Future Shock: 2010 Ford Mustang

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Mar 3, 2008 | 09:32 AM

#41

bob

Legacy TMS Member

Joined: May 16, 2004

Posts: 5,206

Likes: 18

From: Bristol, TN

I agree, but even with the M6, to get a meaningful increase in mileage it would require a big drop in the final drive ratio. if you check Tremec's website under light duty transmissions you can see whats available in current form and the M5 in the Mustang has about the steepest 1st gear of any light duty trans they make (even compared to the M6). If Ford where to put the M6 and drop the final drive to say a 3.0X or a 2.XX to really get cruising RPM down (around 1k or there abouts at 55-65) The car would be under geared compared to the current 3.27(??)-3.55-3.73 M5 cars through the whole shift range. The fix is pretty easy though, an increase in HP and TQ would allow the use of the M6 with a 2.XX or 3.0X final drive as the M6 is currently configured.

Mar 3, 2008 | 09:45 AM

#42

jsaylor

Team Mustang Source

Joined: January 29, 2004

Posts: 2,358

Likes: 1

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob

What are the inherent disadvantages? Not doubting anything, I'm just curious as to where they can make some real improvments in efficiency? DI certainly makes a big increase in compression possible which does wonders not only in power but effciency as well. I'm just hard pressed to see where alot of improvements could be made past the combustion process (not to say incremental improvements can't happen, juggling R/S ratios, piston pin offset, bearing sizes, ect can certainly change things a bit) to really make the 5.0 stand out compared to the 4.6

The biggest problem is the 4.6L's too-small bore size, particularly if you want to make big numbers in a naturally aspirated, production ready, 4.6L package. Since all of the better sources are subscribing to the notion that the 5.0L addresses all of the 4.6L's shortcomings this is an area which is expected to be addressed. Even a small increase in bore diameter would work wonders for airflow since the 4.6L's small bore has meant that valve shrouding has been an issue on every 4-valve per cylinder head design Ford has come up with. Take that out of the equation and an otherwise identical package will perform noticeably better in terms of both power and fuel efficiency, and the difference should widen as power increases.

Mar 3, 2008 | 06:17 PM

#43

1999 Black 35th GT

Team Mustang Source

Joined: March 30, 2005

Posts: 3,643

Likes: 0

Unfortunately, we're definitely not going to see the concept at this years NYIAS. I personally can't wait to see what the 10's will have when the info finally does leak out.

I just had a horrible thought though. What if Ford does what it did with the S197's and push them back another year. Ouch.

Mar 3, 2008 | 06:31 PM

#44

V10

Shelby GT350 Member

Joined: March 11, 2004

Posts: 2,146

Likes: 1

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob

Obviously Ford would have to get Tremec to make 6 speed manuals with a much wider 1st to 6th gear ratio spread then the current Tremec 6 speeds.

What's needed is a 6 speed that has a 1st gear ratio of 3.38:1 like the current Ford model 5 speed T-3650s and a 6th gear of .50:1 like the GM model 6 speeds.

A good gear ratio set would be:
3.38
2.00
1.32
1.00
0.78
0.50