No more 3.73 rear end
10-16-2011, 02:44 PM
#21
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: MO
Posts: 3,234
Ford is a private company... I'm pretty sure the Gov can't tell Ford what they can and cannot offer (as long as what they are offering is legal). On the other hand... California tried to ban black cars because they absorb more heat... not sure if they passed that.
10-16-2011, 03:01 PM
#22
Gentleman's Relish
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: AZ
Posts: 13,090
Ford is a private company? That makes no sense, they are a publicly traded company that is government regulated (stock exchange)....
Anyways, that's not the point. I still think it's a CAFE issue. While the sticker rated MPG didn't change, it should. 3.31 vs 3.73 does make a difference in MPG. In the past the EPA may have looked the other way for leaving advertised MPG untouched on a modded (geared) car, but CAFE is getting way more strict so the EPA is going to be looking at all that stuff.
Of course this all means nothing if the dealership guy was just talkin' out his **** (discontinuance of 3.73 option).
Anyways, who cares is still my point?
Anyways, that's not the point. I still think it's a CAFE issue. While the sticker rated MPG didn't change, it should. 3.31 vs 3.73 does make a difference in MPG. In the past the EPA may have looked the other way for leaving advertised MPG untouched on a modded (geared) car, but CAFE is getting way more strict so the EPA is going to be looking at all that stuff.
Of course this all means nothing if the dealership guy was just talkin' out his **** (discontinuance of 3.73 option).
Anyways, who cares is still my point?
10-16-2011, 03:04 PM
#23
Gentleman's Relish
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: AZ
Posts: 13,090
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/5365728.stm
10-19-2011, 08:42 PM
#25
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: MO
Posts: 3,234
Ford is a private company? That makes no sense, they are a publicly traded company that is government regulated (stock exchange)....
Anyways, that's not the point. I still think it's a CAFE issue. While the sticker rated MPG didn't change, it should. 3.31 vs 3.73 does make a difference in MPG.....?
Anyways, that's not the point. I still think it's a CAFE issue. While the sticker rated MPG didn't change, it should. 3.31 vs 3.73 does make a difference in MPG.....?
10-20-2011, 01:06 PM
#28
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: CA
Posts: 423
He was refering to FORD offerings, and for the $ spent. I think y'all are reading a little TOO much into this. I'm ONLY commenting on a single conversation. He seems like he knows what he's talking about...from our few conversations. Likeable guy.
I'm not saying that he couldn't be mis-informed. I'm just trying to pass along information.
AND....from my post, "...below the Boss 302..."
I'm not saying that he couldn't be mis-informed. I'm just trying to pass along information.
AND....from my post, "...below the Boss 302..."
I wouldn't be surprised if Ford wanted to create more distance between the Boss and standard GT's by limiting the 3.73's to Boss models and up. Just pure speculation here, but it wouldn't surprise me if this were the real reason.
10-20-2011, 02:06 PM
#29
Gentleman's Relish
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: AZ
Posts: 13,090
This actually makes the most sense beyond any EPA limitations.
I wouldn't be surprised if Ford wanted to create more distance between the Boss and standard GT's by limiting the 3.73's to Boss models and up. Just pure speculation here, but it wouldn't surprise me if this were the real reason.
I wouldn't be surprised if Ford wanted to create more distance between the Boss and standard GT's by limiting the 3.73's to Boss models and up. Just pure speculation here, but it wouldn't surprise me if this were the real reason.
I mean look at GM, they now have a Camaro ZL1 with more power than the Vette Z06 and costs less to boot.
Unless GM does some serious overhauling to the Z06 they are pilfering their own market share.
