they say "PFI" for the 3.7 V6 too. probably just a change in terminology now that the Mustang has the DI 4-cylinder, and they didn't make the change on the descriptor for the carryover V8.
at 5.2 liters, I'd think a flat-plane setup would be unacceptably bad from an NVH perspective. Ferrari can get away with it in their V8s since their engine is over-square (the 5.0 Coyote is pretty much square) and they can afford to weight match all of their reciprocating components.
This started right around the time the VW Routan was introduced. Maybe the Chrysler vans are actually VWs and not the other way around.
I'm pretty sure that's a lambo dude
YOU. OUT.
Came for this, left happy. :)
Torque is not power. Torque is force. Horsepower is power (it's right there in the name), also known as work.
Yeah, a run-of-the-mill Cummins ISX that you'd find in a semi is 400-600hp and 1450-2050lb/ft.
So by the time you've read all the signs... you've got a parking ticket.
I have no dog in this fight, I drive a WRX.
everyone knows the front heavy R32 golf handles like a champ!
VWs identity is "Hey, at least we don't fail as much as we used to"
I'll go grab my flame suit now.
Diesel tuner guys were breaking the 1000lb/ft mark back in the 90s. I'd like to see one of these putting down 1000hp/2000tq.
I'm not sure where you're getting this information but it certainly didn't come from SCG.
The first true performance car I ever drove was my Father's 1990 Plymouth Laser RS Turbo (Eclipse twin not AWD). 190HP felt unbelievably fast, the Turbo Lag was wonderful, the torque steer gave you a feeling of power. The car just felt quick, I have owned faster and better cars than that, but none have felt as quick…
On the one hand, as an enthusiast I should applaud the cheap horsepower. On the other hand, once you reach 500 horsepower is more really necessary? Of course as someone who grew up in the dark days of the 1980s, when 300 factory horsepower was astounding and 200 HP was excellent, I may just be getting old.
Never. He dissolves in water.