New "Niche" Engine Coming For 2008/2009 Mach1 or Bullitt Mustang; GT350 Precursor
8/24/06, 10:00 AM
#21
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
Join Date: February 1, 2004
Posts: 3,751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rhumb
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!
I'm really sick of all the "OMG the 'stang needs a bigger V8 or it sucks" crap. Sure, big-motor 'Stangs are fun and we'll take all we can get, but that doesn't mean they're the epitome of 'Stangs, either. Bear in mind that the Pony Cars were a bigger success in Trans Am than in the NHRA at one point; and that a refined, balanced high performance car is just as desirable to its fans as a 10-second car to others. I'll take the GT-500's engine over a 7L hunk O' handling problems any day.
8/24/06, 10:01 AM
#22
Cobra Member
Join Date: June 25, 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the new Camero Z28 & Challenger are going to have at least 400h.p., Ford is either going to have to boost the Mustang GT up to that standard or permanently position a SE in that spot.
The main problem I have, is that Ford will have us pay $35k for that SE, while the Camero Z28 will be under $30k (as projected anyway).
I am never going to buy a Camero, I just want to get the same value and performance out of my Ford as the guy next door gets out of his GM.
The main problem I have, is that Ford will have us pay $35k for that SE, while the Camero Z28 will be under $30k (as projected anyway).
I am never going to buy a Camero, I just want to get the same value and performance out of my Ford as the guy next door gets out of his GM.
8/24/06, 11:03 AM
#23
Administrator, Shop Manual PDF Poster, Parts Locator & Spam Bot Eliminator!!
Join Date: November 27, 2004
Location: Visalia Ca.
Posts: 10,083
Received 2,525 Likes
on
1,861 Posts
I have been Searching for Any NEW Engine Info Via My Sources and Nothing Yet Indicates any New PowerPlants or Engine Upgrades as of Date! v6 or v8
KC
KC
8/24/06, 11:09 AM
#24
Cobra Member
Join Date: September 10, 2004
Location: Charlotte NC
Posts: 1,302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm happy to know that there are others (Rhumb and Moosetang) who agree that a singular focus on straight line acceleration is not desired by all Mustang enthusiasts. As Rhumb pointed out, the Mustang was originally conceived and exemplified in the various iterations outlined above, as a definite high performance pony car, not a big inch muscle car.
I understand that straight line acceleration generally has a much broader appeal than those of us into lateral g's and threshold braking but the Mustang has a rich heritage of catering to both constituents. Therefore, the S197 platform must deliver versions of the Mustang to suit the distinctly different needs of those two groups. Besides lobbying Ford for a true Boss Mustang (not some lame stripe and tape model) but a real drivers car with a AL 5.0L packing at least 400 NA hp, great brakes and stellar handling, I would stress with equal vigor that Ford produce a Mach I oriented to the street/strip set with a similar HP rating, likely a 5.4L under the hood, an optional automatic and a "drag pack" suspension option.
Variety will keep the Mustang fresh and satisfy the legions of enthusiasts that love them!!
I understand that straight line acceleration generally has a much broader appeal than those of us into lateral g's and threshold braking but the Mustang has a rich heritage of catering to both constituents. Therefore, the S197 platform must deliver versions of the Mustang to suit the distinctly different needs of those two groups. Besides lobbying Ford for a true Boss Mustang (not some lame stripe and tape model) but a real drivers car with a AL 5.0L packing at least 400 NA hp, great brakes and stellar handling, I would stress with equal vigor that Ford produce a Mach I oriented to the street/strip set with a similar HP rating, likely a 5.4L under the hood, an optional automatic and a "drag pack" suspension option.
Variety will keep the Mustang fresh and satisfy the legions of enthusiasts that love them!!
8/24/06, 11:38 AM
#25
Team Mustang Source Legacy Member
I'm simply talking about a n/a 5.4L. Not some big cubic inch motor.
You're not going to find a bigger Mustang fan than I am so I know the origins of the Mustang and the torque from a '65 289 came on a lot quicker than our 281's.
I'm not even looking for that much more hp. 300-350 is fine with me, ideal in fact. The thing is, having that hp (& tq) come on sooner would be better for both camps. (personally I'm not into drag racing either)
You're not going to find a bigger Mustang fan than I am so I know the origins of the Mustang and the torque from a '65 289 came on a lot quicker than our 281's.
I'm not even looking for that much more hp. 300-350 is fine with me, ideal in fact. The thing is, having that hp (& tq) come on sooner would be better for both camps. (personally I'm not into drag racing either)
8/24/06, 12:35 PM
#26
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot of what gave the 5.0 and other earlier Stang's their "torquey" feel was not necessarily any more peak torque, they generally had less than the more modern OHC Mod motors, but the lower rpm tuning and lack of higher end oomph. Often the resultant perception of cars with stronger higher ends is that it makes the low end power seem comparatively weaker, even if, in absolute terms, it isn't. The opposite effect tinges the perceptions of these low rpm motors -- "boy, they really jump off the line, what a great bottom end" because there's no higher end surge to compare too. Overlay the power bands of these older OHV motors with their newer OHC bretheren and what stands out often is not how plump the low end power curves of the OHV motors were but rather, how precipitously the power trailed off compared to the better breathing OHC motors.
OHV motors don't necessarily have any inherent low-end torque advantage over an OHC motor. Indeed, especially with the 5.0, rather small ports, especially exhaust, really sort of limited it to being tuned for lower end power. The Boss 302 motor, with its cavernous Cleveland heads, was distinctly on the opposite end of the spectrum here.
Indeed, OHC and even DOHC motors, especially with modern technologies such as FI, VCT, DI, etc., can be made quite stout at the lower end AND have a strong top end too. Audi's RS 4.2 motor would be an excellent example of what full use of modern technologies can do. Direct Injection, especially, I see as being particularly good in that it allows such high compression ratios (12.8 in the case of the Audi RS 4.2 if I recall).
Of course, the GM LS2 and LS7 motors show that OHV motors can compete quite well, with their advantages being mainly in excellent power density and packaging. With the LS7, GM gets some rather stupendous numbers from high tech refinements and materials applied to a "low-tech" basic architecture. The result is 500hp, good fuel efficiency, reasonably low cost in a fairly light and rather compact power package.
Contrast that with, say, the Ferrari 4.3 V8 using the fully hi-tech approach to achieve similar performance in a very different way and character. Which is "better" would be hard to say as both are incredible motors. I'd probably go mad trying to pick between the Vette Z06's NASCAR heavymetal thunder or the F430's otherworldly F1 wail. Interestingly, they both push their respective cars around a track at about the same pace.
OHV motors don't necessarily have any inherent low-end torque advantage over an OHC motor. Indeed, especially with the 5.0, rather small ports, especially exhaust, really sort of limited it to being tuned for lower end power. The Boss 302 motor, with its cavernous Cleveland heads, was distinctly on the opposite end of the spectrum here.
Indeed, OHC and even DOHC motors, especially with modern technologies such as FI, VCT, DI, etc., can be made quite stout at the lower end AND have a strong top end too. Audi's RS 4.2 motor would be an excellent example of what full use of modern technologies can do. Direct Injection, especially, I see as being particularly good in that it allows such high compression ratios (12.8 in the case of the Audi RS 4.2 if I recall).
Of course, the GM LS2 and LS7 motors show that OHV motors can compete quite well, with their advantages being mainly in excellent power density and packaging. With the LS7, GM gets some rather stupendous numbers from high tech refinements and materials applied to a "low-tech" basic architecture. The result is 500hp, good fuel efficiency, reasonably low cost in a fairly light and rather compact power package.
Contrast that with, say, the Ferrari 4.3 V8 using the fully hi-tech approach to achieve similar performance in a very different way and character. Which is "better" would be hard to say as both are incredible motors. I'd probably go mad trying to pick between the Vette Z06's NASCAR heavymetal thunder or the F430's otherworldly F1 wail. Interestingly, they both push their respective cars around a track at about the same pace.
8/24/06, 01:56 PM
#27
V6 Member
Join Date: February 19, 2006
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back in 1992 (when I was service writer at the local LM dealership) when the 4.6 made it's debut in the new Town Cars/Crown Vic/Grand Marquis I remember reading somewhere that the engine was capable of 100hp per liter. Don't remember it saying anything about that being N/A or with a power adder. I wish I would have kept that paperwork now. Kinda makes you wonder what they are waiting to use that kind of power for if they can actually do it. Of course, they could have put that out there to try and make people forget the 5.0L.
Cam
Cam
8/24/06, 02:53 PM
#28
Team Mustang Source Legacy Member
It's funny how much we resist change. I have an old article from October '85 that was trashing the "new" FI 5.0L. It said it was the death of the Mustang regarding modifications and racing and that Ford had ruined the car by going electronic.
8/24/06, 05:23 PM
#29
Cobra Member
Join Date: September 10, 2004
Location: Charlotte NC
Posts: 1,302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rhumb
A lot of what gave the 5.0 and other earlier Stang's their "torquey" feel was not necessarily any more peak torque, they generally had less than the more modern OHC Mod motors, but the lower rpm tuning and lack of higher end oomph. Often the resultant perception of cars with stronger higher ends is that it makes the low end power seem comparatively weaker, even if, in absolute terms, it isn't. The opposite effect tinges the perceptions of these low rpm motors -- "boy, they really jump off the line, what a great bottom end" because there's no higher end surge to compare too. Overlay the power bands of these older OHV motors with their newer OHC bretheren and what stands out often is not how plump the low end power curves of the OHV motors were but rather, how precipitously the power trailed off compared to the better breathing OHC motors.
OHV motors don't necessarily have any inherent low-end torque advantage over an OHC motor. Indeed, especially with the 5.0, rather small ports, especially exhaust, really sort of limited it to being tuned for lower end power. The Boss 302 motor, with its cavernous Cleveland heads, was distinctly on the opposite end of the spectrum here.
Indeed, OHC and even DOHC motors, especially with modern technologies such as FI, VCT, DI, etc., can be made quite stout at the lower end AND have a strong top end too. Audi's RS 4.2 motor would be an excellent example of what full use of modern technologies can do. Direct Injection, especially, I see as being particularly good in that it allows such high compression ratios (12.8 in the case of the Audi RS 4.2 if I recall).
Of course, the GM LS2 and LS7 motors show that OHV motors can compete quite well, with their advantages being mainly in excellent power density and packaging. With the LS7, GM gets some rather stupendous numbers from high tech refinements and materials applied to a "low-tech" basic architecture. The result is 500hp, good fuel efficiency, reasonably low cost in a fairly light and rather compact power package.
Contrast that with, say, the Ferrari 4.3 V8 using the fully hi-tech approach to achieve similar performance in a very different way and character. Which is "better" would be hard to say as both are incredible motors. I'd probably go mad trying to pick between the Vette Z06's NASCAR heavymetal thunder or the F430's otherworldly F1 wail. Interestingly, they both push their respective cars around a track at about the same pace.
OHV motors don't necessarily have any inherent low-end torque advantage over an OHC motor. Indeed, especially with the 5.0, rather small ports, especially exhaust, really sort of limited it to being tuned for lower end power. The Boss 302 motor, with its cavernous Cleveland heads, was distinctly on the opposite end of the spectrum here.
Indeed, OHC and even DOHC motors, especially with modern technologies such as FI, VCT, DI, etc., can be made quite stout at the lower end AND have a strong top end too. Audi's RS 4.2 motor would be an excellent example of what full use of modern technologies can do. Direct Injection, especially, I see as being particularly good in that it allows such high compression ratios (12.8 in the case of the Audi RS 4.2 if I recall).
Of course, the GM LS2 and LS7 motors show that OHV motors can compete quite well, with their advantages being mainly in excellent power density and packaging. With the LS7, GM gets some rather stupendous numbers from high tech refinements and materials applied to a "low-tech" basic architecture. The result is 500hp, good fuel efficiency, reasonably low cost in a fairly light and rather compact power package.
Contrast that with, say, the Ferrari 4.3 V8 using the fully hi-tech approach to achieve similar performance in a very different way and character. Which is "better" would be hard to say as both are incredible motors. I'd probably go mad trying to pick between the Vette Z06's NASCAR heavymetal thunder or the F430's otherworldly F1 wail. Interestingly, they both push their respective cars around a track at about the same pace.
I'd be torn by the same dilemmia but I'd probably opt for the V8 thunder.
8/24/06, 05:33 PM
#30
Cobra Member
Join Date: September 10, 2004
Location: Charlotte NC
Posts: 1,302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by StangNut
It's funny how much we resist change. I have an old article from October '85 that was trashing the "new" FI 5.0L. It said it was the death of the Mustang regarding modifications and racing and that Ford had ruined the car by going electronic.
8/24/06, 05:46 PM
#31
Member
Join Date: October 17, 2004
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was too young at the time to remember any information put out by the press in regards to the old EFI mustangs. Man, I really do like all that grunt but I also love driving around on the back roads of Michigan. But I sold my convertible to purchase my first ever brand new Mustang (Boss if they make it) or the 2010 MY car.
You two have spoken the truth so I can't add to it. Except bring on the corners!
You two have spoken the truth so I can't add to it. Except bring on the corners!
8/24/06, 08:08 PM
#32
The BON article says "GT-40" heads. Hmm, I wonder how the pushrods are going to work w/o a cam in the block.
I suppose they could mean the heads from the Ford GT S/C engine.
I suppose they could mean the heads from the Ford GT S/C engine.
8/25/06, 09:25 AM
#33
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: February 17, 2004
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
One thing I never see addressed is the speed of revs. The larger the displacement the heavier the rotating mass (in general). This relates to slower wind up (of the engine...gears aside). For example if a 4.6 generates 320 ftlbs @ 4500 RPM and a 5.0 generate 320 @ 3500. The cars may actually hit max torque at the same or similar time (exaggerated) due to the fact that the 4.6 crank is smaller along with smaller internals that weigh less. Need proof. Blip the throttle on a small displacement engine and then blip it on a large displacement engine. This is why Porches and some Hondas are fast they windup like no other. This is a simplistic look at the process. I am not getting into the engineering that can change these outcomes (2v vs. 3v vs. 4v) (aluminum vs steel vs Magn.)etc.
8/25/06, 10:54 AM
#34
Team Mustang Source Legacy Member
On a larger motor, you're not as worried about how fast the RPM's come up because that's not where the power is. It's down low so you get it almost instantly as opposed to waiting for it with a smaller, higher reving motor.
Unfortunately this is a good representation of a lot of "new" Mustang buyers. They are used to the 4 cyl. cars that have to wind up (no joke intended) to get to their power band.
Unfortunately this is a good representation of a lot of "new" Mustang buyers. They are used to the 4 cyl. cars that have to wind up (no joke intended) to get to their power band.
8/25/06, 12:34 PM
#35
Needs to be more Astony
also they match the gearing with the powerband. and like stangnut said they have to rev up to get to their powerband...and they rev up because they have rediculous close gear ratios.
8/25/06, 02:14 PM
#36
Member
Join Date: October 17, 2004
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to argue but there is only 0.4L of difference between a 4.6 and 5.0 motor... That is not going to slow the motor down that much at all.
The thing I love about 'Mod' motors is that they just keep going and going (revoultion's I refer to) where as my 5.0L fox falls on it's face around 5,000RPM's. I did briefly own a 1998 Mustang GT...
As we have discussed already, the torque of the 5.0L is mainly due to the long runner length of the upper intake. But hey, there is no Reving your motor for a smoke show. Just put it in gear, creap along so you can get off the clutch and then Hammer down for instant doughnuts.
The thing I love about 'Mod' motors is that they just keep going and going (revoultion's I refer to) where as my 5.0L fox falls on it's face around 5,000RPM's. I did briefly own a 1998 Mustang GT...
As we have discussed already, the torque of the 5.0L is mainly due to the long runner length of the upper intake. But hey, there is no Reving your motor for a smoke show. Just put it in gear, creap along so you can get off the clutch and then Hammer down for instant doughnuts.
8/25/06, 04:25 PM
#37
Originally Posted by jarradasay
One thing I never see addressed is the speed of revs. The larger the displacement the heavier the rotating mass (in general).
A larger displacement engine that has a larger bore and the same stroke does not have much more rotating mass than the smaller engine.
8/27/06, 01:18 AM
#38
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
Join Date: February 1, 2004
Posts: 3,751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know I'm somewhat surprised that the Mod V10s haven't made a comeback in Ford's product strategy. Seems to me they'd be alot cheaper to develope than the Boss's entirely new V8 architecture, while still getting plenty of grins.
8/27/06, 09:53 AM
#39
Originally Posted by Moosetang
You know I'm somewhat surprised that the Mod V10s haven't made a comeback in Ford's product strategy. Seems to me they'd be alot cheaper to develope than the Boss's entirely new V8 architecture, while still getting plenty of grins.
8/27/06, 02:18 PM
#40
Bullitt Member
Join Date: March 21, 2004
Posts: 456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
I hope the Hurrican N/A 5.8 engine rumer is true. That would make a sweet Boss.