2010-2014 Mustang Information on The S197 {GenII}

The 3.5/Twinforce Mustang EXISTS

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Apr 30, 2007 | 02:46 PM
  #41  
MSP's Avatar
MSP
Banned
 
Joined: September 19, 2005
Posts: 1,897
Likes: 0
Here is another Ford Turbo creation.. Remeber the Ford XR6 motor.. Another 1000HP motor.. This video is insane!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUWCo3lDjH8

Our future is very bright guys!! Dont beat yourself up about the need to absolutley own a V8.. Times are changing!
Reply
Old Apr 30, 2007 | 03:11 PM
  #42  
Knight's Avatar
Needs to be more Astony
 
Joined: October 4, 2004
Posts: 8,610
Likes: 5
From: Volo, IL
Originally Posted by MSP
Here is another Ford Turbo creation.. Remeber the Ford XR6 motor.. Another 1000HP motor.. This video is insane!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUWCo3lDjH8

Our future is very bright guys!! Dont beat yourself up about the need to absolutley own a V8.. Times are changing!
I love turbos..but i also love V8...thats why i want to turbo my GT.

Yeah you don't need a V8 to make obseen power...but i do like that a large displacment engine can do huge numbers with less boost and lower octane gas.

heck if i pumped 19lbs of boost(stock evo setting) My GT would do 500+hp.
Reply
Old Apr 30, 2007 | 07:03 PM
  #43  
Boomer's Avatar
I Have No Life
 
Joined: January 30, 2004
Posts: 10,446
Likes: 12
From: Canada
Originally Posted by MSP
It is conceivable Boomer that Ford could perhaps create a 4.6L variant of this engine in the future .. This 4.6L TT engine could claim MPG equivelant to that of a V6 engine.. This option would be for the die hard V8 fans which refuse to endeavor into the world of a V6.. LOL!

So yes it is possible that some day, if Ford chooses, they could create a V8 version identicle to this 3.5L V6.. Perhaps a 4.5L TT or 4.6L TT..

If we email them enough, how about a similar 5.0L TT... They could do it if they wanted.. Using the same technology..
If I can remember correctly, the Duratec35 could go to 4 litres...

This could just be a guess here... but I think the Duratec35 up to TwinForce engine(s) will carry power up to the BOSS 5.8, and the 4.6/5.4 would eventually disappear.

Wasn't it stated somewhere that there was a BOSS TwinTurbo being tested and I do remember reading that the 5.8/6.2 were tested up to 750hp...

Now, call me crazy....
But I could see if that's the case:

- 3.5L Mustang V6 with 250-265hp
- 3.5L Mustang TwinForce with 350hp
- 5.8L Mustang GT with 390-425hp
- 6.2L Mustang Cobra/GT500 with 525-550hp

One can dream
Reply
Old Apr 30, 2007 | 07:26 PM
  #44  
V10's Avatar
V10
Shelby GT350 Member
 
Joined: March 11, 2004
Posts: 2,146
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by Boomer
If I can remember correctly, the Duratec35 could go to 4 litres...

Now, call me crazy....
I've seen max displacement numbers for the D35 anywhere from 3.8L to 4.2L so at this point who knows. However once you get above 3.7L or so NHV becomes a problem for V6s, even 60 degree V6's.

And since you asked for it, You're crazy.
Reply
Old May 1, 2007 | 08:58 AM
  #45  
GTJOHN's Avatar
Cobra Member
 
Joined: June 25, 2004
Posts: 1,076
Likes: 0
From: Ohio
I'll be honest, I will always want a V8 Stang. You can't beat the sound or the Muscle Car tradition. But.......there is no doubt in my mind, that V6's are the future. I even expect a resurgence of High Performance 4 Bangers from the Big 3.
With Government regulations, the environment, and higher gas prices - the evolution of smaller High Performance engines will be mandatory.
Reply
Old May 1, 2007 | 09:31 AM
  #46  
V10's Avatar
V10
Shelby GT350 Member
 
Joined: March 11, 2004
Posts: 2,146
Likes: 1
What Ford needs to to is to make a V6 Mustang that is attractive to enthusiasts.

Base V6 with the 265HP D35

Performance V6 with a 3.8L direct inject, n/a Duratec V6 that has 300+ HP, gets 2 MPG better than the present GT, has the GT suspension, brakes that are better than the GT, etc.

And move up the GT to >350 HP.
Reply
Old May 1, 2007 | 06:10 PM
  #47  
Boomer's Avatar
I Have No Life
 
Joined: January 30, 2004
Posts: 10,446
Likes: 12
From: Canada
I personally think the GT will have a nice ammount of HP come 2010-2011
Reply
Old May 1, 2007 | 10:35 PM
  #48  
hi5.0's Avatar
FR500 Member
 
Joined: August 15, 2005
Posts: 3,084
Likes: 0
From: Honolulu
Great, because I can wait.
Reply
Old May 2, 2007 | 12:29 AM
  #49  
bob's Avatar
bob
Legacy TMS Member
 
Joined: May 16, 2004
Posts: 5,206
Likes: 18
From: Bristol, TN
Originally Posted by MSP
Exactly!! Perhaps Fords late response to the 3.0L 1000RWHP Supra engine of 1994! LOL!!
Probably a 1500 HP V8 using 2 valves, one cam and either a turbo or a supercharger (which oddly my old neighbor used to build in his garage)

Crap, cut to much out of that quote, but you guys get my point, 1000+hp is not exclusive to the Supra powerpant and in mustang land, it has been there done that for some time.
Reply
Old May 2, 2007 | 07:23 PM
  #50  
randy_tho's Avatar
Mach 1 Member
 
Joined: December 1, 2006
Posts: 860
Likes: 0
People are talking on here like every Supra with a turbo is making 1000 hp.

I guess there are many examples of it but it takes a lot to make it happen. No doubt it's a real solid engine but stock and many modded don't make that much torque (comparitively). They are fairly peaky engines.

The 4.0 V8 found in the Lexus in 94 has been modded out to make that much or more power. Also there is the infamous Skyline R34 with even a smaller engine than the Supra.

There's even some 3000GTs that are making in the 900s if not more now.
Reply
Old May 6, 2007 | 12:53 AM
  #51  
Klay's Avatar
V6 Member
 
Joined: September 13, 2005
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by MSP
Yeah look at this evil EVO hanging with a Supra and killing a Cobra!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nWSTpfj3eE

Thats 2.0L... Imagine what this 3.5L TT motor will be able to do.. So 2.0L @ 600WHP... 3.5L TT @ ?

Ford has stopped pulling punches finally.. Looks like they are going for a K.O with this motor..

My guess is with a proper tune, a stock V6 Mustang with this motor would easily kill a Z06 Vette no problem.. With the right amount of boost applied to the motor...
Well that's not entirely true about the evo... The forced induction actually increases the displacement. So no, a 2.0 motor n/a wouldn't even come close to that performance.
Reply
Old May 6, 2007 | 12:59 AM
  #52  
fordboy97f150's Avatar
Bullitt Member
 
Joined: October 5, 2006
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Boomer

Now, call me crazy....
ok...ur crazy...?lol j/k no i seriously think ford is gonna shock us all before long, they must be planning an ace up there sleeve to make competition non-existant
Reply
Old May 6, 2007 | 08:40 AM
  #53  
Boomer's Avatar
I Have No Life
 
Joined: January 30, 2004
Posts: 10,446
Likes: 12
From: Canada
I hope so, or we'll all be disappointed
Reply
Old May 6, 2007 | 04:37 PM
  #54  
MSP's Avatar
MSP
Banned
 
Joined: September 19, 2005
Posts: 1,897
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Klay
Well that's not entirely true about the evo... The forced induction actually increases the displacement. So no, a 2.0 motor n/a wouldn't even come close to that performance.
This is not a true statement.. Forced induction increases the compression ratio, which allows the motor to act as if it is of a larger displacement..

Forced induction does not actually increase displacement.. When forced induction actually does attempt to increase displacement, you usually end up with rods and pistons outside of the block! LOL!!

Its the increased compression ratio which makes the power of FI... Which then allows the motor to behave like similar motor of larger displacement...
Reply
Old May 8, 2007 | 02:53 PM
  #55  
Knight's Avatar
Needs to be more Astony
 
Joined: October 4, 2004
Posts: 8,610
Likes: 5
From: Volo, IL
I am sure he desn't actually believe that displacment increases. But he is right. a forced induction makes a vehicle act as a higher displacemtn engine. hense getting so much torque from such a small displacment. I can't remember how many psi normal atmosphere pressure is but once you add that amount of boost your engine acts twice is displacment size.
Reply
Old May 8, 2007 | 05:34 PM
  #56  
AnotherMustangMan's Avatar
Cam Tease
 
Joined: September 30, 2004
Posts: 1,378
Likes: 0
14.7 psi.
Reply
Old May 8, 2007 | 10:59 PM
  #57  
Knight's Avatar
Needs to be more Astony
 
Joined: October 4, 2004
Posts: 8,610
Likes: 5
From: Volo, IL
thank you.
Reply
Old May 9, 2007 | 01:48 PM
  #58  
Knight Rider's Avatar
Shelby GT500 Member
 
Joined: April 13, 2006
Posts: 2,752
Likes: 0
From: McAllen, Texas
Originally Posted by V10
I've seen max displacement numbers for the D35 anywhere from 3.8L to 4.2L so at this point who knows. However once you get above 3.7L or so NHV becomes a problem for V6s, even 60 degree V6's.

And since you asked for it, You're crazy.
so.. uh. can you explain?
Reply
Old May 9, 2007 | 02:24 PM
  #59  
MSP's Avatar
MSP
Banned
 
Joined: September 19, 2005
Posts: 1,897
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by 1969 Mustang Mach 1
so.. uh. can you explain?

Well based on the fact that we already know of some 4.2L V6's over 600RWHP which dont have this problem, I dont think its an issue...

There is also a 4.5L V6 @ 1200RWHP floating around somewhere..

Here is a 520+ RWHP Roush V6 Mustang Twin Turbo @ 14-15psi 4.3L V6

http://j.mustangcars.com/J/stang/tt/...no-pull-01.wmv

http://j.mustangcars.com/J/stang/tt/...-500-14psi.wmv

Reallly sick built 4.3L V6!!
Reply
Old May 9, 2007 | 07:42 PM
  #60  
randy_tho's Avatar
Mach 1 Member
 
Joined: December 1, 2006
Posts: 860
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by AnotherMustangMan
14.7 psi.

Or 1 bar. Correct?
Reply



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:11 PM.