Motor Trend's new article:
http://www.motortrend.com/future/fut...0_ford_mustang

I hope they show it soon, my bet is on New York's show. A 2010 GT500 with shoulders sounds mighty sweet to me!

 

They didn't try to hard with the Photoshop, did they?

There's barely a hip, the rear has a slightly different profile and it has different rims. Looks like this was done before any of the spyshots started to appear.

Not long to wait though, if this is true:

"Model rollout plans are still being finalized, but the current scenario is that 2009 will be an abbreviated model year, those cars being identical to the 2008. Then, the 2010s will be introduced in spring 2009, much as Ford did when it introduced the 19641/2 Mustang in April of that year, which then dovetailed into the '65"

 

It doesn't make any sense that they wouldn't be replacing the 4.0 with either the 3.5 or 3.7...

 

I agree the 4.0 felt outdated back in 05' nevermind 10'! I've driven a new Taurus and I must say that the 3.5 is a much improved engine. I know it is a little off subject but is Ford gonna put the 3.5 is the Fusion any time soon?

 

I agree, the Colonge V6 is getting very old. It can only be "Band-Aided" so many times. Plus Ford really needs to do something that would bump up the MPG on the V6 Mustang to help Ford's CAFE #s. A direct inject NA D35 would be exactly what's needed for the base Mutang engine. It would have a lot more power & refinement over the present 4.0 and would get 20% better MPG.

 

Shoulders

 

Why would including the ecoboost V6 be a shock? Seems a natural. What's wrong with 325 HP?

 

I personally can't wait for the new Mustang and competiton so I can buy a nice used GT500 for a fair price. I remember when the first 05' Mustangs hit the streets how easily one could find a 03-04 Cobra or Mach1 for chump change. Give the next GT500 50 more HP so people sell off their current GT500s i'd be happy with the 500HP and the look of the current car

 

Direct injection has great low end torque but it looses steam as the revs rise. That's why direct injection is such a great mate for a turbo.

Low end torque before the turbo spools up and then turbo is really working at the high end.

Just look at the major direct injected engines right now.

A twin turbo 3.0 liter straight six from BMW and a turbo 2.3 liter 4 from Mazda.

Maybe NA Direct Injection would work in a boring, family type car where it won't be expected to perform at higher revs.

But if the mustang runs out of steam at 4000 RPMs, that won't be acceptable.

 

Where did you get this anecdote from? I have never seen anything about DI having trouble revving. The N54 in the 335i easily revs to 7000rpm and the 4.2L V8 in the Audi RS4 goes all the way to 8250rpm.

 

I was very impressed from my test drives of the new Toyota/Lexus Direct Inject normally aspirated V6s. Toyota V6s used to be slugs, no more with DI.

I also have not heard of any issues with DI performing at higher RPMs. Maybe it's a misconception from DIs start with diesel engines.

 

it wont sound good

 

Doesn't the Lex use a hybrid fuel system (port/direct injection)? Mabye that was Infiniti?. From what I understand DI isn't quite perfected yet and port injection still has some advantages that DI has yet to overcome, although DI will at some point ecplipse port injection.

 

Ward's Auto. Their 10 best engines must mean something since everyone was so proud of the Mustang engine being named to the list.

http://wardsauto.com/reports/2006/te...da_motor_corp/

And I never said that the engines wouldn't rev. Oh they will certainly rev, however at higher revs they will have less power/torque than an equivalant non-DI engine.

Everything is a compromise. The turbo helps reduce the compromise. DI takes care of low end power, turbo keeps that power going into the high RPM range.

I was simply stating that a Mustang owner might be disapointed by the lacking in the high end. I had forgotten about the RS4 being NA and DI. I guess there are ways for the sports car driver to be satisfied. Though that car is their most expensive highest tech version. It may be the NA DI would not perform quite so well as an entry level engine.

 

Its not that direct injection it self is bad at high rpm, it just isn't that benefical as opposed to non direct injection at high rpm.

So basically they are using DI mixed with turbo to get a small displacemnt engine work like a larger one.


cliff notes. low rpm: direct injection > non direct injection
High rpm: direct injection = non direct injection

 

First, Im not engineer. DI has been used on outboard motors for sometime. I have read that the DI Mercurys offer outstanding fuel economy in mid range and have good torque as well. However, most people claim that they are not as strong on top end as compared to the carbed Mercs or the FI mercs. So there may be some truth in your statement.

I have no idea how this would translate to an automotive engine but just wanted to pass this along.

 

I would say that this is probably more in line with the truth. I doubt Audi would have used the technology if it at all hindered the RS4's high revving V8, when compared with port injection.

 

Now you're talking

 

I'm sure the guy who paid 85k for his will gladly cut you a fair deal...

 

My Salesman called me a couple of weeks ago to tell me that they have a 2007 Shelby GT, that I could finance for 0%. That's a good deal.
But, I jokingly asked him if I could finance a GT500 for 0% and he said "Unfortunately, not".

Seems we are screwed when it comes to the GT500!