Notices
2010-2014 Mustang Information on The S197 {GenII}
Sponsored By:
Sponsored By:

5.0 is Back: 2011 GT Leads Class With 412 HP, Fuel Efficiency, Chassis Dynamics

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 1/4/10, 06:38 PM
  #221  
Bullitt Member
 
Mark S.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: July 20, 2006
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Ford Engineers only "rallied" their efforts because the Boytie guys woke them up! Yup, thanks Ford for staying ahead of the game...I guess the 2010 is going to be the "black sheep" of the Mustang family...nice car, but no grunt in the face of the 2010 Camaro SS.

Somebody at Ford was sleeping at the helm...again, thanks Ford for being reactive instead of proactive!
Old 1/4/10, 07:12 PM
  #222  
Swamp Donkey Aficionado
 
MARZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: November 23, 2006
Posts: 1,863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mark S.
The Ford Engineers only "rallied" their efforts because the Boytie guys woke them up! Yup, thanks Ford for staying ahead of the game...I guess the 2010 is going to be the "black sheep" of the Mustang family...nice car, but no grunt in the face of the 2010 Camaro SS.

Somebody at Ford was sleeping at the helm...again, thanks Ford for being reactive instead of proactive!
Ford stayed "ahead of the game" during the years when they had no real, direct competition by releasing the then-new, significantly-updated 2005 S197 model. Resources such as capital and engineering manpower in the Automotive Industry (as well as every other industry, I'm sure) are very tight and therefore better suited being allocated towards products that bolster their bottom line. I'm willing to bet the Mustang isn't one of those programs.

Just be happy a 412 horsepower 5.0L V8 capable of 25 MPG is coming out come MY 2011, geez.
Old 1/4/10, 07:26 PM
  #223  
I Have No Life
 
Boomer's Avatar
 
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 10,445
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 11 Posts
Originally Posted by Mark S.
The Ford Engineers only "rallied" their efforts because the Boytie guys woke them up! Yup, thanks Ford for staying ahead of the game...I guess the 2010 is going to be the "black sheep" of the Mustang family...nice car, but no grunt in the face of the 2010 Camaro SS.

Somebody at Ford was sleeping at the helm...again, thanks Ford for being reactive instead of proactive!
I wouldn't quite say they were asleep at the wheel.
The reaction was more to seeing what was ahead (fuel prices and weight), moreso than what the Camaro was doing...or doing wrong.
(competition is always in sight and had an answer, but its NOT the reason you didn't get a 5L in 2010)

The 5L was a year shorter developement wise compared to other engine programs...it was actually fast tracked if you look at it. A hurricane was meant to be under there, but being on-off again for various reasons, and other decisions got it pulled (thank goodness) and what we get here is something way better.
Old 1/5/10, 02:58 AM
  #224  
Team Mustang Source
 
IWantMyNewGT's Avatar
 
Join Date: October 13, 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 716
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mark S.
...I guess the 2010 is going to be the "black sheep" of the Mustang family...
My former '79 Fox-body with 88 HP would be happy to hear that!
Old 1/5/10, 04:14 AM
  #225  
Bullitt Member
 
blksn8k's Avatar
 
Join Date: January 12, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Mark S.
The Ford Engineers only "rallied" their efforts because the Boytie guys woke them up! Yup, thanks Ford for staying ahead of the game...I guess the 2010 is going to be the "black sheep" of the Mustang family...nice car, but no grunt in the face of the 2010 Camaro SS.

Somebody at Ford was sleeping at the helm...again, thanks Ford for being reactive instead of proactive!
Sounds to me like you've got it all backwards my friend. If Ford had not kept the faith and redesigned the Mustang in 2005 and proved that there was still a viable market for cars like this there would never have been a rebirth or regurgitation or whatever of either the Camaro or the Challenger. As a matter of fact, if it were not for the success of the original Mustang way back in 1964 there never would have been any knockoffs from GM or Chrysler.
Old 1/5/10, 10:52 AM
  #226  
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
 
Moosetang's Avatar
 
Join Date: February 1, 2004
Posts: 3,751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
SAE article on the 5.0:
http://www.sae.org/mags/AEI/7357
Old 1/5/10, 10:58 AM
  #227  
GTR Member
 
Overboost's Avatar
 
Join Date: September 28, 2009
Posts: 6,284
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Moosetang
SAE article on the 5.0:
http://www.sae.org/mags/AEI/7357
I notice they mention an S/C 5.0 several times. Good info on suppliers and more tech specs on the motor as well.
Old 1/5/10, 11:05 AM
  #228  
eci
Banned
 
eci's Avatar
 
Join Date: August 16, 2006
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don't like that we have yet another engine that we can't punch out much bigger like the modulars.
Old 1/5/10, 12:38 PM
  #229  
 
06GT's Avatar
 
Join Date: June 29, 2005
Posts: 4,618
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Not much new info there, but I'm still really excited!
Old 1/5/10, 01:49 PM
  #230  
Mach 1 Member
 
Clino's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"Some of the hints include threaded-but-unused mounting bosses on the front of the right cylinder head casting. The gaping space within the valley of the engine’s vee and an unused drive pulley on the front of the crankshaft point to an upcoming, but as-yet unannounced, supercharged version of the 5.0-L."

Yes please!

"Going to DI would enable a 12.0:1 compression ratio rather than the current 11.1:1 ratio, which would boost power only slightly"

I wonder if DI will be added for the 2012 Boss since it sounds like part of the reason they didn't include it was due to time constraints? A N/A screamer with 12:1 compression sounds good to me!
Old 1/5/10, 02:29 PM
  #231  
Bullitt Member
 
SyNRG's Avatar
 
Join Date: November 22, 2005
Location: Brea, CA
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by red454
Spent 10 minutes looking for the 'previous page'. Can you post the direct link? Thanks!
here ya go:
https://themustangsource.com/showthread.php?t=479359
Old 1/5/10, 03:22 PM
  #232  
GTR Member
 
Overboost's Avatar
 
Join Date: September 28, 2009
Posts: 6,284
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Actually saw a caravan with 3 2011 V6s on the way home from work today. Couldn't tell much, they were dirty and we were going in opposite directions, but they had the serial # on the windshield and M-plates, so that much was correct.
Old 1/5/10, 04:03 PM
  #233  
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
 
Moosetang's Avatar
 
Join Date: February 1, 2004
Posts: 3,751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by eci
I don't like that we have yet another engine that we can't punch out much bigger like the modulars.
And I'd be pissed if they went with a 100 lb-heavier block (and associated additional weight and dollars for the whole car) just to leave enough space between the cylinders for the guys who have an irrational hatred for FI.
Old 1/5/10, 04:09 PM
  #234  
eci
Banned
 
eci's Avatar
 
Join Date: August 16, 2006
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
lol, it wouldn't be 100 lbs heavier.

Pick an option:

Build new s/b for boost, 302CID.

Build new s/b for boost, stroke to 363 CID.

Only an idiot would leave unstroked if they had options. Cubes = power. Are you bummed the new engine is 5.0L and not 4.6?

Last edited by eci; 1/5/10 at 04:10 PM.
Old 1/5/10, 06:09 PM
  #235  
 
06GT's Avatar
 
Join Date: June 29, 2005
Posts: 4,618
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Originally Posted by Clino
I wonder if DI will be added for the 2012 Boss since it sounds like part of the reason they didn't include it was due to time constraints? A N/A screamer with 12:1 compression sounds good to me!
I doubt DI will make its way into a Mustang until there is no other way to achieve the EPA requirements for mileage at the given performance level.
Old 1/5/10, 06:23 PM
  #236  
GTR Member
 
Overboost's Avatar
 
Join Date: September 28, 2009
Posts: 6,284
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by 06GT
I doubt DI will make its way into a Mustang until there is no other way to achieve the EPA requirements for mileage at the given performance level.
We won't see DI for a few years. I'm sure they could even up the c/r a little more and change the heads on the RR motor and still get more hp than swapping to DI. We'll see soon enough.
Old 1/5/10, 06:36 PM
  #237  
Post *****
 
cdynaco's Avatar
 
Join Date: December 14, 2007
Location: State of Jefferson Mountains USA
Posts: 20,005
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by Overboost
We won't see DI for a few years. I'm sure they could even up the c/r a little more and change the heads on the RR motor and still get more hp than swapping to DI. We'll see soon enough.
Do you suppose DI would be excluded from the Mustang because it would put a crimp on the large after market power adder industry? With DI & Turbo you're kind of stuck in that one dimension...
Old 1/5/10, 07:04 PM
  #238  
V6 Member
 
The Blue Bomber's Avatar
 
Join Date: October 16, 2009
Location: My heart's still in Austin, TX.
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by eci
I don't like that we have yet another engine that we can't punch out much bigger like the modulars.
I wouldn't be too worried about it. You and I already know there will be a special edition above the GT, but below the GT500 -- that, and I'm sure that the 5.4L you've got, even after they update it with an aluminum block, will be able to handle a ridiculous amount of power.

That, and sooner or later, somebody will figure out what really makes the 5.0 a screamer, and we'll all be desperate to get that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there some rumor going around that with just a new FRPP intake manifold, it'll add like 50 horsepower? I remember reading something like that somewhere, but I can't recall if it was real or not.
Old 1/5/10, 07:10 PM
  #239  
Mach 1 Member
 
Juice's Avatar
 
Join Date: October 15, 2004
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why did I even bother to look at the green postings in the link earlier. It just pissed me off..

Last edited by Juice; 1/5/10 at 07:14 PM.
Old 1/5/10, 10:11 PM
  #240  
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
 
Moosetang's Avatar
 
Join Date: February 1, 2004
Posts: 3,751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by eci
lol, it wouldn't be 100 lbs heavier.

Pick an option:

Build new s/b for boost, 302CID.

Build new s/b for boost, stroke to 363 CID.

Only an idiot would leave unstroked if they had options. Cubes = power. Are you bummed the new engine is 5.0L and not 4.6?
Yes, Cubes = Power, And the sky is blue and fish are happiest when wet. The point I was making is that there's nothing wrong with taking an architecture to its bore limit in stock form, rather than intentionally leaving that potential to only be tapped by those enthusiasts who have the time and money to tear down and bore out their engines (while everyone else just gets dead weight). I was also making the point that more cubes aren't the only solution to getting more out of an engine, in fact thanks to a robust aftermarket FI makes a hell of a case for itself these days.


Quick Reply: 5.0 is Back: 2011 GT Leads Class With 412 HP, Fuel Efficiency, Chassis Dynamics



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:42 AM.