New "Niche" Engine Coming For 2008/2009 Mach1 or Bullitt Mustang; GT350 Precursor
8/23/06 | 07:13 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Post *****
Joined: February 3, 2004
Posts: 14,155
Likes: 72
New "Niche" Engine Coming For 2008/2009 Mach1 or Bullitt Mustang; GT350 Precursor
8/23/06 | 01:19 PM
#4
GT Member
Joined: March 10, 2004
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Go ahead w/"niche" vehicle w/blown 4.6L for a Mach1 or Boss for MY09/10.
For MY08, make a "Shelby GT-like" Bullitt, or call it something else, just make it DARK GREEN! (y'know 40yrs n' all since the movie came out)...
For MY08, make a "Shelby GT-like" Bullitt, or call it something else, just make it DARK GREEN! (y'know 40yrs n' all since the movie came out)...
8/23/06 | 04:31 PM
#8
Team Mustang Source Legacy Member
Joined: August 23, 2004
Posts: 5,448
Likes: 13
Originally Posted by Mustangfreak
Get it through your heads, There will be NO MORE BULLITT'S made EVER
Unless the McQueens let Ford, but so far they arn't. So just drop it.
Unless the McQueens let Ford, but so far they arn't. So just drop it.
8/23/06 | 05:38 PM
#10
Team Mustang Source
Joined: February 7, 2005
Posts: 615
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by Mustangfreak
Get it through your heads, There will be NO MORE BULLITT'S made EVER
Unless the McQueens let Ford, but so far they arn't. So just drop it.
Unless the McQueens let Ford, but so far they arn't. So just drop it.
8/23/06 | 06:01 PM
#11
Cobra Member
Joined: September 29, 2004
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
From: Spangdahlem AB Germany/ Home is Ft Worth
Originally Posted by Thunder Road
And that would suit me fine. When I think Ford performance I think BOSS, MachI, Cobra Jet, Shelby, Thunderbolt...... I dont want to see a Bullit... leave it as a S95 limited edition.
Bullitt is just a movie star just like Eleanor.
God forbid Ford make an Eleanor SE
8/23/06 | 06:19 PM
#12
V6 Member
Joined: February 19, 2006
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Mustangfreak
Get it through your heads, There will be NO MORE BULLITT'S made EVER
Unless the McQueens let Ford, but so far they arn't. So just drop it.
Unless the McQueens let Ford, but so far they arn't. So just drop it.
Last year they did have this car on display next to the yellow GT500 that was a "fun car" Team Mustang did on the side. When I asked him about a new MACh or BOSS he just grinned and said there were many possibilities and this car was not meant to be like any particular car.
8/23/06 | 06:51 PM
#13
Originally Posted by StangNut
A 4.6L? What a let down. 
I want more torque, not more RPM's. It's supposed to be a muscle car. Not a Honda.
I want more torque, not more RPM's. It's supposed to be a muscle car. Not a Honda.
A nicely tuned DOHC 4.6 could make a perfect Boss/GT350 type motor. 400 hp ought to be readily achievable and it would hardly be a torqueless engine. Backed up by a tight six-speed MTX and a tightly tuned suspension, schweet -- just the thing for chasing down M3s.
It's supposed to be a pony car, not a Dreadnought muscle car.
8/23/06 | 08:05 PM
#14
Bullitt Member
Joined: August 30, 2005
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
This is really no surprise. Someone posted an insider document a while back to support this story. It showed an intake similar to the dual runner FR500 intake manifold on a 4.6 DOHC engine. My guess is that they will use the shaker scoop in conjuction with this intake, along with the mentioned improved Ford GT heads, or similar with less port volume. Sounds good to me!
8/23/06 | 08:29 PM
#16
Member
Joined: October 17, 2004
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by rhumb
Not at all, we already have an overweight, muscle-bound bruiser in the GT500. Rather, a lighter, better balanced, more agile SE in the character of the Boss 302 or GT350s would be a great addition to the corral. Not everyone lives life but a piddling quarter-mile straight at a time.
A nicely tuned DOHC 4.6 could make a perfect Boss/GT350 type motor. 400 hp ought to be readily achievable and it would hardly be a torqueless engine. Backed up by a tight six-speed MTX and a tightly tuned suspension, schweet -- just the thing for chasing down M3s.
It's supposed to be a pony car, not a Dreadnought muscle car.
A nicely tuned DOHC 4.6 could make a perfect Boss/GT350 type motor. 400 hp ought to be readily achievable and it would hardly be a torqueless engine. Backed up by a tight six-speed MTX and a tightly tuned suspension, schweet -- just the thing for chasing down M3s.
It's supposed to be a pony car, not a Dreadnought muscle car.
8/23/06 | 09:33 PM
#17
Cobra Member
Joined: September 10, 2004
Posts: 1,302
Likes: 0
From: Charlotte NC
Originally Posted by rhumb
Not at all, we already have an overweight, muscle-bound bruiser in the GT500. Rather, a lighter, better balanced, more agile SE in the character of the Boss 302 or GT350s would be a great addition to the corral. Not everyone lives life but a piddling quarter-mile straight at a time.
A nicely tuned DOHC 4.6 could make a perfect Boss/GT350 type motor. 400 hp ought to be readily achievable and it would hardly be a torqueless engine. Backed up by a tight six-speed MTX and a tightly tuned suspension, schweet -- just the thing for chasing down M3s.
It's supposed to be a pony car, not a Dreadnought muscle car.
A nicely tuned DOHC 4.6 could make a perfect Boss/GT350 type motor. 400 hp ought to be readily achievable and it would hardly be a torqueless engine. Backed up by a tight six-speed MTX and a tightly tuned suspension, schweet -- just the thing for chasing down M3s.
It's supposed to be a pony car, not a Dreadnought muscle car.
8/23/06 | 10:14 PM
#18
Team Mustang Source Legacy Member
Joined: August 23, 2004
Posts: 5,448
Likes: 13
My point is I miss having the torque come on immediately like the old push rod motors used to do. Yeah. Sure. You can get massive amounts of torque out of a small engine. Hey, Porsche's are very fast and even some Hondas. The problem is you have to really spin them up to get that power. Having to wait for that torque while the revs spin up is not what I would want in a Mustang.
Yes, my '03 was probably as fast as my 5.0's and faster than my 289 4 bbl. The '05 is certainly faster. Neither of those are/were as fun to drive as the 5.0's.
Since we'll never get the great pushrod V8's back, the only way to compencate for the lack of low end torque, is to go to a larger motor.
With all that being said, since there are so many Mustang owners (and potential owners) who've never experienced how much more fun the pushrod motor is, Ford is more likely to give us high revs as oppossed to high cubic inches... unfortunately.
Yes, my '03 was probably as fast as my 5.0's and faster than my 289 4 bbl. The '05 is certainly faster. Neither of those are/were as fun to drive as the 5.0's.
Since we'll never get the great pushrod V8's back, the only way to compencate for the lack of low end torque, is to go to a larger motor.
With all that being said, since there are so many Mustang owners (and potential owners) who've never experienced how much more fun the pushrod motor is, Ford is more likely to give us high revs as oppossed to high cubic inches... unfortunately.
8/24/06 | 09:00 AM
#19
Cobra Member
Joined: September 10, 2004
Posts: 1,302
Likes: 0
From: Charlotte NC
Originally Posted by StangNut
My point is I miss having the torque come on immediately like the old push rod motors used to do. Yeah. Sure. You can get massive amounts of torque out of a small engine. Hey, Porsche's are very fast and even some Hondas. The problem is you have to really spin them up to get that power. Having to wait for that torque while the revs spin up is not what I would want in a Mustang.
Yes, my '03 was probably as fast as my 5.0's and faster than my 289 4 bbl. The '05 is certainly faster. Neither of those are/were as fun to drive as the 5.0's.
Since we'll never get the great pushrod V8's back, the only way to compencate for the lack of low end torque, is to go to a larger motor.
With all that being said, since there are so many Mustang owners (and potential owners) who've never experienced how much more fun the pushrod motor is, Ford is more likely to give us high revs as oppossed to high cubic inches... unfortunately.
Yes, my '03 was probably as fast as my 5.0's and faster than my 289 4 bbl. The '05 is certainly faster. Neither of those are/were as fun to drive as the 5.0's.
Since we'll never get the great pushrod V8's back, the only way to compencate for the lack of low end torque, is to go to a larger motor.
With all that being said, since there are so many Mustang owners (and potential owners) who've never experienced how much more fun the pushrod motor is, Ford is more likely to give us high revs as oppossed to high cubic inches... unfortunately.
As a current and previous owner of several 5.0L Mustangs, I can understand your viewpoint. One point to keep in mind regarding those EFI 5.0L Mustangs of the late '80's and early '90's was the majority of the low speed torque hit those engines and cars are famous for was derived from the EFI intake tract designed by Ford and not a design feature inherent to the pushrod engine. Early non-EFI 302's were not particularly known as low speed torque engines.
Having said that, to Rhumb's point earlier, not everyone lives their life stoplight to stoplight or on 1/8 or 1/4 mile strips of asphalt. Certain Mustang owners (myself included) enjoy blasting around a road course for a weekend or carving up their favorite stretch of two lane blacktop. For those who enjoy such sustained high performance experiences, a high revving engine with a broad powerband will deliver miles of driving enjoyment (coupled with stellar brakes and a taunt suspension). A niche engine such as the one discussed certainly could fill the void for a road race inspired Mustang such as the Boss. Personally, I'll cast my vote for an all alloy 5.0L with 4V heads and the magnesium intake from the GT-R concept. One of the reasons why the Mustang has achieved such an iconic status is because it can deliver performance suited to the driver’s preference be it straight line acceleration (Mach I) or corner carving precision (Boss 302).
For those with bigger cube aspirations, I think Ford will address that (and the competition from GM and DC) in MY '10 with the introduction of the new 5.8L and 6.2L 2V engine family (apparently derived from the Hurricane engine project). Boss 351 anyone?
8/24/06 | 09:48 AM
#20
MustangFanatic,
Could not have said it better.
This forum often seems rather drag-race centric (myopic) and thus, tends to obsess over big cube, big horse, big torque motors over most anything else.
Rather, the Mustang's success was not singularly as a drag racing muscle car. Indeed, it was originally conceived as a kind of anti-muscle car of its day with its modest size, high winding 289's and trim, almost Euro proportions. It wasn't until a few years later and the advent of the big blocks (390, 427 (a rare few) and 428s) that it started taking on a muscle car personna.
All the while and all along, there were also the Shelby GT350s, various Trans Am racers-which begat the seminal Boss 302, the turbo 2.3 Cobras of the late '70's and early '80s, the SVO Turbo 2.3's. Even the various SN95 Cobras, which tended to be more fully-fleshed-out, well balanced performance cars in the model of a European GT car than dedicated drag racers with as much or more emphasis on suspension, brakes and chassis dynamics as on pure HP numbers alone. SVT even but in a dreaded (to drag racers) IRS in the Cobra to the delight of road and track mavens as an indication of that broader performance perspective.
So to pigeon-hole the Mustang as merely just a single purpose muscle cars denies its very conceptual genesis and a huge portion of its heritage and appeal.
Sure, big-cube, big-torque motors are, too, part of the Stang heritage and I think also ought to be part of the lineup. A naturally aspirated, high CR, 3V or 4V 5.4 would make a fantastic Mach I motor. Or the ever upcoming Hurricane motor...whatever final configuration that has.
So anyway, I do hope that Ford's next SE is done more in the spirit of the original Stangs and the long and illustrious line of road and track racers throughout the years.
Of course, soon followed by a big-motored drag race'n Mach I!
Could not have said it better.
This forum often seems rather drag-race centric (myopic) and thus, tends to obsess over big cube, big horse, big torque motors over most anything else.
Rather, the Mustang's success was not singularly as a drag racing muscle car. Indeed, it was originally conceived as a kind of anti-muscle car of its day with its modest size, high winding 289's and trim, almost Euro proportions. It wasn't until a few years later and the advent of the big blocks (390, 427 (a rare few) and 428s) that it started taking on a muscle car personna.
All the while and all along, there were also the Shelby GT350s, various Trans Am racers-which begat the seminal Boss 302, the turbo 2.3 Cobras of the late '70's and early '80s, the SVO Turbo 2.3's. Even the various SN95 Cobras, which tended to be more fully-fleshed-out, well balanced performance cars in the model of a European GT car than dedicated drag racers with as much or more emphasis on suspension, brakes and chassis dynamics as on pure HP numbers alone. SVT even but in a dreaded (to drag racers) IRS in the Cobra to the delight of road and track mavens as an indication of that broader performance perspective.
So to pigeon-hole the Mustang as merely just a single purpose muscle cars denies its very conceptual genesis and a huge portion of its heritage and appeal.
Sure, big-cube, big-torque motors are, too, part of the Stang heritage and I think also ought to be part of the lineup. A naturally aspirated, high CR, 3V or 4V 5.4 would make a fantastic Mach I motor. Or the ever upcoming Hurricane motor...whatever final configuration that has.
So anyway, I do hope that Ford's next SE is done more in the spirit of the original Stangs and the long and illustrious line of road and track racers throughout the years.
Of course, soon followed by a big-motored drag race'n Mach I!