2010-2014 Mustang Information on The S197 {GenII}

5.0 power numbers leaked? 400hp, 360tq, 6 speed.

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Apr 9, 2008 | 07:51 PM
  #41  
max2000jp's Avatar
Shelby GT500 Member
 
Joined: September 2, 2004
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
From: Chicago
Originally Posted by Knight
I would beleive fourcam330. He is pretty much right everytime.


I am going to start to rejoice now!
Finally got to read the thread after work...

Some of his info posted in that thread is a bit suspect. I don't believe the curb weight he posted. Secondly, why would Ford's lawyers allow him to post "insider" information?
Reply
Old Apr 9, 2008 | 08:16 PM
  #42  
jsaylor's Avatar
Team Mustang Source
 
Joined: January 29, 2004
Posts: 2,358
Likes: 1
As long as he isn't an employee and he doesn't say how or where he got the info there is nothing they can do about it. For everybody in this thread who doesn't know who Fourcam is and or isn't familiar with his history take note of this. His info has thus far never been wrong, and when I say never I mean that literally. Never wrong, not even once. He provided info on the GT500, 3.5L V6, and 3.7L V6 and was correct down to the smallest detail in regard to all three. He was also throwing around the numbers we are now hearing from Ford regarding 3.5L Ecoboost power output long before Ford ever released them. When he gives information on a Ford product you can bet the farm on it.
Reply
Old Apr 9, 2008 | 08:30 PM
  #43  
max2000jp's Avatar
Shelby GT500 Member
 
Joined: September 2, 2004
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
From: Chicago
Originally Posted by jsaylor
As long as he isn't an employee and he doesn't say how or where he got the info there is nothing they can do about it. For everybody in this thread who doesn't know who Fourcam is and or isn't familiar with his history take note of this. His info has thus far never been wrong, and when I say never I mean that literally. Never wrong, not even once. He provided info on the GT500, 3.5L V6, and 3.7L V6 and was correct down to the smallest detail in regard to all three. He was also throwing around the numbers we are now hearing from Ford regarding 3.5L Ecoboost power output long before Ford ever released them. When he gives information on a Ford product you can bet the farm on it.
Ford has a lot of money they can throw around and ruthless corporate lawyers. If I was Ford, I wouldn't want the competition knowing all the minor details of upcoming models this far in advanace. I am sure Ford doesn't like their proprietary being released

Anyways, Ford's own internal presentation shows that Ford is going to reduce weight so I find it interesting that he claims that much of a weight gain.
Reply
Old Apr 9, 2008 | 08:40 PM
  #44  
theedge67's Avatar
Team Mustang Source
 
Joined: July 4, 2006
Posts: 2,872
Likes: 1
From: St. Louis Area
Remember though, this is just a refreshed model of the current S197 chassis, so there isn't a whole lot they can do to save weight. Real weight savings can only come with a redesigned chassis that can take advantage of lighter materials.
Reply
Old Apr 9, 2008 | 08:44 PM
  #45  
jsaylor's Avatar
Team Mustang Source
 
Joined: January 29, 2004
Posts: 2,358
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by max2000jp
Ford has a lot of money they can throw around and ruthless corporate lawyers. If I was Ford, I wouldn't want the competition knowing all the minor details of upcoming models this far in advanace. I am sure Ford doesn't like their proprietary being released

Anyways, Ford's own internal presentation shows that Ford is going to reduce weight so I find it interesting that he claims that much of a weight gain.
Fourcam is, in me experience, always correct, but he is also typically a little conservative. So in essence you could be right that the weight numbers may be a bit high. For example he has hinted that the 400hp/360lb-ft of torque is a minimum number in the past and that actual numbers could be a little higher......the same could very well apply to curb weight. That is one of the great things about his info, numbres may actually prove to be a little bit better but they are never worse than he claims

Last edited by jsaylor; Apr 9, 2008 at 08:48 PM.
Reply
Old Apr 9, 2008 | 09:26 PM
  #46  
Boomer's Avatar
I Have No Life
 
Joined: January 30, 2004
Posts: 10,446
Likes: 12
From: Canada
Well figuring if it does weigh between 3500-3600..thats NOT bad considering it'll have a bigger engine (with 4v's now..not 3) and a 6speed manual (and probably auto)

His info is always correct as the current state of affairs.
Its not that he's been wrong in the past, its that things have changed.
He's really good at keeping people in the loop and throwing some hope our way

Last edited by Boomer; Apr 9, 2008 at 09:27 PM.
Reply
Old Apr 9, 2008 | 09:34 PM
  #47  
max2000jp's Avatar
Shelby GT500 Member
 
Joined: September 2, 2004
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
From: Chicago
Originally Posted by jsaylor
Fourcam is, in me experience, always correct, but he is also typically a little conservative. So in essence you could be right that the weight numbers may be a bit high. For example he has hinted that the 400hp/360lb-ft of torque is a minimum number in the past and that actual numbers could be a little higher......the same could very well apply to curb weight. That is one of the great things about his info, numbres may actually prove to be a little bit better but they are never worse than he claims
I like the fact that he said "6 speed" manual. There was no response from him on the IRS rear. If the GT had an IRS option, 400 hp, and a 6 speed manual I'd put my deposit down tomorrow.

Ford is committed to reducing curb weight, but I actually think the GT will gain a minor bit of weight. I was thinking more along the lines of 3475ish
Reply
Old Apr 10, 2008 | 01:31 AM
  #48  
IWantMyNewGT's Avatar
Team Mustang Source
 
Joined: October 13, 2004
Posts: 716
Likes: 0
From: Northern California
400 horses in a GT would get me to trade my '06 by then. I hope they get rid of the throttle lag while they are at it.
Reply
Old Apr 10, 2008 | 04:47 AM
  #49  
Black331's Avatar
Bullitt Member
 
Joined: May 28, 2004
Posts: 266
Likes: 1
From: Long Beach, Ca
Originally Posted by SuperSugeKnight
http://www.svtperformance.com/forums...d.php?t=477049

I know this guy gets good info. He's pretty much saying it's set.

That's them, but you're a few months late..
Reply
Old Apr 10, 2008 | 06:34 AM
  #50  
GTJOHN's Avatar
Cobra Member
 
Joined: June 25, 2004
Posts: 1,076
Likes: 0
From: Ohio
My gut feeling is that the new GDI V8 in the Mustang GT will be around 350hp. But, Ford could boost it up to 400hp depending on what the Camaro does.
I think after that decision is made, the cards will fall into place with the SE's.
Reply
Old Apr 10, 2008 | 07:38 AM
  #51  
Urlosingbd's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: November 8, 2007
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Thumbs up

Things are getting very interesting!
Reply
Old Apr 10, 2008 | 08:25 AM
  #52  
Boomer's Avatar
I Have No Life
 
Joined: January 30, 2004
Posts: 10,446
Likes: 12
From: Canada
i'd say SRA no IRS on this car.

Probably have to wait on the new platform for that
Reply
Old Apr 10, 2008 | 08:47 AM
  #53  
max2000jp's Avatar
Shelby GT500 Member
 
Joined: September 2, 2004
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
From: Chicago
Originally Posted by Boomer
i'd say SRA no IRS on this car.

Probably have to wait on the new platform for that
That's a deal breaker for me. Ford has done about all they can with the current SRA rear. A watts link would help, but an IRS rear is still better.

Hopefully, Ford will see it fit to upgrade the brakes. I'd like to see larger rotors front/rear for the GT. Heck, using the old 13" Cobra setup would be a nice upgrade!
Reply
Old Apr 10, 2008 | 09:25 AM
  #54  
SuperSugeKnight's Avatar
Thread Starter
Mach 1 Member
 
Joined: March 29, 2007
Posts: 766
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by max2000jp
That's a deal breaker for me. Ford has done about all they can with the current SRA rear. A watts link would help, but an IRS rear is still better.

Hopefully, Ford will see it fit to upgrade the brakes. I'd like to see larger rotors front/rear for the GT. Heck, using the old 13" Cobra setup would be a nice upgrade!
They better upgrade the brakes. Wasn't there a thread here that stated the the GT will have optional 19 inch wheels?
Reply
Old Apr 10, 2008 | 09:36 AM
  #55  
AWmustang's Avatar
Cobra Member
 
Joined: October 12, 2004
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 7
From: Milwaukee, WI
Originally Posted by max2000jp
Ford has a lot of money they can throw around and ruthless corporate lawyers. If I was Ford, I wouldn't want the competition knowing all the minor details of upcoming models this far in advanace. I am sure Ford doesn't like their proprietary being released

Anyways, Ford's own internal presentation shows that Ford is going to reduce weight so I find it interesting that he claims that much of a weight gain.
But that would be confirming that he's got the right numbers. Right now there is a major air of skepticism.
Reply
Old Apr 10, 2008 | 09:50 AM
  #56  
GTJOHN's Avatar
Cobra Member
 
Joined: June 25, 2004
Posts: 1,076
Likes: 0
From: Ohio
I've worked with reps from Ford, GM & Chrysler and Ford is the most secretive. Ford acts like its the "Cold War".
We ridiculed both GM & Chrysler the past couple of years because they continue to show prototype Camaro's & Challengers, but it was the right thing for them to do.
They have stolen some of the Mustangs swagger. Ford should do the same and show the next generation Mustang prototype in 2010.
Reply
Old Apr 10, 2008 | 10:12 AM
  #57  
SuperSugeKnight's Avatar
Thread Starter
Mach 1 Member
 
Joined: March 29, 2007
Posts: 766
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by GTJOHN
I've worked with reps from Ford, GM & Chrysler and Ford is the most secretive. Ford acts like its the "Cold War".
We ridiculed both GM & Chrysler the past couple of years because they continue to show prototype Camaro's & Challengers, but it was the right thing for them to do.
They have stolen some of the Mustangs swagger. Ford should do the same and show the next generation Mustang prototype in 2010.
Problem with showing the new Mustang early is that Ford still has '08's and '09 Mustang's to sell. People will see this new and improved Mustang and not want and '08 or '09. Those 2 models will then just sit there on dealer lots not making any money. GM & Chrysler don't have to worry about that since they don't have their pony cars in production at all.

Last edited by SuperSugeKnight; Apr 10, 2008 at 10:13 AM.
Reply
Old Apr 10, 2008 | 11:28 AM
  #58  
GTJOHN's Avatar
Cobra Member
 
Joined: June 25, 2004
Posts: 1,076
Likes: 0
From: Ohio
I said to show the next generation Mustang(2013?) in 2010. But, I understand what you are saying. The same logic would apply.
But, Mustang sales were still strong in 2003 & 2004, and everybody knew the redesign was coming in 2005.
Reply
Old Apr 10, 2008 | 11:34 AM
  #59  
SuperSugeKnight's Avatar
Thread Starter
Mach 1 Member
 
Joined: March 29, 2007
Posts: 766
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by GTJOHN
I said to show the next generation Mustang(2013?) in 2010. But, I understand what you are saying. The same logic would apply.
But, Mustang sales were still strong in 2003 & 2004, and everybody knew the redesign was coming in 2005.
Very true.
Reply
Old Apr 10, 2008 | 11:59 AM
  #60  
Boomer's Avatar
I Have No Life
 
Joined: January 30, 2004
Posts: 10,446
Likes: 12
From: Canada
It has to be timed right..

It can allow people who may be sitting on the fence to buy the current model and push up sales,
it can also have the reverse affect and have them wait for the newer version.

Although most people have no idea the power increases and such are coming.
Reply



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:29 PM.