> We own a 97 GT automatic which has a LOT less power and torque in its 4.6
> V8 than my 2001 GT has. Assuming what is wanted is a peppy car for around
> town and highway use, it would be hard to imagine a properly running
> automatic feeling slow off the line . . . assuming you had it in Drive
> rather than starting in second (the "2" position in the shifter). Traction
> is generally the limiting factor. Both my wife and I generally beat just
> about anyone across an intersection. I have to get a holeshot to beat her
> with my 5 spd 2001 (and I'm quick enough off the line to have won a whole
> bunch of Pro Solo's in my Formula Ford). If you left foot brake the
> automatic (not power braking . . . just using the left foot) it is easier
> to launch the auto quickly in normal driving than it is to launch the
stick.
Be aware that the '97 is a 220hp car, while the '01 is a 260hp car. In '99
Ford revised the 2v 4.6L engine. Add to that, the Auto/Stick difference, and
I bet it does feel different.
> The steering and suspension are what they are . . . Mustangs are not RX7's
> . . . but then RX7's are not Formula Fords <grin>.
Convertibles have softer calibrations to better match the "softer" chassis
structure. A coupe will always feel lighter and more responsive.
(Mustang-wise anyway)
> FYI I just drove a 2002 Nissan Maxima automatic rental for about a 1000
> miles. Even with regular gas (premium is recommended for best performance)
> that car was also quick. I accidently got to smell tire smoke once<grin>.
>
> Dick
> CM 85
> 1985 Van Diemen Formula Ford
I really like how the new Mazda 6 feels for a street sedan. The 220hp V6
pulls nicely, but the handling and brakes are really good.
Mike
CP 58
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|