say.

          The C7.R and the 2015 Corvette Z06/Z07 share unprecedented levels of engineering and components including chassis architecture, engine technologies and aerodynamic strategies.

          The all-new Z06 is the best example yet of the technology transfer between racing and production Corvettes. First, engineers took what they learned on the Corvette Racing C6.R and applied that knowledge to the 2014 Corvette Stingray. Then, using the Stingray as a foundation, the Z06 and C7.R were co-developed to push the envelope of performance on the street and the track.

          http://www.chevrolet.com/corvette-z06-supercar.html

          • 0 avatar
            David Walton

            Can you get a Corvette C7.R convertible?

            Nope.

            Does Corvette Racin’ race an automatic transmission in their race cars?

            Nope.

        • 0 avatar

          I believe if you had the data 99.99% of new vette owners qualify for AARP

      • 0 avatar
        Mr Imperial

        Yes, indeed. Knew someone would add some examples I missed. :)

        And yes, David W., the Z06 badge has been diluted by your two points.

      • 0 avatar
        probert

        Dunno – none of these – including the mustang – is a sports car. Like porn, you know it when you see it – and I ain’t seeing it.

        • 0 avatar
          Mr Imperial

          Probert-thankfully, adult entertainment comes in all different forms, different strokes for different folks. It’d be a boring world if you or I were the sole determinant of what’s hot or not.

          I’m not the only one who finds these cars to be hot and sporty.

          To each their own.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          A “sports car” has limited functionality, but for the ability to toss around two people on a winding road. There are few vehicles that match that description today, and the Mustang is not on that list.

          Fortunately, we have cars today that can provide that but can also carry groceries and allow for comfortable, long distance travel. I’d take the Mustang over most of them; it does most of the same work, but is easier to live with from day to day.

        • 0 avatar
          3Deuce27

          Reg; “none of these – including the mustang – is a sports car.” Correct you are, sir. They are sporty saloons/GTs, like a Ferrari berlinetta.

          The marketing types call them whatever and the great unwashed buy into it to serve their needs. The whole long standing terminology regarding vehicle types has been diluted by marketing types and their puppets, the young, historically ignorant, so called auto journalists contribute to this assault on the language of automobiles. 4-dr coupes… my ass.

      • 0 avatar
        3Deuce27

        Reg; “You forgot the Focus/Fiesta ST and the Jeep SRT. This is truly the golden age of the American sports car.”

        Sorry, Derek, neither are ‘sports cars’.

        The only American sports cars are the Corvette and Viper, excepting the low volume specialty cars.

      • 0 avatar
        Vega

        Yeah, but the Focus/Fiesta is about as American as Cosworth, i.e. not at all…

    • 0 avatar
      FractureCritical

      as the proud owner of a 2015 Audi S4 I’m totally in the camp that the Germans do it better and I don’t regret my purchase for a moment. Until I heard the engine sound clip. Then I’m about 93% in the ‘don’t regret it’ camp. ;)

      that being said, how is it that Ford can crank out this masterpiece of engineering that will likely chew and spit things AMG/M/RS for breakfast, but Lincolns still suck? It makes me what to pull what little hair out I have left.

      I should have been wringing my hands over an S3, 335ix, and a Shelby rebadged as a Lincoln with 4 doors and a clutch.

      • 0 avatar
        Kevin Jaeger

        I wish Lincoln had continued to develop the LS. That was the car that came very close to getting me to buy a domestic car again, but it had some significant issues. There was no reason they couldn’t resolve those in next generation, and maybe add a coupe version.

        Alas, were stuck with Lincolns that mostly suck.

    • 0 avatar
      Sigivald

      Pity that all of those except the Challenger and Mustang GT are *horribly hideous*.

      (But that’s mostly just me, and admittedly a purely subjective aesthetic judgment.

      Someone has to have always thought Corvettes and Camaros were train-wrecks, and I am that person.)

  • avatar
    Zekele Ibo

    But will the Ford offer good taste, luxury or refinement? F*** no! ;)

  • avatar
    MrIcky

    I really didn’t like the front end of the new Mustang GT. However this I really like. The contouring on the 350 hood is gorgeous. GJ Ford.

  • avatar
    April

    F***

    This word as it is spelled in the title does not make sense.

  • avatar
    bumpy ii

    Am I the only one who read the title and thought of the song?

  • avatar
    B Buckner

    Love the title of the post Derek, there is hope for you yet.

  • avatar
    panzerfaust

    Great car, but its a bit much to compare it to a 570 hp 4.5 litre V8 set midway in a 3100lb (vs 3700 in the Mustang) car with double wishbones at the front and a multi-link setup at the rear, coupled with E-Diff and F1-Trac traction control systems as well as a prancing horse on its nose, i.e., the other car whose name begins with F.

    • 0 avatar
      David Walton

      I bet they would be very close around a track if the GT350 is truly planned to be a Z28 competitor.

      In fact, the Z28 would probably outstrip a non-Speciale 458 (which was developed 5+ years ago) given its track performance versus various Porsches and the GT-R; perhaps the GT350 could do the same?

      • 0 avatar
        raph

        The way I read it the GT350 isn’t going to crush the Z/28. The GT350 if all else is equal is riding on some damn nice street tires while the Z/28 is riding on R compound stuff.

        GM has the Camaro’s chassis sorted out pretty well. Overall the spool valve dampener is better compared to the magneto shocks used by the ZL1 and the GT350 plus those track orientated tires.

        The GT350 is going to slot in performance wise I think just below the Z/28 but well ahead of the 1LE.

        • 0 avatar
          David Walton

          However, the Mustang is a new car, whereas the Camaro is much older.

          The Pirelli Trofeo R tires fitted to the Z28 confer a tremendous advantage; the fronts are 305 sections. That’s to say that the Camaro’s front tires are as wide as the rear tires on my 911 GT3.

          • 0 avatar
            panzerfaust

            Good points, David and Ralph, but I think the only $lot that the 350 is going to fit is for those who want to own a GT350 because it’s a GT350, it has all to do with the brand and the history, lore, not the track performance. Don’t get me wrong guys, I’m planning on buying a 2015 Mustang, but its been my experience that most domestics that get close to Ferrari, Porsche et.al are at the expense of overall drivability. Z28, ZR1, awesome on the track, but unless you like intervertebral disc degeneration, don’t get one for driving on the street. Of course they’re a pittance compared to the 458 and others in its league, so you get what you pay for.

      • 0 avatar
        superchan7

        How much of the Z/28 is in those cup tires? Throw those on a 458 and see how it goes.

        I’m not going to deny the ferocity of a Z/28 on the track, but I’m going to bet a few bucks that the big brakes tires contribute most of the elevated performance.

  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    Yeah, I wouldn’t even THINK about buying a sports car that lacks a “flat plane crank”, whatever the hell that is.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    ‘Merica, great country or GREATEST COUNTRY?

    Discuss…

  • avatar
    Mandalorian

    It’s good, it’s great, it’s an AMERICAN car done right.

    However, every time I see “GT350” I clamor for a “GT500” just because.

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      Yeah Man (no pun intended) hopefully Ford is investigating a bat guano insane supercharged mill and a future GT500, sure it probably wont go around the track any faster than the GT350 but when the road opens up into that long straight its always a fun rush pinning yourself back in the seat and watching that speed swing in lock step with the tach.

    • 0 avatar
      Sigivald

      “GT350 means it’s a 3.5 V6, right?”

  • avatar
    DearS

    Finally took the resources available in the U.S. to make this car and make for a lower price than the others offering this kind of tech. Its about time, now I can say we are the in the most golden age of cars we have ever been. Now we just need some lighter cars in the mix! We need an S2000 4-seat coupe and a 3100lbs 300HP RWD Sedan!

    • 0 avatar
      hubcap

      Every now and then Honda mentions the return of the S2000 in rear mid-engine configuration. It be nice to be able to point people who come in to look at an NSX to something a bit more affordable.

      As is stands, when the NSX comes on line, Honda dealers will direct people who would like a NSX but can’t afford one to a Civic SI.

  • avatar
    87 Morgan

    Honestly, how does this car not scream Merica?

    I was drooling over a standard 5.0 in Yellow at a Ford store the other day. I did not care for the ahem ‘Market Adjustment’ of 5k added to the sticker. I am however a patient man.

    For some reason I see a little 911 when viewing the side of the car, perhaps it is the slope of the rear window, would that be the greenhouse? Regardless, this is a fantastic offering from Ford. Big (ish) motor: check , lots of HP: check
    Big brakes: check. Why bother arguing if this is a sports car, muscle car, pony car.?

    This is just awesome!

  • avatar
    petezeiss

    I’m definitely telling my HVAC guy on the Low-T jihad about TTAC. He’s missing out on a hell of a waterhole hoot.

    He and Hummer would *have* to hook up. (cue Tchaikovsky ecstasy music)

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      I say Rimsky-Korsakov or Prokofiev for the soundtrack.

      • 0 avatar
        petezeiss

        Prokofiev’s 5th Symphony! F*** Yeah!

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          You can’t debate the relative merits of Russian composers, then expect to bring a competitive game to the Dumb Truck League.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Which Russian composer is your favorite?

          • 0 avatar
            petezeiss

            The Truth About Composers:

            Tchaikovsky is fave Russian overall but Prokofiev’s 5th is fave single work. Tchaikovsky is one of innumerable examples that throughout history gays have been disproportionately towering genii. Don’t persecute gays or you lose a ton of good stuff.

            Otherwise I’m all down with the Germermans, esp. Wagner, Beethoven, Schubert and Bach.

            BUT, Baroque Italians produced the most concentrated form of Music I Will Die To.
            Vivaldi & Locatelli top my list.

          • 0 avatar
            kvndoom

            I’m strongly partial to Ravel and DeBussy myself. Don’t know why, but their music just seems to tickle the right bones.

            My fave Russians would be Tchaikovsky and Rimsky-Korsakov.

            American, Aaron Copland by a landslide, then Gershwin. Copland, F*** yeah!

          • 0 avatar
            petezeiss

            F*** Yeah! Let’s spray some Lysol and take this thread over.

            I’ve always loved the French impressionist composers, especially the two you mention. Also English pastoral symphonists. Big, lavish, rolling orchestral works spin my beanie.

            But for absolute blood-pumping, spine-straightening, get-up-and-kick-ass MAGNIFICENCE, nothing holds a candle to Wagner’s incidental music to his Ring cycle. That is cultural crack and I fall for it every time.

    • 0 avatar
      319583076

      *claps*

      Brilliant post, pee-zee!

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      Try to read these posts while listening to Barber’s “Adagio for Strings”. Hey, he’s American.

  • avatar

    This is just beautiful, and I bet it’s gobs of fun. You know what…maybe I don’t need that retirement fund after all..

  • avatar
    jdogma

    Nobody has brought up the fact that flat crank V8 have severe vibration problems. What has Ford done to make it work? Balance shaft?

    • 0 avatar
      MBella

      I’m sure it will have a balance shaft.

    • 0 avatar
      wmba

      The vertical shaking forces of a 90 degree V8 flat plane engine are square root of 2, or 1.4 times that of a four cylinder with the same bore and stroke. Significant. So two balance shafts are required for smoothness.

      On the other hand, the only counterbalancing required on the crank is for piston plus conrod, instead of the massive counterweights on the usual crossplane V8. Exhausts are easier on the flat plane as well unless one thinks a log manifold is the height of technical advancement on a regular crossplane V8.

      Actual rotating inertia, including the balance shafts, can be far less for the flat plane, so it will blip like crazy.

      Looking forward to seeing the details on this new engine going forward.

      • 0 avatar
        jdogma

        Thanks for the informed discussion. We will find out soon, I hope.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        I do find it odd that it took almost 110 comments before one mentioned the flat plane crank. Vibration may be an issue but the flat plane design will rev much faster and higher. I doubt this will rev like an LFA but it will pick up fast. It will also sound different, more like a sport bike.
        Yamaha went to a cross plane crank in the R1 to tone down the brutal power delivery and improve traction (attempt to mimic a V twin/V4 in power delivery). That will not be an issue in a heavy (relatively speaking) car will a contact patch that does not vary much with cornering.

        The engine and drivetrain specs will be interesting.

    • 0 avatar

      Are V8 powered Ferraris known to have NVH issues? As far as I know, Ferrari has never made a cross-plane V8 and I can’t recall a review complaining that Ferrari V8s shake.

      If they can make big inline fours, inline fives, and 90 degree V6s spin and run smoothly, I’m pretty sure they can do it with a flat-plane V8.

      • 0 avatar
        rpn453

        NVH “issues” are part of the charm of a Ferrari sports car, and the same should be true of a car like the GT350. Who would buy a car like this and want to be completely isolated from its mechanicals? I suspect this Mustang will have more sound-deadening, softer engine mounts, and a heavier flywheel than a Ferrari sports car anyway. It may even have balance shafts, which I don’t believe the Ferraris use. I suspect that anyone wanting a 500 hp V8 sports car with a manual transmission and minimal tire s*dewalls will cons*der the engine’s NVH to be a feature. There are plenty of softer Mustang options for those who don’t.

        I recently read Jack’s R&T PCOTY write-up, so this subject reminded me of his description of the 458’s V8:

        “Every superlative you’ve ever read about a road-car engine is rendered trivial by this 597-hp tornado, the world-record holder for specific output in a naturally aspirated roadgoing vehicle, and approximately as subtle as a shotgun blast to the solar plexus. Not a fraction of potential power is wasted on things like flywheel weight or noise reduction. To sit in the Speciale is to be under the thrall of a roar that numbs your ears and vibrates every tendon in your body to a painful pitch.”

        http://www.roadandtrack.com/features/magazine/2015-road-and-track-performance-car-of-the-year

        Sign me up. It’s not like I’d be using such a thing as a regular commuter or for long highway trips; things that this Mustang will probably still work fine for.

        • 0 avatar
          Lie2me

          “NVH “issues” are part of the charm of a Ferrari sports car”

          NVH Over $100K = “charming”

          NVH under $100K = “annoying”

          • 0 avatar
            rpn453

            True that! But it makes sense. It’s much easier to love the side effects of a piece of mechanical beauty.

            We’re at the point where even the Mustang V6 is somewhat of a mechanical beauty, though not everyone wants to be constantly reminded of that. I think the GT350 buyers will want those little reminders. It will be interesting to see how much of that will be allowed in this car.

          • 0 avatar
            rpn453

            True that! But it makes sense. It’s much easier to love the s*de effects of a piece of mechanical beauty.

            We’re at the point where even the Mustang V6 is somewhat of a mechanical beauty, though not everyone wants to be constantly reminded of that. I think the GT350 buyers will want those little reminders. It will be interesting to see how much of that will be allowed in this car.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            “We’re at the point where even the Mustang V6 is somewhat of a mechanical beauty”

            Like a semi-beautiful woman

          • 0 avatar
            rpn453

            Progress on all fronts. One can spend an hour walking through a university campus on a warm spring day and see 100 women who look better than any movie star did for most of the 20th century. But I suppose they’re only semi-beautiful because with terrible hair, clothes, make-up, grooming, and a poor physical fitness regimen they certainly wouldn’t compare to the best of earlier times!

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            In other words semi-beautiful = obtainable

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            It would distract from the movie if an actress was too beautiful.

            Mustangs have always had subdued, hansom looks. By not trying to set the world on fire, in terms of looks, they appeal to a wider audience. To something 9 out of 10, of general population can live, if they were in the market for the sort of thing.

            Everything from school girls and librarians to rock stars and rappers?

          • 0 avatar
            superchan7

            Not really an issue of price, but an issue of application. Say you choose a Porsche over a BMW because you want, say, the unique raspy flat-6 noise. That’s not necessarily >$100k, in fact very likely well under that price level.

        • 0 avatar
          MrIcky

          NVH is absolutely part of the charm with Mustang/Challenger/Camaro.

          There’s a lot of complaints that these cars aren’t loud and rough enough amongst the owners on the boards.

      • 0 avatar
        superchan7

        A Ferrari V8 idling can be felt in another car parked next to it. It buzzes rather than rumbles, sort of like two inline-4s with an attitude problem.

        This GT350, however, does not sound quite like a Ferrari V8. There must be something fundamentally different in the design, possibly not related to the crankshaft.

      • 0 avatar
        Numbers_Matching

        “As far as I know, Ferrari has never made a cross-plane V8 and I can’t recall a review complaining that Ferrari V8s shake.”

        Not to be nit-picky, but Ferrari did make a cross-plane V8 out of the 2.9L quattrovalvole for the Lancia Thema 8.32. Nice sounding engine.

        Because Ferrari braces the engine mid-ship, it is more ‘structurally and mass integrated’ and therefore less prone to producing excessive amounts of vibration. There is no balance shaft.

  • avatar
    superchan7

    Serious question: What is the business case of offering a flat plane crank? Wouldn’t that involve changes to the block, all for a niche model Mustang? I don’t doubt that this will be an impressive car, but I don’t see anything that couldn’t have been achieved with the standard crank.

    From the Ring videos, it doesn’t even sound that different from a normal DOHC V8 with the cross-plane crank. “Flat-plane crank” suggested it should sound like a Ferrari, but it doesn’t. The Lotus Esprit V8 does. Any experts care to chime in on the actual sound?

    • 0 avatar
      Numbers_Matching

      An engine’s exhaust note or ‘sound’ may be manipulated by spacing the exhaust pulsations within the exhaust system itself. Remember the ‘180 degree’ header systems NASCAR was using? The cars sounded like they had inline 6s. Rednecks went home unhappy –>Kicked dog –>Beat wife.

      The flat crank arrangement has a more even exhaust pulse spacing and therefore a better scavenging (breathing) effect. Also, a crank with less inertia = more willingness to spin when given the juice.

      • 0 avatar
        superchan7

        LOL at the stereotype. Perhaps I am hearing too much exhaust and not enough engine from the testing video. Looking forward to more details about the engine and exhaust.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      It’s Badass. There’s your business case.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • 28-Cars-Later: https://www.thetruthaboutcars. com/2010/06/capsule-review-199 0-lexus-es250/
  • thegamper: It just might, Honda has always been big on dealer installed accessories. Just look at all the junk you...
  • FreedMike: Please, God, no.
  • Lou_BC: @Jo Borrás – messaging and packaging of a product based on audience is important. People’s...
  • Lou_BC: I’ve seen Subaru’s with lift kits and more aggressive tires. This might just be the next trend...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber