Took the plan outta my head.. I'm shooting for about 20k @ 36 months as well - and selling my car privately to make up the difference. I hope you'll get at least $15-16k.. I probably won't be so lucky because I'll have 30-40k miles by then..

 

Yeah.. it's funny because I also said the same thing when I bougth my '08. It was why I justified buying new instead of saving $10-15k on a used '05.. "I'm going to drive this thing into the ground.. and keep it in good shape for the next 20 years." I wanted to break in the engine perfectly and do everything just right.

Then they had to pull this 412hp crap.

Ford's doing a great job making desirable Mustangs and it's killing me financially.

 

You're also going to want the completely redesigned, 50th anniversary, Mustang in 2014

 

Actually, 302ci is 4.94889L so they should have rounded down. It's really a 4.9. 5.0 just sounded better. Plus at the time Ford had a 4.9l straight six in their pickup trucks. So to avoid confusion they renamed the V8 to 5.0.

 

And they called the F150's six a... 300cu in....

 

The internet chatter had this engine using a DAMB valvetrain, but not according to this blurb................. "The resulting all-new aluminum four-valve-per-cylinder heads feature a compact roller finger follower valvetrain layout leaving more room for high-flow ports for free-breathing performance."

 

Yeah that surprised me vs direct cam followers...

 

Those spotter mirrors are identical to the ones I ordered on my HHR. They take a little getting used to but once you do, you'll wonder how you ever got along without them.

 

It's a must have for me! Jeez , It seems like yesterday I was on the boards with Tacobill waiting for our 06's to come in.Time to do it all over again. Too good to pass up.

Hmm- I wonder if there will be greater Hp gains with the CAI and flash tuner vs the CAI /tuner on the 4.6 engines?

 

OK. I'll wait until NewTakeOff sells the trans, FRPP sells the engine, someone comes up with a tune and I'm in.

 

They also called it a 4.9L:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Straight-6_engine#300

I remember it well.

 

Doing the math on 3.63" bore x 3.65" stroke I come up with 302.19 c.i. or 4.95296 Liters which would round up (just barely but not down). So Ford technically did do it right ... rounding DOWN to 302 c.i. and rounding UP to 5.0L.


We've got TWO F150's here at work (1991 & 1994) both 2WD with 4.9L I6 and 5-Speed M/T.

Prior to these two, we had a 1989 F150 2WD with 5.0L V8 5-Speed M/T and I'd prefer a torquier 300 six over a 5.0L in an F150 any day of the week ... much beter TRUCK motor because it IS a truck motor !!

Doug

 

304 was an AMC V8 (i.e. Javelins, Gremlin X's, etc.). Chevy Nova's closest engine to 5.0L was either the 307 V8 (early 70's) or the 305 V8 that came later in the smog era (late 70's).

 

The old 5L was 4.942L wasn't it...not even correctly a 302 on the mark.
Like 301.511cubic inch

The new one is a real 302 and correctly rounded up (4.951 or 4.952 depending on where you read)

 

Actually, no, they did it wrong. The 302 had a 4" bore and a 3" stroke(same as the Chevy 302 in the Z28) which was 4.942L. I was around when all this happened and remember it well!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Windsor_engine#302

 

4.951 L = 302.128 in

but

5.0 L = 305.118 in

they couldn't give us the extra 2.99?

yaay!

 

You called it right on the new one.

From Autoblog:

"The end result is an engine with 92.2mm bore and a 92.7mm stroke. For the mathematically challenged, that works out to 4,952 cubic centimeters and now properly rounds to 5.0-liters while still equaling 302.2 cubic inches."

 

Nothing new with fuzzy OEM math at all. IIRC the 428 was actually 427 CI but they called it 428 to avoid confusion. Then there was the Edsel E-475 engine that was actually 430 CI but 475 TQ!! And no, I am not really that old--I just read a lot about cars.

 

Anyone see all these pics? Nice detailed 5.0L photos:

http://www.conceptcarz.com/vehicle/d...0&eventID=&i=3

 

Not sure where to post this -
with all the 2011 threads here, but -
The 'official' weights have been corrected here:

http://media.ford.com/images/10031/2...g_GT_Specs.pdf