Mustang 3.7

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
The only think I can figure is they are expecting a lot of part throttle snap. That's not how late models operate now. You have to step into the gas pedal and then they will go like a bullet.


Throttle tip in is huge variable, sometimes they just get it wrong.

Is this driven by fuel economy considerations at all? Maybe they don't want you guzzling too much gas unless you just bury the pedal? Some people don't know how to be gentle with a gas pedal, so for them, having somewhat of a subdued reaction from part throttle may not be a bad thing. For most others, it'll be a nuisance.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
The only think I can figure is they are expecting a lot of part throttle snap. That's not how late models operate now. You have to step into the gas pedal and then they will go like a bullet.


Throttle tip in is huge variable, sometimes they just get it wrong.

Is this driven by fuel economy considerations at all? Maybe they don't want you guzzling too much gas unless you just bury the pedal? Some people don't know how to be gentle with a gas pedal, so for them, having somewhat of a subdued reaction from part throttle may not be a bad thing. For most others, it'll be a nuisance.


In most cases it's simple programming, it's trying for smoothness and "feel'. There are adaptives involved as well, you may be able to reset them by pulling a fuse or something similar.

On my car if it is driven easily for too long the throttle response can go to heck, then I reset it and it is very responsive again!

 

[mechanicx]

I think the less agressive, slow throttle response and the transmission grabbing and holding on to the highest gear is just about all fuel economy driven.

 

[A_A_G]

Its a nice engine when geared properly. 2.73s are a joke when the car has 6 speed transmissons.

3.73s just like they have in the f-150 3.7 is needed.

 

[Cujet]

I rent them regularly. Don't like 'em. They are underpowered in the hills, and won't maintain speed up moderate grades, without large throttle input, and the resulting flurry of downshifting, followed by rapid acceleration, upshift and bog. Manual selection of gears solves this, however, it's surprising how poorly the engine pulls at lower RPM.

I also test drove a V6 with a 6 speed manual. Same feel, but nice transmission. Gutless until thrashed.

Locally, there is a guy who drag races his 2012 3.7L 'Stang w/manual. He installed headers, bigger exhaust, K+N, a tune and a few other goodies. Plus drag radials. He runs high 13's at 99MPH. Not exactly a powerhouse if it can't break 100 in the Quarter.

 

[mechanicx]

That seems to be the sad reality of cars today. They're tuned for a HP target for advertising, fuel economy, and maybe WOT performance numbers. Drivability takes a backseat.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
That seems to be the sad reality of cars today. They're tuned for a HP target for advertising, fuel economy, and maybe WOT performance numbers. Drivability takes a backseat.


[Darn]. You may have hit the nail on the head.

I can always hope that the Challenger isn't the same. It is just a matter of time before my wife stops oohing and ahhing everytime she sees a Challenger and decides that she likes it more than she likes not having a car payment. The Challenger is inevitible.

Maybe I will try the BRZ next. Main problem is that it costs roughly the same or more than a Mustang or Camaro.
Lesser problem is the small backseat. I fit in the back of a 280Z 2+2 on numerous occasions in high school. I'm sure my 9 year old can fit in a BRZ.

 

[aquariuscsm]

I drove one today and if I closed my eyes,I`d sworn I was driving an older 4 banger Fusion,Escape,or Focus.