Well a V10 effectively fixes the bore problem because it has 25% more piston area.

But the V10 has higher friction losses that make it less fuel efficient and as you pointed out a V10's long length presents packaging problems.

Arguing about a Mod Motor V10 is moot. Ford has already made the decision to not build V10s for passenger cars and to replace the V10 truck engine with the new Boss V8.

 

Unfortunately you lumped me in with the wrong group. Having owned mustangs for the last 16 years. I've had 67 FB w/289, 72 mach1 with the 351 C, 92 GT 5.0, 00 Roush Stg 2, and 05 GT. I have also owned my fair share of imports tho and understand (not lament) their performance. Something many blind mustang loyalists choose to ignore. The 1992 the mustang had 300 ftlbs @ 3200 RPM rolled thru the qtr in the mid 13's with a good driver and did not face the strict requirements from the government as the present stang and was much much lighter then(about 3100lbs). So if this is the comparison then OK, but the same stang only had 225 HP @4500 RPM, so for all of us that would rather have a car on the road as opposed to the track it sucked. We dont need to light the tires up at every intersection or start in second during the rain.
But if the goal is for a 400 hp N/A car then more displacement or much more engineering and hi-tech bits are required. And the displacement is the cheaper/easier way to go.
Dont get me wrong, I would like to see the return of the 351, but the mustang is already front heavy and the car would likely stink at anything but straight line shots. The days of the straight open road with plenty of room is gone, the 70's, 80's, and 90's are not coming back. Traffic, congestion, curvy on/off ramps, high speed, and government requlations are the future and the OEMs are preparing for it, b/c we (the enthusiasts) don't buy as many cars as average joe america (US reference, no offence meant to any of our international friends). The "new" mustang buyers are a much better rounded customers. They do not want to just go straight. That means that more work is going to be needed in the future for qtr mile guys to get their mustangs low in the trap times.
That is just the way the market is going. Look at all the future and past mustang competitors. The qtr mile giants of the 60-70 all had SRA gigantice iron bullet proof blocks...the Camaro, Challenger, Charger, etc. Look at the future models, They are looking to be rounded performers all will have IRS (notedly not the greatest for qtr mile) aluminum blocks (not the greatest for performance adders, but that is the movement of the market if it doesn't adapt then it will perish.

(of course well rounded in all types of performance equates with not being good in any type of performance).

I agree with the option of a drag pack. I miss the option to get a car like you want it. now you just have to settle for what they have. Again ... Market.

 

True, but today you can much more easily buy the components to build your car to your spec from the aftermarket. If you want to turn your base GT into a dragger I'm sure our local Steeda rep could point ouit some useful offerings from their catalogue.

 

Funny you should mention that. The competitions 7L hunk o' handling problems is much more compact, is lighter weight, revs faster/higher, and offers a lower center of gravity compared to the GT-500's engine. All traits that you track guys crave.

 

Tru'dat, the old 5.0 had a more advantageous bore/stroke ratio with its 4" bore and 3" stroke.

Come to think of it, the old 5.0 bottom end was better suited to higher RPM operation compared to the mod motors. The valvetrain of course was a different story, but even that wasn't much of a handicap in the realm of the average everyday street car (nor is the 4.6's bottom end

 

The 5.0 had the advantage of wider bearings (due to it's wider bore spacing) but the bottom end of the 5.0 wasn't any great shakes, even with 4 bolt caps. With it's short skirt block the caps can distort and the whole block deform. Some race engine builders resored to making bottom end girdles to miminc the deep skirt block like the FE engines had & of course the mod motor has.

Well we can cry in our beer about the Mod motors narrow bore spacing. If only Ford had given us a measley 1/8" bore spacing on the Mod, the world would be a different place today and so most likely would Ford's fortunes.

 

It would have been nice, but didn't the mod motors get the tight bore spacing and siamesed cylinder design to facilitate FWD installation (which dictated the large diameter but narrow width mains).

I like the mod motor, they have proven to be pretty good engines despite what Chevy and Chrysler guys tell you. What frustrates me about this whole deal is the constant change in engine design, give me something thats gonna be around in one form or another for 50 years so that the aftermarket doesn't have to reinvent themselves every 5 seconds and they can warm up and get comfortable with the design

--->edit below<---

Yeah, I should have clarified on that bit about the old windsor blocks, the mod motor is really a very stout piece in comparison, but not really optimized for high rpm operation.

 

The pace of change is accelerating. Due to CAD & CAM and flexible machining production, it's easier to change designs. I doubt if we'll ever again see engines have long production runs like the Chevy small block, 45 years or the Ford 90V8 (221-260-289-302-5.0) 35 years.

After 15 years the Mod motor is showing its age, inspite of major updates, like the 3V heads. I imagine that within a few years the tooling will start wearing out and Ford will be faced with the decision whether to buy new tooling for the Mod Motors or just trash the Mod Motor and either expand production of the new Boss V8 or trash the Mod Motor and start over.

Rumors are that Ford is working on a new "small" V8. If the Ford small V8 is a go, it looks like within a few years the 4.6 will be replaced by the new small V8 and the 5.4 V8 & 6.8 V10 will be replaced by the new Boss V8.

 

The motor lives longer as it does not have to work as hard to produce. Higher compression, shorter strokes and higher rpms to achieve the end result will shorten the life of the motor.

 

All good arguments for installing the PowerStroke diesel in the Stang.

 

Who will be the first to own the Shelby GT500D?

 

Did everybody forget about the V10 Mule Mustang?

Things like "exceptional" and "find a worthy home" doesn't sound like a engine that Ford thinks is to heavy/large/fuel sucking. Seeing this car up close, there aren't any packaging issues in the SN-95+ chassis. The only thing custom fabbed in the Mule car (if I recall correctly) was the engine. Radiator, front accessories, bellhousing/tranny were all OEM. As for fuel economy, Chevy ducked under that bar with the gear splitting six speed in the F-bodies. Ford can do the same thing by dropping the un-needed .84 sixth gear and replacing it with a .50 or .62 gearset. Plus, you can't deny the V-10 sounds AWESOME! (Not like the Viper, which sounds like a Tractor.)

 

No.
http://forums.bradbarnett.net/showpo...7&postcount=27

If you use this engine you can reuse the "BOSS 351" name

 

We all know how well Diesels take to hot rodding.

 

What's the rev limit?

 

Should be 7000rpm since they just graphed two cylinders onto the front of the exisiting 4.6L Cobra block. They would share the same stroke, same bore size, and have the deep skirt cross-bolted mains. Aside from the heavier rotating mass it should all balance nicely and have plenty constitution with the R-based heads topping it off.

I say the V-10 is coming, it would be a big mistake for Ford to ignore that powerplant.

 

From an article of Automotive Design and Production
http://www.autofieldguide.com/articles/050401.html

"""When Ford rolled the Cobra Concept out at the 2004 North American International Auto Show, many observers stopped at the billet-like exterior styling. Most overlooked the importance of engine under the hood, a Modular V8-based V10 displacing 390 in.3 It was the second time a Modular V10 had appeared in a recent Ford concept car–the first was the 427 in.3 V10 that powered the aptly named "427 Concept"–and a clear indication this engine isn't about to lay down and die.*

The whole V10 program started as an after-hours project based around the 4.6-liter low-deck Modular V8. Unlike the high-deck V10 currently offered in Ford's heavy-duty light trucks, this engine fits anywhere the Modular V8 does. The smallest displacement version, one of the original engines built, displaces 351 in.3, and fits neatly under the hood of a Mustang test car. You have to count the plug wires to make sure all ten cylinders are there. "The engine is in the stock location," says Greg Coleman, a technologist at Ford's Powertrain Research & Advanced Engines. "The rear face-of-block is in the production V8 location, as are the radiator support and radiator, and the engine is exactly 100 mm longer than a 4.6-liter four-valve V8 with the same height and width." Challenge Coleman on the effect the increase in length might have on crash performance, and he is likely to quote a lengthy list of cars currently on the road with less space between the leading edge of the vehicle and the front of the engine.
Meanwhile Kevin Byrd, V10 project lead, Powertrain Research & Advanced Engines, answers concerns about fuel economy almost before they are asked: "Not only is there a more than 60-lb weight savings (compared to the iron block 5.4-liter Cobra R V8 from which the team borrowed the head design), because there are two more pulses per revolution, we probably can calibrate this engine to produce a net fuel economy increase." Currently, the 351 is running a rudimentary ECU calibration.

"The camshafts run the same profile as the 2000 Mustang Cobra R," says Coleman, "because they are matched to that combustion chamber and port configuration, which we stretched to create our heads." The connecting rods are based on the design used in the "Terminator," the supercharged Mustang Cobra, and the intake manifold was hand-fabricated from old Cobra R castings. Because the crankshaft–milled from a billet of 4340 steel–borrows the V8's design, the V10 has firing pulses every 54ºº and 90ºº. Lack of budget means two controllers are used to run the V10 as independent inline five-cylinder engines, and the engine feels slightly coarser as you might expect. However, it exudes an unmistakable American character no other engine can match, and has grunt that just won't quit.

With 430 hp at the rear wheels in this, admittedly, rough state of tune, the 557-lb. (dressed) 351 V10 is the most powerful naturally aspirated engine in the Ford stable, and one with plenty of room for development. Coleman and Byrd, for example, would love to develop 3-valve heads, and explore the gains that can be made with dual (intake and exhaust) cam phasers. "You could phase the cams for a broader torque curve [currently 440 lb-ft at 5,500 rpm], and still stretch it out toward the 7,500 rpm limit to get the horsepower," says Byrd. "There's a whole bag of tricks we could throw at it."
Putting the V10 into production would follow much the same process used to make the prototype engines, only this time the CAD data, not the cores used for casting the block and head, would be cut and pasted, making the V10 a relatively inexpensive engine to source on a total systems-cost basis. Ford's flexible production machinery should be able to handle the V10's block and heads, while the camshafts, crankshafts and intake manifold would be unique parts. A niche application, on the other hand, would be tooled and sourced like a prototype to keep investment costs in line for the lower volumes. "Probably the biggest hurdle," cautions Coleman, "would be that the transmission engineers would faint, but until they start coming up the street with pitchforks and torches…"""

SO they have already done 351, 390 amd 427 versions. This stuff makes me giddy. I would love to see Ford pursuing this motor.Z Lower weight, better fuel economy. Alas, knowing Ford, we wont see it. Pity that.

 

ford will never put a v10 in a mustang...as much as i would love to see it... ford is too stuck on what a mustang was in the past to do anything that radical.

 

Thanks Thunder, thats the article I was looking for. They mentioned the same info on Rides (the click I posted above), but I couldn't find the full clip anyway. Firing pulses at 54* and 90* sure do make a sweet sounding Mustang! Throw a Dr. Gas X-pipe on there and you'll have something that would rival Italian steel in my opinion.

 

**** you guys are making me all giddy.

I think 'radical' is something Ford needs to do. They need something like this to show they are still a major player. I have no doubt we will see great things from Ford if they go in this direction. I will definitely have to buy one of those.