While You Were Sleeping: March 9th, 2015

Of the 3 engines available, the V6 and V8 are the only ones I'd ever buy secondhand. I don't want to take the chance of inheriting some MAD TOONERZ car.

380 HP out of a 4 banger is pretty impressive. With pretty much 1000lbs saved from any 400+ Chrysler LX car I'm sure this thing would give any LX R/T car the business. That said there is something deeply disturbing to me about the Rustang being opened up to the backwards cap "chip it bro" contingent. No V8 no fcking point.

I recently saw a video by a Hellcat owner. He mentioned you need to buy new tires for the Hellcat since the brand new tires from factory are not adequate. That must be a shitty car that requires modifications even before tuning. It also sounded like the Hellcat first needs some tuning since AWD, electric and any other car (short of NA I4 cars) will outrace it.

@sportyaccordy +1

@HerrKaLeun Someone can confirm or deny, but doesn't Ford use crappy tires as well for some of its new models?

@HerrKaLeun 707 Horsepower pretty much GRINDS ANYTHING to DUST.

I actually really like the Ecoboost four. It takes a bunch of weight off the nose and isn't hard to tweak from an ECU perspective. Personally, I'd take a naturally-aspirated four. Less stress, more space in the engine bay, easy to keep. The chassis is good enough and I really don't need the power.

@psarhjinian And what can you get from the Toybaru twins with a "tune" and no bolt ons? Oh yeah, that's right - nothing...

@PrincipalDan "And what can you get from the Toybaru twins with a “tune” and no bolt ons?" The FT-86 is much-maligned, unjustly, I feel. It handles well and is a lot of fun to drive. But yeah, that powerplant: it really doesn't leave much room. It's rather like the RX-8 (another hugely underappreciated car) that way. I do wish the FT-86 had more cockpit space. In that sense, the RX-8 was excellent.

@psarhjinian "I actually really like the Ecoboost four. It takes a bunch of weight off the nose" I believe the weight difference between the Coyote and 2.3L is very negligible. I'll have to look it up again. Edit: Can't find the figures for the engines off hand, but looks like the overall car is lighter.

Point of order, guys. That's 380 lb-ft of TORQUE not horsepower.

@PrincipalDan This is why I favor turbos... just an ECU and simple bolts-ons away from big power gains.

@PrincipalDan PD, i know the power numbers on the toyobaru has been a big point of contention for a lot of us but your statement no longer holds. Look up what owners, in the midwest in particular, are doing by tuning their toyobaru for either e85 or even straight ethanol and you will see some pretty amazing numbers from a change of fuel and a simple reprogram of the open cpu.

@danio3834 "I believe the weight difference between the Coyote and 2.3L is very negligible." It's about a hundred pounds difference between the two (extrapolated from the 2.0L, which is 320 versus 440 for the 5.0). Again, I'd accept and NA 2.0L, or an Ecoboost 1.6, for the weight savings alone. But I'm not really a Mustang "person"

@John R Saw that too. Second most popular internet pastime (after surfing porn)- spending more attention coming up with a snotty response to what you've read than you did on understanding what you read.