jacjetlag

It will be the GT-350 and a great road car it will be.

AFBLUE

3.5L. GT 350. Makes numerical sense.

jsaylor

It sounds more and more like my guess that smaller versions of the Boss V8 will eventually appear could be completely wrong and that the TT Duratec V6 and 5.8L+ displacement Boss V8's wmay be slated to replace the entire existing V8 and V10 engine lineup on their own merit. Come to think of it, I wouldn't mind a 350 or more hp 3.5-4.0L TT V6 under the hood of an F150 in place of a 4.6L or 5.4L, especially not since it makes so much more hp than those existing V8's do. If you just have to have the V8, well that is what the 5.8L and 6.2L Boss V8's are there for. Frankly, given the choice I think I'd take the TT V6 for it's modability and potentially better mileage, and because it is almost certain to be less expensive.

V10

That's not hard to believe. When the existance of the D35TF first leaked, it was ifrom being spotted in a F-150 mule. The F-150 was intended to be one of the primary applications for the D35TF from day 1.

Although I rather have a NA V8, the D35TF makes a lot of sense. It will easily have 350 HP and get 2-4 MPG better gas mileage than a 4.6L, 3V, 300 HP V8.

What I want to know is when will Ford put direct injection on its normally aspirated engines, D35, 4.6L 3V. Direct inject should give both a 10% boost in HP and gas mileage on NA engines.

Knight

10% seems way to high.

Cleveland

so, are we talking about the Duratec 35 being able to take boost? Or... is this something other than what Ford is using in the Fusion and Edge?

-Dan

Boomer

I'd take the V8... more potential...
but that's just me

mustang_sallad

The D35 was designed with all sorts of future mods in mind, such as turbo charging, direct injection, and hybrid drive trains.

lethaljay

Plus I believe this application will make approx. 350 HP. Another concidence.

cheech6g

I dont know.....a TT V6 in a mustang just doesnt make sense to me......maybe in a mercury variant of the mustang ie Cougar....more of an upscale luxo sporst car to directly compete with say a G35? just my thoughts on it

b_btrick

I just dont get why some keep saying either that it doesnt make sense to put an engine like this in a mustang, or that it doesnt fit the image of the mustang.
Dont get me wrong, if I have a choice (and I did when I got my new one) I would take the V8 over a comparable V6 every time, even if I am giving up a few MPGs, well maybe, to a certain degree. The point is that I, like most on here prefer a nice big rumbling V8. I also understand that the majority of the people are now being exposed to the V6's from europe and asia and that those are the preferences for most people today. Good HP, high rev'ing, whiney (thats what they sound like to me anyway - like some whiney kid tossing a tantrum to get his way, but again thats just me), high tech, high efficiency etc etc engines.
Put this engine in a mustang and you have something for those who are used to that type of engine, want that type of engine, to look at rather than simply seeing the mustang as a 'muscle' car.
It seems to me that the beauty of the mustang isnt that it is just a muscle car, rather that it is a car capable of appealing to what most people want because of its adaptability. Want a muscle car - get a V8, or (hopefully in the future) a big block V8, or a SC V8. Want a car that gets good MPG but still has some style (as opposed to those little boxes everyone else is stamping out) then get the smaller engine. Want something modern, go for the TT. Makes perfect sense to me, if Ford wants to appeal to a wide range of buyer.

Oh, and one other possible reason for using the TT in the mustang. If Ford is truely trying to globalize its lineup, then exporting the mustang would make sense, and if Ford expects to sell the mustang overseas it will have to have something that the europeans will identify with, which would be the TT engine much more so than the V8.

rhumb

I agree. Too many people seem to want to constrain the Stang's image as being little more than a big-motored, broad-axe of a muscle(bound) car, dismissing any other side as somehow being sacrilegious or something. But indeed, the Mustang was originally conceived of as almost being a kind of anti-muscle car in its day, what with modest proportions, clean and sophisticated styling, small high-winding V8 and some emphasis on overall balance and handling. The more muscle car aspect of the Stang persona didn't develop for some years later with the advent of the 390 big block in '67, eventually bloating to comic excess with the ’71 429 Mach I’s in some automotive equivalent of “Super-size Me.”

But the Stang always did, generally, have a big part of its personality in the anti-muscle car image, be it GT350s, Boss 302s, SVOs and DOHC IRS Cobras. While the hardware underneath may never have quite matched the poor man's M3 aspirations, at least the attempts were rebuttals against lumbering dreadnaughts of one-dimensioned drag racers.

The hopes and desires for a fully-realized affordable American variant of a 3-Series/M3 were stoked by Ford’s rumor mill prior to the release of the S197, but last minute cost crimping once again undercut the promise a bit (smallish brakes, Conestoga-class rear axle), replaced by some vacuous pap about heritage that was belied by the lack of drum brakes and leaf springs for that true heritage experience.

Not to say that their shouldn’t be Stang models in the big motored blunderbuss idiom, there’s a huge following for that too and it would be foolish to ignore that market segment, with perhaps the GT500 being the ultimate if overpriced expression of this lineage – a more affordable 5.4 Mach I would be a painfully obvious addition to the lineup for those still scratching away in vain at their Lotto tickets.

Perhaps the addition of a TT3.5 along with the belated release of a proper 21st century IRS, brakes capable of more than one big stop per minute and an overall emphasis on overall dynamic excellence rather than cheap stoplight thrills will finally flesh out that side of the Stang’s personality. That might well be the affordable M3 slayer many of us have been dreaming about and a capable successor to the GT350s and Boss 302 spirit.

It would also open the door to a whole new (existing) market that has dismissed the Stang as too crude and one-dimensional. I’m sure many a current import buyer would love to indulge in a credible and well balanced American performance coupe if it existed. The Camaro may well try to tap into that market a bit with the more sophisticated architecture of Zeta platform so perhaps Ford should get ahead of the curve (pun intended).

GT98

I think the Twin Force will only find a limited Mustang application based on the numbers given out...I thought I read some place that Ford is looking at only selling 40-50K MKS a year (also constraned capaisty at Chicago with the Taurus/Taurus X and Sable and a possible 5 model) with the F-150 eatting up most of that production. Considering that the Mustang only sells about 130-150K units a year with roughly half of them GT's...

cheech6g

but thats just it.....the mustang IS a muscle car, maybe it didnt start off as one when it first came out, but that is what it has been for some time now and that is what it is to well anyone who sees it. why would ford expand the mustang line with a totally different stlye mustang that competes with the GT and other upscale modles? thats why i say just put the 3.5TT in a Mercury price it in the mid 30's, give it IRS, really nice interior, smoother ride, and make it more exclusive than the mustang. When people look at the mustang, they think mustang......it pretty much in its own class.

Evil_Capri

Remember that the Mustang had a Turbo-4 (Mustang GT & SVO) in the '80's and while they didn't sell well there is a following for them and they are/can be quite good performers.

jarradasay

my crave with the turbo is that unlike a larger displacement, V8, or Supercharged cars the fuel consumption is not linear. If you cruise in a V8 or SC'd car at 45 or 65 you're spending gas to turn all 8 cylinders or worse yet turn the SC. When you drive at 45 or 65 in a Turbo you are only spending gas to turn the 6 cylinders (in this case) Turbos are nearly nonexistent at cruise. you will see fuel mileage almost mirror the fuel mileage of a standard 3.5 when you cruise. Now taking off... that is a different story altogether. But hey, the possibility of 300+ HP and 29 Highway miles, I am all for that!

Now the real fiscal question. Why on earth would ford create another model or a mustang twin to put this engine in. It makes absolutely poor finacial sence. Lets spend money to rebadge, rebumper, and restyle the mustang to make a mercury model. That is just poor use of capital. While the industry is trying to reduce nameplates, why would ford increase? Muscle car... sometimes makes me laugh. Muscle has changed so much over the years, i don't even know what it means. You've got the worlds strongest men, who look like heart attachs waiting to happen but can tow more than my truck. you have the fitness champs, Lance Armstrong, Micheal Johnson, Magnus, Goldberg. What is muscle? You ask me and muscle is anything capable of providing enough power to be a champion. And that is definitely what the 3.5 TT will be able to do.

bob

I dunno, it'd have ta be packaged with IRS to really make a case for serious export. Generally the highways in europe are better (although I hear the roads in town are worse than in the US) which would favor a live axle, but LRA is strictly an american phenomenom

GTJOHN

This is just R&D. If anything, this R&D is being done for a hot new Lincoln.
V8's will remain in the Stang until Uncle Sam puts a stop to it.

b_btrick

no one is saying the V8 will be removed from the mustang options. this is not an either/or concept. its simply that there is a viable reason for Ford to put a TT V6 in the mustang should they decide to do so. it doesnt require that they no longer use a V8, simply that they can find a market for mustangs that produce as much HP/Torque with other engines as well as the V8.
I agree, bob, if Ford were to try something like that (kind of interesting thinking of a US company actually EXPORTING something other than jobs) they would have to change more than just the engine. Though, I would guess they would want to maintain the best for the least philosophy that has worked so well with the mustang. Still some things would almost be required at a minum and in addition to using a V6 to appeal to the 'slightly' more MPG minded euros, an IRS would likely be necessary (even though the performance wouldnt really improve, just the higher tech image - oh, and the pricetag).

V10

Seems to me that the heart of the anti turbo V6 sentiment is miss placed V8 machismo. It seems some people don't want anyone else to have a V6 Mustang with more HP, that accelerates faster, handles better and gets better gas mileage than their V8 Mustang GTs.



Although I still prefer a NA V8, it is foolish to not want Ford to sell a factory turbo V6 Mustang. The Mustang cannot survive on V8 sales alone. A turbo V6, especially with IRS would increase Mustang sales by attracting new customers and help keep the Mustang alive for many more years.