spitfirebill wrote: But do we NEED a car like this? (Tom Hnatiw)
Why yes, yes we do. 
spitfirebill wrote: But do we NEED a car like this? (Tom Hnatiw)
Why yes, yes we do.
tuna55 wrote:T.J. wrote: In reply to tuna55: Why would it not? Is it not true?Not even a clue, I'll probably never see the inside of any of those. It's strange because here we have a sub $40K vehicle performing like a $300K vehicle, and it's ridiculed for being "less refined"? I'm not even sure that's a thing.
Sometimes I hate the internet. Pointing out that a car is not as refined as another car that costs 7 times more is somehow ridicule? The internet seems to have trained us all to be outraged over everything.
That's GTR like acceleration 
Mrs. Roosevelt approves.
yupididit wrote: That's GTR like acceleration
Without even needing AWD to get there! Which means acceleration at higher speeds would be even better in comparison (as traction isn't much of a concern at higher speeds).
Cooper_Tired wrote:CobraSpdRH wrote: Why can't they do this with a 4 door? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Fusion has next-to-no sporting pretensions (even the Sport). Yes, there is the Focus ST and RS, but FWD and 6+ seconds 0-60. I guess I'm just picturing a 4 door Mustang GT and EB but it doesn't exist (in the US, I believe this would be a Falcon in other countries). I wonder if this drops the price on Coyote Mustangs enough to justify a "weekend car"...The ecoboost Fusion sport does 0-60 in 5.1 and the quarter in 13.7 That seems decently sporting to me
I had seen those numbers as well, but in the reviews they say it is more of a "refined" sedan than it is "sports" sedan, and they found it lacking in the handling and fun-to-drive departments. As someone above said, I was thinking more Chevy SS-like, although it appears the demand for such cars doesn't warrant building them (unfortunately).
Robbie wrote: So, 200k extra gets you a flat plane crank and 25k mile rebuild schedule?
The extra 200k also gets you a horse on the badg... Oh, wait. Never mind.
Yeah, I imagine that Ford thinks the development costs on a RWD V8 sedan would exceed the potential. They would either need a clean-sheet design or a rather extensive revision of the Mustang chassis to lengthen it.
In reply to drdisque:
I mean look how awesome the SS did...
FlightService wrote: In reply to drdisque: I mean look how awesome the SS did...
OTOH, the Charger still does OK, despite being an ancient design. Still not enough demand for Ford to build a from-scratch large RWD platform, though. Especially as CAFE requirements get stricter.
Didn't the Charger (and challenger) start out as leftover Mercedes design bits? And how much of that has changed? I'm wondering if Merc had never thrown outdated tech at Dodge if there would even be a RWD sedan platform in their line. I agree that it's done well and it's a pretty good car, but I think the SS (and maybe even the GTO) may prove there's only enough market in the US for one make of RWD sedan.
And that's kind of sad.
The SS is a low volume - by intent - model, that's priced very high for what it is and left unadvertised. I doubt anyone is using it as a benchmark for the RWD sedan market.
If you want to make a killer rwd sedan then you'd have to find a way over the charger which may not be hard. But, from there you'll either be between the charger and midsize Germans or with midsize germans. And those Germans, they know how to make athletic midsize sedans. Only American doing that is CTS V but the price reflects that as well.
And knowing GRM, You all would want 450hp, 4 doors, a manual option, and it to be 30k or less.
In reply to yupididit:
Let's be honest, we want an updated Panther platform car with stick option.
T.J. wrote:tuna55 wrote:Sometimes I hate the internet. Pointing out that a car is not as refined as another car that costs 7 times more is somehow ridicule? The internet seems to have trained us all to be outraged over everything.T.J. wrote: In reply to tuna55: Why would it not? Is it not true?Not even a clue, I'll probably never see the inside of any of those. It's strange because here we have a sub $40K vehicle performing like a $300K vehicle, and it's ridiculed for being "less refined"? I'm not even sure that's a thing.
You are absolutely right, no matter what you approve of someone has to throw out some opinion of why its no good. I think puppies are cute, but I'm sure someone will tell me that polar bear cubs are way better.
yupididit wrote: If you want to make a killer rwd sedan then you'd have to find a way over the charger which may not be hard. But, from there you'll either be between the charger and midsize Germans or with midsize germans. And those Germans, they know how to make athletic midsize sedans. Only American doing that is CTS V but the price reflects that as well. And knowing GRM, You all would want 450hp, 4 doors, a manual option, and it to be 30k or less.
30K? That's kind of steep.
I can't see Ford designing a RWD sedan platform that would directly compete with their own Fusion/Taurus platforms.
Chrysler's only mid-/full-size platform is RWD, so that's why they do it.
CobraSpdRH wrote: Why can't they do this with a 4 door? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Fusion has next-to-no sporting pretensions (even the Sport). Yes, there is the Focus ST and RS, but FWD and 6+ seconds 0-60. I guess I'm just picturing a 4 door Mustang GT and EB but it doesn't exist (in the US, I believe this would be a Falcon in other countries). I wonder if this drops the price on Coyote Mustangs enough to justify a "weekend car"...
Find a late model SHO Taurus?
crankwalk wrote:CobraSpdRH wrote: Why can't they do this with a 4 door? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Fusion has next-to-no sporting pretensions (even the Sport). Yes, there is the Focus ST and RS, but FWD and 6+ seconds 0-60. I guess I'm just picturing a 4 door Mustang GT and EB but it doesn't exist (in the US, I believe this would be a Falcon in other countries). I wonder if this drops the price on Coyote Mustangs enough to justify a "weekend car"...Find a late model SHO Taurus?
Or the mkz or whatever that is the same thing but often cheaper.
Sky_Render wrote: I can't see Ford designing a RWD sedan platform that would directly compete with their own Fusion/Taurus platforms. Chrysler's only mid-/full-size platform *is* RWD, so that's why they do it.
Ford HAD a good RWD platform that could have been cleverly used to compete with both the Europeans and the other American RWD sedans. It was the Ford Falcon platform that was sold in Australia, with either the Coyote or lovely Barra I6 turbo. Then, instead of recognising this platform and engineering capability and building on it to compete, the fools decided to kill it and replace it there with the Fusion (called the Mondeo there), even though the Mondeo is substantially smaller and FWD (meaning no one there will buy it in the same volumes as the Falcon). Yes, the cost of building them in Australia was prohibitive (the reason cited for ceasing both the Falcon and Holden Commodore/Chev SS production there), but then manufacture them elsewhere instead.
Sorry for the rant and thread hijack, but this is a pet peeve of mine.
FlightService wrote: In reply to yupididit: Let's be honest, we want an updated Panther platform car with stick option.
God yes. 3.7 ecoboost with a 6 speed on the panther platform? Sign my local police force up and I'll buy 2 in a few years when the price comes down.
I like the looks and performance of the AWD cop fusions these days, but they could stand to be a bit larger.
I'm surprised, almost 2 pages and no mentions of cars and coffee or mustangs eating people even faster than before?
Didn't the Charger (and challenger) start out as leftover Mercedes design bits? And how much of that has changed? I'm wondering if Merc had never thrown outdated tech at Dodge if there would even be a RWD sedan platform in their line.
Chrysler was already planning RWDs when Daimler bought them out. In fact, if you look at the Charger concept from ~1998, it's pretty clear that the e-class bones actually slowed Chrysler down from implementing the design they were already planning to move towards.The '11-up Chargers look more like the old concept than the 06-10s did. The inherited radiator core-support height is the main reason why the Challenger is a fatass that needs a black strip around the bottom to not look bloated, and it's still preventing the cars from having the low hoodline Chrysler put a lot of effort into in the LH full size cars which preceded the rwd LXs.
why does the idea of a ridiculously fast 4 door make me tingly? Hell, just drop that engine into the upcoming ranger and make it the new lightning or something
mad_machine wrote: why does the idea of a ridiculously fast 4 door make me tingly? Hell, just drop that engine into the upcoming ranger and make it the new lightning or something
I don't know why we need a new lightning when chipped and bolt on 3.5 Ecoboost F150s are running 12's.
tuna55 wrote:not long ago that was mclaren, lambo, and ferrari territory.But it's still not going to be quite refined as those three are.
Sine_Qua_Non wrote: Did this comment just appear in GRM?
let me guess, another person is going to complain about the interior having "cheap plastic" or some other bs.
You'll need to log in to post.
