The Future Automotive Thread

[simmode1]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaMayhem

I'd like to see how the Ford motor holds up to the test of time and reliability. The GT4 looks impressive AF tho. Hate to think I'd fall for a Korean car but they are sort of close to Japan, right?

In that case, just look at the ST Focus and Fiesta. Same motor, except turned RWD, an extra .3 bump in displacement and direct injection.

The Korean brands now are what Honda & Toyota were in the 80's/90's. They've become very competitive very fast.

[RedRedWine]

[Frank_Jaeger]

Forged rods out of the box. Score.

Integrated exhaust manifold kind of scares me. It is divided though. Hopefully it's not restrictive.

[exitspeed]

I'm well aware of the Solstice's downfalls including the interior. I just still love how that thing looks and love the rarity. But it seems the value is going to stay flat or rise so there's no way I'm going to ever buy one.

[Future240]

Forged rods from the box, that is awesome. I immediately wonder what kind of mods are needed to get it to match the V8's power.

[simmode1]

Forged rods & crank?! Very nice. How much y'all wanna bet the Ecoboost will be the King of SEMA this year?

[AFSil80]

Pulse energy...that kind of description sounds more like a twin scroll turbo than anything.

But when they say integrated exhaust manifold...I'm guessing that means it's part of the head.

[exitspeed]

Originally Posted by simmode1

Forged rods & crank?! Very nice. How much y'all wanna bet the Ecoboost will be the King of SEMA this year?

The Mustang in general is just going to flood SEMA.

[AFSil80]

Originally Posted by exitspeed

The Mustang in general is just going to flood SEMA.

Yup.

msglgth

[simmode1]

^^^Yeah.

Originally Posted by AFSil80

Pulse energy...that kind of description sounds more like a twin scroll turbo than anything.</p>
But when they say integrated exhaust manifold...I'm guessing that means it's part of the head.

From what I can tell from the illustration & by what other manufacturers are doing, it looks like the manifold and the turbo are one piece that bolts up to the head. I really hate this trend. Thank god Nissan's turbo MR doesn't seem to be using this. They're using some proprietary flange on their T20 turbos, which is just slightly less frustrasting.

[scottie]

What is the projected weight of the Mustang? The engine is nice but as with the Genesis, weight of the vehicle will kill it. 305 in a 3200-lb car is good, but not great. If 3000lb or less (as much as it pains me to say this) I would consider one.

Also, what is the differential type offered with this Mustang?

[exitspeed]

While searching for the weight I found this. Pretty sweet for the "1/4 mile at a time" crowd.

http://www.dailytech.com/Ford+2015+M...ticle34762.htm

[simmode1]

Originally Posted by scottie

What is the projected weight of the Mustang? The engine is nice but as with the Genesis, weight of the vehicle will kill it. 305 in a 3200-lb car is good, but not great. If 3000lb or less (as much as it pains me to say this) I would consider one.

Also, what is the differential type offered with this Mustang?

I swear, some people are too damn picky. The Ecoboost could conceiveably reach a 1:10 power to weight ratio with just a few BPU's and people are still saying the car is too heavy. SMH. Ford has targeted a 400lbs weight loss for the GT in comparison to the outgoing model. Not sure what that means for the V6 and Ecoboost but I can only assume they'd be lighter than the GT, so maybe sub 3200lbs for the 2.3t. And IIRC, Ford's using a torsen diff similar to the S15's.

[RedRedWine]

Originally Posted by simmode1

^^^Yeah.

From what I can tell from the illustration & by what other manufacturers are doing, it looks like the manifold and the turbo are one piece that bolts up to the head. I really hate this trend. Thank god Nissan's turbo MR doesn't seem to be using this. They're using some proprietary flange on their T20 turbos, which is just slightly less frustrasting.

The picture above does'nt show the integrated exhaust manifold. I think you're confusing it with an integrated turbine system, which has the manifold and turbo as one piece. This is more like the proprietary flange setup which would make upgrading the turbo difficult for the aftermarket crowd.

[simmode1]

^^^Ahhh. I think you're right. The manifold is fully connected to the head. Sounds like removing the turbo for an upgrade shouldn't be a huge problem. The aftermarket for the Juke has already figured out how to deal with proprietary flange turbos, so I'm not worried about that. http://www.hybridcars.com/ford-green...coboost-power/

[RedRedWine]

Now I'm curious on the effects of heat on the cylinder head with an integrated manifold system and turbo. I definitely like the forward thinking design very interesting to me.

[simmode1]

^^^I'm thinking of the effects of a broken motor mount or any other excessive vibration cracking the hell out of that manifold & the subsequent cost of replacing the whole damn head...</p>

[scottie]

Originally Posted by simmode1

I swear, some people are too damn picky. The Ecoboost could conceiveably reach a 1:10 power to weight ratio with just a few BPU's and people are still saying the car is too heavy. SMH. Ford has targeted a 400lbs weight loss for the GT in comparison to the outgoing model. Not sure what that means for the V6 and Ecoboost but I can only assume they'd be lighter than the GT, so maybe sub 3200lbs for the 2.3t. And IIRC, Ford's using a torsen diff similar to the S15's.

Oh quit SYH. It is not just straight line speed but for braking, twisty roads and overall driving experience for me. Ford is definitely headed in the right direction.

All of this talk is really a moot point. Nissan's prototypes do not inspire confidence in a modern day 240sx. The BRZ/FRS is the closest thing to the original (aftermarket support, motor swaps, etc). I just hope other similar 4 cyl offerings on the market follow the Sub-3000 lbs mantra.

[VROOOM]

the Mustang is much bigger (20 inches in length) than a FRS. i doubt the new Mustang is going to be sub 3000 pounds.

[simmode1]

Originally Posted by scottie

Oh quit SYH. It is not just straight line speed but for braking, twisty roads and overall driving experience for me. Ford is definitely headed in the right direction.

All of this talk is really a moot point. Nissan's prototypes do not inspire confidence in a modern day 240sx. The BRZ/FRS is the closest thing to the original (aftermarket support, motor swaps, etc). I just hope other similar 4 cyl offerings on the market follow the Sub-3000 lbs mantra.

^^^I just get annoyed when ppl start with the whole lightweight thing. The Mustang looks like its going to be even lighter than JDM greats like the MK4 Supra, GTR for far less money when adjusted for inflation. Just what are you expecting from a $26k car? Buck for buck, I guarantee you the Ecoboost Mustang will rape the FRS in every measurable contest just like the outgoing model and the Genesis coupe did. Light weight is a great tool, but I think many ppl blow it's importance out of proportion when talking daily driven street cars. Just look at the new Z28. That fatass beat the GTR at it's own game with sheer mechanical grip. It would be great if every RWD coupe wieghed as much as an S2000, that wouldn't leave much room for variation and that would get boring, IMO.

[Frank_Jaeger]

Originally Posted by simmode1

^^^I'm thinking of the effects of a broken motor mount or any other excessive vibration cracking the hell out of that manifold & the subsequent cost of replacing the whole damn head...</p>

I'm sure that there'll be enough bracing / relief in the design that that'll be a nonissue.

[BossHogg]

Originally Posted by AFSil80

Pulse energy...that kind of description sounds more like a twin scroll turbo than anything.

But when they say integrated exhaust manifold...I'm guessing that means it's part of the head.

did you read it at all? It clearly says first use of twin scroll turbo charger on a ford engine.

I hate mustangs. All mustangs. But this one, it looks badass. I'm seriously shocked lol.

[KA24DESOneThree]

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

I'm hoping that we've finally gotten to the point that affordable sporty cars have the mechanical grip to justify the weight they carry. If that is the case I find the weight difference much much less of an issue.

The s13 is nice and light but it needs a few hundred pounds of cage to begin to approach the stiffness of a modern sports car rolling off the showroom floor.

Mechanical grip does not equal fun, at least to me and with the roads I am surrounded by. On the roads around here, cars that can pull over 1 g on the skid pad struggle to put down power. They transition from understeer to oversteer then back again, and thus you end up looking like a jackass when trying to drive properly. Average cornering speeds are sub-50mph around here, btw.

Also don't forget that most manufacturers totally screw the damping to err on the side of excessive low-speed damping to keep the car feeling “sporty.” Hell, most aftermarket companies do the same thing, and then everything feels a bit off. You know the feeling, where the car points in but then has float until it takes that set that's not quite a set because the car's busy packing down? One cannot overcome physics with even the most advanced of suspension, one can simply give the impression of overcoming physics.

Tires- wider isn't necessarily better. I love the way my M3 feels with 225/45R17s all around, and I get extra sidewall compared to something like a 235/40 or even a 245/40. Turn-in is more crisp and more precise, and the slight stretch of a 225/45 on an 8.5 means that the car communicates perfectly- while still having the compliance of the taller sidewalls. I've driven 996s, 997s (including GT3 RSes), E46 M3s, etc. and I find that the vast majority of the time, these cars are shod with ridiculously-stiff-sidewalled tires that end up playing telephone with steering feedback rather than simply giving a quick and honest report. I have yet to have my Pilot Super Sports get greasy or indicate that they're undersized for the car- and I drive pretty hard.

I think my 240 ruined me as far as absolute grip. It's a track car, and on the track, it'll damn near tear your face off. There's no way I can experience that level of grip on the street- and why should I? It's dangerous when there are variables one cannot account for and no run-off room to save your ass. It was also a lot more fun on the street when I was running 15s.

Here's the deal, though- that's just me. A lot of people are OK with a compromise, and I'm OK with their compromise as long as it doesn't involve me. I can't finance my dream build, but I think that takes some of the fun out of it- it's supposed to take forever and have things get in the way, but in the end it's exactly what you wanted it to be.

The most fun car in the world is probably one that trades ultimate grip for both travel and compliance, because that car can be driven quickly everywhere. Most automotive journalists, when pressed, sing the praises of a Gallic suspension over most others- something compliant yet tossable and fun. Chris Harris owns (owned?) an AX GT and a 205 XS- both compliant yet tossable and fun. My goal with everything that's a street car is to try to achieve the balance of comfort and performance, while maintaining limits that are approachable on the street without insane cornering speeds at play. It's a lofty goal, especially since I refuse to do anything half-assed and even mild builds end up cracking several grand on the suspension side. You know the kid who only wanted to play Star Wars if the physics adhered to actual zero gravity rules and complained about the explosions in space? Yeah, that was me.

Some of my favorite cars I've had a hand in are 911 Ts with no sways and period-style rubber. Low limits, lots of weight transfer, comfortable ride- very, very enjoyable at low speeds.

Also, all this Mustang talk is boring me. Oh yay, it's powerful. It has tiny windows. It's supposed to weigh around 3400lbs, if they kept the weight down- and most car mags are projecting that not to be the case. That's not light, and yeah, you can tune a little of it out, but in the end, it's still a pig. The wheelbase is 7.1" longer than my Range Rover's. It's projected to be more than 73.9" wide- 3.8" wider than an E46 M3, 6.6” wider than my E36 M3, and more than 7.4” wider than an S13. Svelte, she ain't. It'll get flustered in the bumpy twisties faster than a Catholic schoolgirl on a field trip to Vivid Entertainment.

[johnydoesit]

lol I don't think anyone is going to read all that.

[dorkidori_s13]

Originally Posted by johnydoesit

lol I don't think anyone is going to read all that.

thank you for your useless comment... its too bad if people choose not to read it because they suffer from TLDR syndrome, the information presented isnt too shabby.

[johnydoesit]

you're welcome dorki. you're very welcome.

[kingkilburn]

I can totally agree with all that. I'm just saying that if that weight the car is going to be carrying also comes with proper mechanical grip I'll be less upset by the weight.

The dampening and spring weight issues seem to be industry wide at every level. S chassis cars seem to be amongst the worst for this. Every car you see is massively over sprung and under dampened, I guess that the low buck answer to crazy low ride heights and fucked roll centers, don't let the suspension move at all.


I would hope that Nissan gives us a real light weight car with proper suspension that the after market can quickly screw up with insane spring rates.

[AFSil80]

Originally Posted by BossHogg

did you read it at all? It clearly says first use of twin scroll turbo charger on a ford engine.

I hate mustangs. All mustangs. But this one, it looks badass. I'm seriously shocked lol.

I didn't. I saw the caption about pulse energy after someone said 'divided housing' and made my post. Most people don't realize there is a difference between a divided flange turbo and a twin scroll.

[simmode1]

Great discussion on this page. I don't disagree with anything KA24DESOneThree said. I just think all those requirements will be hard to find in a brand new car priced around $26k. With all those dealbreakers, you're better off with the FRS or sticking to the secondhand market for used Lotus, S2000's, Carreras, etc... Of course, the jury is still out on the Mustang's performance. Its specs seem like the best compromise between power, handling & price for any new car I can remember. Might not be well suited for the canyons, but it looks like it'll be an absolute street & roadcourse terror, which is more important to me. Because Texas ain't got no canyons...lol

Originally Posted by johnydoesit

lol I don't think anyone is going to read all that.

I read it. It was good. Take your ritalin.

[S14DB]

Originally Posted by KA24DESOneThree

Tires- wider isn't necessarily better. I love the way my M3 feels with 225/45R17s all around, and I get extra sidewall compared to something like a 235/40 or even a 245/40. Turn-in is more crisp and more precise, and the slight stretch of a 225/45 on an 8.5 means that the car communicates perfectly- while still having the compliance of the taller sidewalls. I've driven 996s, 997s (including GT3 RSes), E46 M3s, etc. and I find that the vast majority of the time, these cars are shod with ridiculously-stiff-sidewalled tires that end up playing telephone with steering feedback rather than simply giving a quick and honest report. I have yet to have my Pilot Super Sports get greasy or indicate that they're undersized for the car- and I drive pretty hard.

So, the extra 1-3.25mm of sidewall made that huge difference? You're just waxing pedantic.