Cross My Fingers, Hold My Breath


Posted by Drew458    United States   on 09/06/2012 at 07:33 AM   
  1. A year before she died, my Mom gave me her 1994 Buick Century - it had less miles on it than our 2002 Dodge Caravan - anyway it has that auto-lock feature - locks when you turn on the car and unlocks when it is put into park. However, it does not have a fob to open/lock. So you have to put it into park to get out (or push the button on the door). I drove for about 2 years a Mitsubishi my son got stuck with - it would not warn if the key was left in the ignition - I locked the keys in the car twice.

    Now I see a car that honks at you when the tires are low - not to mention the one that brakes for you if something is behind it - talk about dumbing down the people - of course since most people walk into the DMV without a second of real driver’s training - what can we expect - like requiring a minimum hours of licensed drivers training is so ‘racist’ or something.

    Posted by wardmama4    United States   09/06/2012  at  09:09 AM  

  2. Hehe, I knew that was going to be the review we got here. This sh_t kind of car if going to be the death of a lot of people from now into infinity and yet the fall guy will be the makers,not the F-ing EPA and NHTSA who come up with all the BS reasons we need to have these death traps. I have a 1979 Toyota Celica and I wont let it die because:
    5 speed with Clutch,check.
    4 tires,check.
    Regular fuel,check.
    Bitchin aftermarket stereo system,check.
    254k on odometer,check
    Yep, its a keeper.

    Posted by Rich K    United States   09/06/2012  at  02:34 PM  

  3. Rich: “...and I wont let it die...”

    Nor should you.  Faithful cars should be kept running and shown the love.  Well done, sir.

    Posted by Argentium G. Tiger    Canada   09/06/2012  at  08:47 PM  

  4. My 1994 Ford Ranger (4 cyl, 2.3l) is fast approaching 228,000 miles.  I’ve owned it since it was new and I love it.

    If you want a very different experience from that wind up toy, got to a Ford dealer and test drive a Mustang GT with the 6 speed manual.  Find one with the 3.73 rear end if you can.  Ford claims 435 hp and independent dyno tests have gone as high as 450 hp.  Stomp the pedal and you MOVE.

    Posted by Dr. Jeff    United States   09/06/2012  at  11:48 PM  

  5. Doc - as they used to say, “passes everything on the road except a gas station!”

    I did test drive the 2009-10 GT with an auto. The one with 300-something ponies? What a damn waste. The car felt like a barge filled with fat, and all that wonderful power just spun the stupid torque converter around. NEVER AGAIN. Get a stick, or get a Buick.

    I drove Mercury’s version of the Mustang GTs for 15 years. My next performance car, should I ever be so fortunate, will be an Audi. As much as I like rear wheel drive, once you start applying more than 100hp per tire and the low-rev torque that produces it, the cars become parts eating monsters. But 80hp per tire and parts still last forever ... so divide 300hp+ up into 4 parts as Audi does.

    And for laughs, I want to be out there with a camera when my neighbors with their new GT try to drive it in the first snowfall. Ain’t gonna happen. FAIL.

    Posted by Drew458    United States   09/07/2012  at  09:11 AM  

  6. The 2012 version is something else entirely.  I’ve been driving a 2012 Mustang GT with 6 speed manual and 3.73 rear end for almost a year now.  The 300 bhp version is the V6, the GT has a 5 liter V8 that makes 450 bhp.  It’s the only car (including my beloved Ranger) I’ve ever seen that has not needed any repairs under warranty.  Long term reliability remains to be seen, but I’m hopeful.

    Ford made major revisions in 2011 with some minor tweaks in 2012.  60 mph shows up between 4.5 and 5 seconds, 100 mph around the 10 second mark.  Handling is TIGHT thanks to stiff sway bars and a 3 link rear suspension with Panhard bar.  Car and Driver actually did a test where a 2011 Mustang GT beat an equivalent BMW in all categories including handling and price.  The Mustang was $25,000 less than the BMW.  Your neighbors will probably do well this winter, there’s a very effective traction control system, but it’s more fun with the traction control turned off.  Steering with the throttle is very controllable, even without the traction control.

    If you can keep your foot out of it and stay in the 65 to 70 range, highway fuel economy runs around 26+ in the real world.  I’ve gotten as high as 28 with the cruise control set at 65.  City driving is problematic because punching the throttle is hard to resist.  That will drop the mileage to the 14/15 mpg range (or less if you’re having a really good time), but if you’re good (blech), you can get it up to around 17 or 18 mpg.

    The engine specs would do credit to NASA.  It features dual overhead cams with independently variable timing, 4 valves per cylinder, 11:1 compression and factory headers on top of the now normal fuel injection and electronic (one coil per plug) ignition.  The useful power band starts under 1,000 rpm and just gets stronger right up to the governed 6,800 rpm redline.

    All of that for under $33,000 including tax and license.  Yeah, I’m happy with it, I’ve already chewed up a Porsche Boxster.  The only disappointing thing is that the Camaros don’t want to play.

    Posted by Dr. Jeff    United States   09/07/2012  at  09:40 PM  

  7. 18mpg shock Thats a lot of car for the money but to run it in the UK you would need to be an oil sheik or a Russian gangster! Slightly off topic but interesting and relatively pertinent You might want to think about converting it to lpg, seems there’s no shortage of natural gas in the US now that shale is coming on stream!

    Posted by LyndonB    United Kingdom   09/08/2012  at  03:17 AM  

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Next entry: hate being on time when others aren't.

Previous entry: wed.night candy for the eyes sweet russian babe. oh my. tennis anyone?

<< BMEWS Main Page >>