For Ford to push the envelope, they'll have to put a quality bottom end into the cars. Doesn't seem like something they're focusing on lately. The 4.6's have junk bottom end parts, and they've even had problems (LOTS) with the cranks on their 5.4 truck engines.
The 4.6L isn't a base engine, either. That's the 232ci 190hp 3.8L. That makes .82hp per cubic inch.
By the way, the bashing on the Mustang II is way out of place as well. It may have been much like a Pinto, but it kept the name alive while many musclecars completely died. For it's day, the Mustang II was a good handling, light, quick little car. The 139hp 302 V-8 didn't make for extreme performance by any means, but the curb weight of the car was somewhere in the neighborhood of 2700lbs, which made it's 248lb/ft of torque capable of moving the little car out okay. It was right on with the shitty *** junker F body back then too. Less hp, but a hell of a lot less weight. The little Mustang II also had a cool interior, nice gauges, and a comfortable ergonomic setup. Options like a tration lok rear end, 302 (5.0) V-8, 4spd manual or C4 automatic, rally sport interior, and appearance packages kept it right with everything else from that era. My first car was a 1977 Mustang II with the rally pack gauges, brushed aluminum gauge bezels, 302 V-8, and C4 auto. It was a neat little fastback and had 180,000 short trip miles when we had it hauled away. Still ran great too, the body was just shot.
|