The 3.8/3.9/4.2 were Essex family engines.


I agree.

There's no reason to spend a bunch of R&D in the middle of a model cycle to put IRS in the Mustang when it already handles better than it's closest competition, the Camaro and Challenger.

 

After reading this, I realized no one mentioned the Brembo brakes spec'ed for the 2011 Mustang will NOT utilize caliper weights. Yet another Mustang advantage.
Seriously though, hoping the Mustang gets a good, well-designed IRS next time around to prove Ford engineers know a thing or two about suspension tuning no matter what type it may be. Maybe then the people at Top Gear can stop whining about the rear axle.

 

It won't have the torque. Horsepower is a BS made up number. HP = TQ*RPM/5252. Who the hell thought that up?

 

fox 5.0's are slow as **** stock unless 14's are fast.

 

LOL, don't remind me! 5.slow - I like it for the beautiful noise it makes.

 

I've heard the gear ratios are the same for the first 5 gears, the 6th only being an additional overdrive for gas mileage, so no performance gain. That's comparing to the current models, I have no idea about the trannys in "old" 5.0s.

 

It may not have the same peak torque in the lower RPMs, but based on that formula, if the '05-'09 GT makes peak power near the same RPM... let's say 5500-6000rpm, then both cars are making similar torque at that point.

I don't think it'll be quite as fast as the '05-'10 GTs, but it may have a slight weight advantage, and the main torque disadvantage will be in the lower rpms where no one races, anyway.

 

I'm guessing Ford will use the Aisin AY6 tranny like GM did for the CTS and Camaro. Unless Ford asks for something different, I'd expect 4.17 for first, 2.37 for second, 1.54 for third, 1.15 for fourth, .89 for fifth and maybe .69 for six.

 

The 3.7L should have a big mechnical advantage thanks to the new tranny that make up for the torque deficit. The 370Z runs mid to low 13s with similar numbers. The Z has a higher redline and deeper gears so I don't expect the 3.7L to be as fast as the Z. I'm hoping for high 13s at 102 mph for the 3.7L and high 12s at 110 mph for the 5.0L. I'll buy a GT if I can swing it but I'm really impressed by the rumors for the 3.7L. Not to flame GTs but 13.8 at 102 is real close to 05 to 09 GT. The only thing I'm worried about is if the 3.7L will get a T-Lok and be able to put the power down.

 

Remember though that for cars at that time, these were fast. Its all relative. If you're running 14s with your 5.0 and your Camaro friend from the same era is running 15s, you're THE MAN. Most others like a 280z etc were probably running 16s.

 

People now a days are spoiled!! Even "grocery getters" run 14's. Back in the day I would roll up at the drag strip with my SLOW 5.0 85 GT and the only cars out running me were off the trailer!!

P.S: And I had a 7.5" 2.79 TracLoc..it ran low 14's@96 and 13.89 w/slicks. Most Slowmaro IROC 5.7's ran high 14's to low 15's. The only street cars faster were the Buick GN's.

 

We cry how slow are Mustangs are because we only have 300hp but i was watching a show on 60's muscle cars and most ran 14's even the 454 big blocks were only running 13.5. Look what we get out of our little 4.6's. It matches most 60's early 70 cars or does better.

 

Ford will not put out (at least not for the next several years) a V6 Model which can outrun the 05-09 GTs...mark my word.

 

Essentially, you're saying that there will NOT be an EcoBoost 3.5TT Mustang any time in the next several years.

Or, are you saying they won't make the BASE Mustang faster than the '05-'10 GTs?

 

An E92 M3 makes only 295 ft/lbs of tq. yet it runs mid 12's at 112mph...I'll take more hp over more tq anyday. Granted it does make 414hp but I keep hearing..it makes no torque yet the numbers don't lie. My 997S with its 3.8L H6 makes 295 ft/lbs of torque and it runs low to mid 12's up to 114.8mph...torque isn't everything. Its the whole package, a synergy thing. If Ford puts granny gears in the V6 then it could be a dog off the line. A lot of low end torque loss can be made up through gearing (torque multiplication).

Dave

 

Ultimately, it is horsepower, the actual measure of how much energy the engine is generating, that will determine how fast a given mass -- a car for example -- will accelerate.

In terms of torque, it is not engine torque that matters so much as rear wheel torque, which accounts for all the torque multiplication accomplished through the tranny and diff. With a higher winding "torqueless" motor, this can result in substantially higher rear wheel torque when all is said and done.

That's why the petite little 3.2 straight six in my M3, whirring out a wispy 262 lb/ft, actually puts down more rear wheel torque than a man-mountain 4.6 Stang V8 gushing out some 320 lb/ft and is, in the end, a merest hair quicker in a straight line (though more a drivers race in reality). Now the subjective experience will be a bit different with the Stang having a more "accessible" power band for street driveability, i.e., that great V8 low-end lunge. I'll leave it to each to decide which they prefer, though I think both methods are great in their own ways. However, when the Skeechers go to the floorboards, its simple physics of 333hp vs 315hp accelerating similar masses with predictable results, an M3 by about a license plate.

I suspect that the 315hp 3.7 will have very similar WOT acceleration figures as a 315 4.6, especially if its backed up by a tighter 6-speed tranny to keep it in the narrower meat of its powerband, a stick that will have to be wiggled more than the V8's to generate like numbers. Of course, the GT will have then upped its ante too, to the tune of some 400+hp out of the new 5.0, so the performance spread between V6 and V8 GT should be maintained.

 

[QUOTE=rhumb;5739915]Ultimately, it is horsepower, the actual measure of how much energy the engine is generating, that will determine how fast a given mass -- a car for example -- will accelerate.

In terms of torque, it is not engine torque that matters so much as rear wheel torque, which accounts for all the torque multiplication accomplished through the tranny and diff. With a higher winding "torqueless" motor, this can result in substantially higher rear wheel torque when all is said and done.

I'll leave it to each to decide which they prefer, though I think both methods are great in their own ways. However, when the Skeechers go to the floorboards, its simple physics of 333hp vs 315hp accelerating similar masses with predictable results, an M3 by about a license plate.

Nicely put. It reminds me of the debate over Harleys vs. sport bikes. Harleys have more torque, but I don't think anyone would argue which one is faster.

 

All good talk!

I'm thinkin' the 3.7L V6 will come in two states of tune--a very fuel-thrifty (with possibly fuel-thrifty manual tranny ratios and a fuel-thrifty differential) base model and one hotter model (which damned better be demonstrably more powerful than the V6 in the Camaro!) with a supercharged Terlingua or CS6 to come from Shelby within a year.

V8(s): Will the 4.6 three-valve carry on as a base Mustang GT powerplant with a hotter new-design 5.0L as an option? There's a lot of good in that engine--better than any GM/Chrysler design except for possibly the Slothstar, if the Slothstar will still be available in Cadillacs...

Personally, I can't see the new-design 5.0L coming in equal to or under the LS3 in the Camaro SS. Why bother? 400 HP ain't enough when others offer more, y' know? Up the displacement well beyond 5.0--sacred as that number may be to many Mustang faithful--if necessary to offer power that beats the current Camaro SS solidly, and see to it that the GT500 has more than enough to swat the *** of the Z28, if ever the Z28 actually sees production. This, too, may mean that 5.0 liters just ain't enough, even with a puffer.

The goal should not be just to dominate, but to dominate AND humiliate Anything less ain't enough...

Greg "Eights" Ates

 

Precisely correct. I was even able to embarress Corvettes of 1985 and 1986 vintage with my '86. The Grand Nationals however were a much different animal. That was the holy grail car of that era. The performance benchmark if you will. Everyone else was striving for that.

 

I'm still thinking that it would be smart to offer two versions of the V6.

One with roughly the same tune as the current FWD motor (275 ish) and the 315 hp performance version.

The Sport version could add dual exhaust, CAI, a tune, T Loc rear, and taller gears.

The 315hp version would fit nicely as a sort of "LX" or poor mans performance car. Great for those who want a bit of power, but either won't or can't move up to the GT. This still leaves the "secretary" base model for those who just want something that looks a bit sporty, but don't need a lot of power or care whos car is faster than whos. This is actually the majority of Mustang buyers.

I would love to see this.