Future Boss 302
10/31/05, 11:45 AM
#81
Cobra Member
Join Date: September 10, 2004
Location: Charlotte NC
Posts: 1,302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by V10@October 28, 2005, 5:39 PM
Well, the point is the 03-04 Cobra engine ( 4.6, 4V, S/C ) is fully developed and tested. The only cost in putting it in a future SE is the cost of emissions and EPA mileage testing (assuming that it can meet 2007 and beyond emissions requirements with little effort).
Although manufacturing cost of a 4,6, 3V S/C will be lower than the 03-04 Cobra engine, it will take a fair investment in engineering, development & testing to make such a new engine production & warranty ready.
Same with a 5.4, 3V, N/A. That engine is in production. All it would take to put it in a Mustang is to do some computer tuning to get the HP up for a Mustang application, along with EPA testing. 350 HP should be a no brainer out of a 5.4L, 3V, N/A engine.
Ford will not spend a lot of $$ developing more SEs. Presently Ford just can't afford to do it and developing any new engine, even if it's just a new combination of existing parts really chews up the development budge.
Well, the point is the 03-04 Cobra engine ( 4.6, 4V, S/C ) is fully developed and tested. The only cost in putting it in a future SE is the cost of emissions and EPA mileage testing (assuming that it can meet 2007 and beyond emissions requirements with little effort).
Although manufacturing cost of a 4,6, 3V S/C will be lower than the 03-04 Cobra engine, it will take a fair investment in engineering, development & testing to make such a new engine production & warranty ready.
Same with a 5.4, 3V, N/A. That engine is in production. All it would take to put it in a Mustang is to do some computer tuning to get the HP up for a Mustang application, along with EPA testing. 350 HP should be a no brainer out of a 5.4L, 3V, N/A engine.
Ford will not spend a lot of $$ developing more SEs. Presently Ford just can't afford to do it and developing any new engine, even if it's just a new combination of existing parts really chews up the development budge.
While that's unfortunate, it is the reality of Ford's current situation. However, both are excellent engines so either choice would produce a great addition to the Mustang lineup!!
10/31/05, 08:38 PM
#82
Cobra R Member
Join Date: February 25, 2004
Posts: 1,796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well being an owner of a 1969 boss 302 i would like to drop my wish list.
first the number designation has to go by displacement. If they figure out a way to make it a 302, or if its 330, or even 281.. it has to be displacement.
Balance of performance is a must. I dont need a ton of power, just make it drive better, look better, give it a 6 speed. and please make it rev higher.
the original boss 302 had the limiter set at 7500, how sweet would that be!!
an extra 20-30 hp would be fine, but then my big thing is lighten it up, manual locks, manual windows, cloth seats, get rid of the ceter consol, have the shifter come through the floor through a rubber boot and a big chromed shifter sticking out.
black out the hood and decklid (flat black that is) but skip the ugly side stripes from the shinoda boss', i cant stand those. The original 69, or 70 stripes would be fine. lighter better wheels, lower the car a little bit. And some side exit exhaust... thats a winning boss package.
first the number designation has to go by displacement. If they figure out a way to make it a 302, or if its 330, or even 281.. it has to be displacement.
Balance of performance is a must. I dont need a ton of power, just make it drive better, look better, give it a 6 speed. and please make it rev higher.
the original boss 302 had the limiter set at 7500, how sweet would that be!!
an extra 20-30 hp would be fine, but then my big thing is lighten it up, manual locks, manual windows, cloth seats, get rid of the ceter consol, have the shifter come through the floor through a rubber boot and a big chromed shifter sticking out.
black out the hood and decklid (flat black that is) but skip the ugly side stripes from the shinoda boss', i cant stand those. The original 69, or 70 stripes would be fine. lighter better wheels, lower the car a little bit. And some side exit exhaust... thats a winning boss package.
11/1/05, 11:48 AM
#83
I talk to cones.
Join Date: April 25, 2005
Posts: 878
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok new revision to the My Boss idea.
If the tooling has been made then the cost should be reduced on the Ford GT engine.
Give us the Ford GT engine lowered in the chassis because of the dry sump oiling without the supercharger.
Then run it in the Grand Am Cup as the Mustang entries.
Lower center of gravity=better handling
Instead of shortening the springs to lower the Mustang redo the K-member in the front to lower it without creating problems with suspension alignment, then lower the rear accordingly.
1 to 1.5 inches should do.
Utilizing lower profile sticky tires would help also.
Disclaimer
I don't know how much Dry Sump Oiling costs but I do know you can buy a Ford GT bare block for 3 Grand, which probably is getting into the cost prohibitive realm.
If the tooling has been made then the cost should be reduced on the Ford GT engine.
Give us the Ford GT engine lowered in the chassis because of the dry sump oiling without the supercharger.
Then run it in the Grand Am Cup as the Mustang entries.
Lower center of gravity=better handling
Instead of shortening the springs to lower the Mustang redo the K-member in the front to lower it without creating problems with suspension alignment, then lower the rear accordingly.
1 to 1.5 inches should do.
Utilizing lower profile sticky tires would help also.
Disclaimer
I don't know how much Dry Sump Oiling costs but I do know you can buy a Ford GT bare block for 3 Grand, which probably is getting into the cost prohibitive realm.
11/2/05, 06:13 PM
#84
Originally posted by softbatch@November 1, 2005, 12:51 PM
I don't know how much Dry Sump Oiling costs but I do know you can buy a Ford GT bare block for 3 Grand, which probably is getting into the cost prohibitive realm.
I don't know how much Dry Sump Oiling costs but I do know you can buy a Ford GT bare block for 3 Grand, which probably is getting into the cost prohibitive realm.
11/2/05, 07:00 PM
#85
I talk to cones.
Join Date: April 25, 2005
Posts: 878
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Their are supposedly aftermarket conversions for the GT block to be Wet Sump. I would hope Ford could mod it enough to do that, combined with a windage tray maybe it would be comparable to the dry sump 
If my degree goes as it should then I will be making my Current mustang into an aluminium 6L(bored out 5.4) 3 or 4 valve engine depending on the tech at the time.
If my degree goes as it should then I will be making my Current mustang into an aluminium 6L(bored out 5.4) 3 or 4 valve engine depending on the tech at the time.
11/2/05, 07:55 PM
#86
Cobra R Member
Join Date: February 25, 2004
Posts: 1,796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i think sticking with the 4.6 would be fine, keep it all aluminum. I would say uprate it to like 340-350hp, that would be plenty fun for the new car. I just want to see it rev higher. It would be kind of funny to be shifting my 69 boss at 7500 with the original block in it, and only be able to pull 6 grand with my 07 boss or whenever it comes.. if ever
11/3/05, 08:32 PM
#87
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: January 1, 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by V10@October 28, 2005, 5:39 PM
Well, the point is the 03-04 Cobra engine ( 4.6, 4V, S/C ) is fully developed and tested. The only cost in putting it in a future SE is the cost of emissions and EPA mileage testing (assuming that it can meet 2007 and beyond emissions requirements with little effort).
Although manufacturing cost of a 4,6, 3V S/C will be lower than the 03-04 Cobra engine, it will take a fair investment in engineering, development & testing to make such a new engine production & warranty ready.
Same with a 5.4, 3V, N/A. That engine is in production. All it would take to put it in a Mustang is to do some computer tuning to get the HP up for a Mustang application, along with EPA testing. 350 HP should be a no brainer out of a 5.4L, 3V, N/A engine.
Ford will not spend a lot of $$ developing more SEs. Presently Ford just can't afford to do it and developing any new engine, even if it's just a new combination of existing parts really chews up the development budge.
Well, the point is the 03-04 Cobra engine ( 4.6, 4V, S/C ) is fully developed and tested. The only cost in putting it in a future SE is the cost of emissions and EPA mileage testing (assuming that it can meet 2007 and beyond emissions requirements with little effort).
Although manufacturing cost of a 4,6, 3V S/C will be lower than the 03-04 Cobra engine, it will take a fair investment in engineering, development & testing to make such a new engine production & warranty ready.
Same with a 5.4, 3V, N/A. That engine is in production. All it would take to put it in a Mustang is to do some computer tuning to get the HP up for a Mustang application, along with EPA testing. 350 HP should be a no brainer out of a 5.4L, 3V, N/A engine.
Ford will not spend a lot of $$ developing more SEs. Presently Ford just can't afford to do it and developing any new engine, even if it's just a new combination of existing parts really chews up the development budge.
http://forums.bradbarnett.net/index.php?sh...=futuresvt&st=0
SC 4.6 in an S197 is the path to righteousness!!!
"And yea though I walk through the shadow ...."
11/4/05, 10:32 AM
#88
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Cheese302@October 31, 2005, 10:41 PM
well being an owner of a 1969 boss 302 i would like to drop my wish list.
first the number designation has to go by displacement. If they figure out a way to make it a 302, or if its 330, or even 281.. it has to be displacement.
Balance of performance is a must. I dont need a ton of power, just make it drive better, look better, give it a 6 speed. and please make it rev higher.
the original boss 302 had the limiter set at 7500, how sweet would that be!!
an extra 20-30 hp would be fine, but then my big thing is lighten it up, manual locks, manual windows, cloth seats, get rid of the ceter consol, have the shifter come through the floor through a rubber boot and a big chromed shifter sticking out.
black out the hood and decklid (flat black that is) but skip the ugly side stripes from the shinoda boss', i cant stand those. The original 69, or 70 stripes would be fine. lighter better wheels, lower the car a little bit. And some side exit exhaust... thats a winning boss package.
well being an owner of a 1969 boss 302 i would like to drop my wish list.
first the number designation has to go by displacement. If they figure out a way to make it a 302, or if its 330, or even 281.. it has to be displacement.
Balance of performance is a must. I dont need a ton of power, just make it drive better, look better, give it a 6 speed. and please make it rev higher.
the original boss 302 had the limiter set at 7500, how sweet would that be!!
an extra 20-30 hp would be fine, but then my big thing is lighten it up, manual locks, manual windows, cloth seats, get rid of the ceter consol, have the shifter come through the floor through a rubber boot and a big chromed shifter sticking out.
black out the hood and decklid (flat black that is) but skip the ugly side stripes from the shinoda boss', i cant stand those. The original 69, or 70 stripes would be fine. lighter better wheels, lower the car a little bit. And some side exit exhaust... thats a winning boss package.
A hi-po 4V version of the 4.6, AL block of course for light weight, tuned for about 350-375 and a 7K redline (7.5K cutout) would be sweet. Back that up by a tight 6 speed manual.
Suspension? Perhaps drop it an inch but no more to retain travel for real world back roads. My dream would be to finally release the IRS to advance the Mustang's handling prowess beyond the strip and smooth skid pad/race track into world class, real road levels. If the buggy axle must be kept, at least utilize some lightweight materials (AL, CF, MG) to excise all that unsprung dead weight.
Brakes? Great big Brembos, easy enough.
Body? Resist the knee-jerk retro/repro urge here. Rather, do a very modern interpretation of the Boss design theme. If big goofy stripes are a must for the adolescents, at least make them optional/deletable. Same with any other gaudy ornamentation. If somebody wants to tart it up as a rolling Boss cartoon, fine, but at least leave some option for a more restrained, dignified presentation too for those who'd rather carry a big stick but speak softly. I agree on the nomenclature -- relate it to the engine displacement to give it a further air of credibility. Given the modern times, I might use deciliters (Boss 460) or something.
Interior? VERY functional. This is a serious driving machine, not a pimp mobile for showoffs. Put in some serious bits: Recaro seats, well padded well, far more visible guages, etc.
Weight? Here's where the Boss approach to performance could differ from the typical Mustang approach, ala GT500, where you just lard on more stuff. Tackle the weight/HP ratio at the other end: lighten the pig up. Maybe some more aluminum body panels and other body parts. Move the battery to low in the back trunk. Lightweight BBS wheels. You get the idea. Trim 100-200 pounds of fat off the waistline and you'll reap benefits not only in a straight line, but also around the bends and stop signs. Maybe even an extra mpg or two -- not an insignificant consideration in this day of $2-$3+ dollar gas.
11/4/05, 11:45 AM
#92
Cobra Member
Join Date: January 26, 2005
Posts: 1,194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by rhumb@November 4, 2005, 11:35 AM
If somebody wants to tart it up as a rolling Boss cartoon, fine, but at least leave some option for a more restrained, dignified presentation too for those who'd rather carry a big stick but speak softly.
If somebody wants to tart it up as a rolling Boss cartoon, fine, but at least leave some option for a more restrained, dignified presentation too for those who'd rather carry a big stick but speak softly.
Great line!!!!
11/10/05, 01:19 AM
#93
GT Member
Join Date: September 16, 2004
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by V10@October 1, 2005, 9:42 AM
The low volume of a SE Mustang (10,000 units a year) certainly would not justify spending much money on developing a 5.0 engine.
The low volume of a SE Mustang (10,000 units a year) certainly would not justify spending much money on developing a 5.0 engine.
Ford will likely de-stroke the 5.4L Triton to 5.0, but a new mid-height deck 5.0 might also be feasible IF Ford decides to use it in other cars, replacing the 4.6L short-deck outright. Potentials include:
1) F-series pickups
2) Explorer/Sport-Trac SUV's
3) Lincoln Continental
4) Any other D2C car that Ford might want to consider developing
It's also worth noting that the 4.4L narrow-angle Yamaha motor might be finding its way into SVT versions of upcoming vehicles, especially performance versions of products that feature a transverse-mounted engine. Ford may do well to distance their own V8 family with higher displacement.
So... just a couple new castings, a stroke of 97.9mm, and a storied displacement is restored across the entire lineup.
11/10/05, 05:53 PM
#94
I agree a 5.0L mid-deck height engine would make a lot of sense. Cost would be relatively low, but it still would take $$ to do it, so I wouldn't hold my breath as we're more likely to end up with a de-stroked 5,4 if anything.
Continental will be based of the Volvo / 500 platform so the Mod motor won't fit. Instead of spending any more $$ on developing the Mod motor, Ford wil proabably spend the $$ tooling up for a US made version of the Yamaha - Volvo 4.4L.
I really don't like 60 deg V8s though, which is what the Yamaha V8 is.
Continental will be based of the Volvo / 500 platform so the Mod motor won't fit. Instead of spending any more $$ on developing the Mod motor, Ford wil proabably spend the $$ tooling up for a US made version of the Yamaha - Volvo 4.4L.
I really don't like 60 deg V8s though, which is what the Yamaha V8 is.
11/11/05, 05:12 AM
#95
GT Member
Join Date: September 16, 2004
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by V10+November 10, 2005, 6:56 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(V10 @ November 10, 2005, 6:56 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>I agree a 5.0L mid-deck height engine would make a lot of sense. Cost would be relatively low, but it still would take $$ to do it, so I wouldn't hold my breath as we're more likely to end up with a de-stroked 5,4 if anything.[/b]
Yeah, I know you're right. I just thought a tall block might be a very tight squeeze in some applications...
<!--QuoteBegin-V10
Continental will be based of the Volvo / 500 platform so the Mod motor won't fit. Instead of spending any more $$ on developing the Mod motor, Ford wil proabably spend the $$ tooling up for a US made version of the Yamaha - Volvo 4.4L.[/quote]
Ford is really committed to FWD/AWD vehicles-- the Mustang is likely the last NEW RWD car that we'll see by the end of the decade. So, for Ford, developing a compact 60 degree V8 with a smaller displacement makes a lot of sense. If Ford decides to do an SVT Five Hundred, I can guarantee you this would be the first motor they'll look at.
Also, Ford wouldn't be the first to increase the displacement of their base V8-- Daimler-Benz is increasing their base V8 to something like 5.5L now...
11/11/05, 04:10 PM
#96
Originally posted by grabbergreen@November 11, 2005, 6:15 AM
Yeah, I know you're right. I just thought a tall block might be a very tight squeeze in some applications...
[
Yeah, I know you're right. I just thought a tall block might be a very tight squeeze in some applications...
[
11/13/05, 03:06 AM
#97
Bullitt Member
Join Date: March 19, 2004
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the BOSS, they should focus on weight savings...in the engine bay, too. Make that sucker rev to about 7500 rpms, and pull like a freight train through the rev range. And make it look like the GTR!...with a wing like the '69 
give me the car Rhumb "designed" lol and make it look like the GT-R and im a happy camper 
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Evil_Capri
Mustang Motorsports
1
9/11/15 08:39 AM