New Mustang v6 (no mods) suffers driveshaft failure, talk about cost cutting!

[Telionis]

I didn't know people bought the V6 models for performance. Learn something everyday!

Considering that the v6 version outruns a stock VR4 and last generation's 260 hp Mustang GT v8 on the highway (104 mph traps) and on a road course (believe me, it hurts to say, but even the STi got beat). I'd say people do indeed buy them for performance. They are damn near identical to last year's V8, which people considered pretty respectable.

i don't really think you could consider any domestic v6 a "performance engine" before the current crop of coupes. the last domestic 6 that was worth a damn was the syclone--and that was a freakin truck.

Indeed, but the current generation is top notch. All three Detroit powers now offer 300+ hp v6 engines. They are quite advanced too, usually DOHC, 24-valve engines with variable timing and direct injection, etc. That puts them on par with last generation's 350z and Hyundai's current 3.8L Genesis Coupe. It is also way too close [for Nissan's comfort] to the current 370z. For a base engine, that is pretty freaking respectable, especially considering just a year ago the GT got similar power levels from a V8 (as did our beloved VR4s).

Woah, woah woah... You mean to tell me that if I intentionally modify this car it might catastrophically break something in the drive train?

LOL. Not even the Integra owners consider removing the speed governor to be a real mod. This is nothing like putting 860 cc injectors and 20g turbos on a VR4 and destroying the stock transfer-case (bad syncros != exploding driveshaft). Ford advertised this car as a performance vehicle. They claim it is in every way comparable to last year's GT, which is why they specifically offered GT suspension, gears, LSD and brakes as an add-on. As such, there is no excuse for them to skimp out on such a consequential part of the drive-train.

Ford was marketing the v6 as a cheaper, but similarly performing, alternative to the Genesis 3.8, which is capable of reaching 149 mph safely. To imply that their product is comparable, despite it literally falling apart at 135, is downright disingenuous. My Dad's 92 Maxima SE could do 137 mph (according to the magazines), for a "performance" sports-car to self-destruct at speeds that a 20 year old Maxima can handle is downright unacceptable.

Frankly, I consider it a textbook example of bad engineering. A car should never be capable of going fast enough to fall apart. When it comes to top speed, or any performance category for that matter, the limiting factor should always be the car's capabilities (power, drag, gears, grip, etc.), it should never be safety.

I'm surprised that you consider this engineering disparity acceptable just because it is so unintrusive. Yes, admittedly, you have no business doing 115+, but that is not the point at all. Imagine if the problem was more obvious: "don't use the brakes to their fullest extent or the caliper brackets will snap" or "don't ever go WOT because the differential will break, saying "never go as fast as the car is capable of going because the driveshaft will shatter is just as preposterous.

Oh no! you'll have to spend $500 (or less, c'mon, its a Mustang) on a drive shaft if you want to go balls deep into triple digits on a public road in your econo sports car... FORD SUKS!1

I'd be very weary to drive the car aggressively now. Even if you upgrade the driveshaft, who knows what else they skimped on. Maybe you go WOT at the drag-strip and the flywheel explodes... Maybe the suspension is held together with hot glue...