I think everyone is going to be pleasently suprised at how well the new 500/Taurus does

Another factor about the 5.8L is that it looks like EPA and CAFE ratings are going to be playing havoc with any auto manufactures plans for the next 10-15 years..

 

If they make enough smaller cars with smaller engines etc... the v8s will be a VERY small dent in that number.

As long as they have the average, its ok.

I think we'll still see a large engine.

 

If they dropped the 5.8 is there any chance they might be going to use the 6.2 instead?

 

My...thoughts....exactly....

 

Boomer is right on in this thread. It is still far too early to decipher what EPA regulations might or might no change regarding future Mustang powerplants. The one certainty.....you can bet your last dollar that an affordable V8 will show up in some form.

 

I'm sick of overpriced ford motors reguardless of the HP/tq... I hope in some sick way for the new Mustangs that they get a contract with Chevy to provide a 4,000$ bazillion hp monster motor.

Common guys, we all know it would be cheaper and last just as long.

 

If Ford were to contract out a brand-X engine for the Mustang I would throw myself from the sky onto Ford's headquarters screaming a curse so vile it would make Jesus cry while sealing a deal with the devil to nuke Ford with an al-queda dirty bomb using all the blood that splattered from my lifeless body.

 

Tell us how you REALLY feel

 

LOL

 

i dont know much about motors and gearing, im just starting to learn, but isnt the reson the vette gets the 26mpg it does is b/c of the gearing? a 5.7 = 26mpg our 4.6 = 20mpg need to fire the R&D team and start over

v6 stangs should have the current motor 4.0l stay its great wher its at just change the gearing.
but the v8's are hurting bad. the v-8 should have a pushrod motor to save cost, and generate more power. a 5.0 base model get pushing 350whp/ 375-400wtq then have a "boss" upgrade package with the 351 pushing 525hp 600tq. that would be the premium to keep up with the vettes and the base model gt to keep up with the maro, and whatever dodge throws in the mix.
As far as gas mileage goes i think its BS that a 505hp vette get 26mpg and a 4.6 get 18-24. i know for a fact with the tech. available today it is more than feasable to produce a 600hp car that get 20-28 mpg and anything underthat should be able to easily achieve 30+.

 

THe vette gets great mileage due to its gearing (6 speed) top gear at 60 mph is like 1500 rpm. low weight. 3200lbs and great areodynamics.

 

Perhaps the Mustang should focus more on the less mass (and drag) side of the equation to generate better straight line performance than simply ever bigger, more powerful motors. That approach might work well enough when gas is cheap and meaningful CAFE standards are a distant thought, but those days may well be coming to an end (hints of the early to mid seventies here).

As the Vette shows, less weight and better aerodynamics can have a huge beneficial effect on not just only acceleration, but also efficiency, braking, handling and overall agility. So perhaps there is a lesson for Ford, the purveyor of the oh-so-porky GT500, that perhaps a bit more engineering discipline and vigor might be in order in terms of keeping mass and drag under control.

Yeah, yeah, I know all about the usual excuses -- stricter safety requirements, power everything, etc. -- but the Vette faces all the same challenges and yet its been able to keep slim, trim, fast, agile and efficient all while keeping about the same level of relative affordability.

 

It's a 2-seater...

 

Have you sat in the backseat of the 'Stang? I don't think the engineers considered it much of a design priority or constraint... That said, I don't think Rhumb is arguing that the Mustang GT isn't a great car that walks a respectable line of neccesary compromises, just that Ford "improved" on the car in the wrong direction when introducing the GT500.

 

no the GT500 was a great idea to get the minds off the release of the new maro, thats all i think it was. what little i know of engines, i know that chevy has spent more time and money on making a better engine ie the LSx series, ford on the other had has a list as long as my driveway of engines they've used, they need to pick one and stay with it. it would take no time at all to catch up to the LSx's if they use the 5.0 style of motor, they could even have a stang easily competing with a Z06 for cheaper in a matter of years.
It all boils down to the cheif designers who are apparently dumbasses, and dont see the larger marketing value of the 5.0 platform.

 

I have sat in the back seat of both SN-95 and S197 Mustangs. Like many (not all) 2+2 coupes, room is limited, although I find I fit the S197 better because it is bigger than the SN-95.

The Corvette could be improved in the direction it was because the interior packaging was strictly for 2 people. The car could be shrunk in some dimensions without necessarily adjusting to increase interior room.

The Mustang, being a 2+2 seater, has a different packaging problem. We got more room (and improved handling) because of the wheelbase increase. We also got more mass. One might argue whether or not it was worth it, but it is what it is.

The GT500's weight (which I agree is HEAVY) is largely because of the engine. It would have been great to see a normally aspirated aluminum block engine, which would have reduced the weight and improved the weight balance.

It is my opinion that to shrink the Mustang's size overall to reduce weight to less than SN-95 levels would mean reducing the interior packaging to a point that the broad specturm of buyers would find it uncomfortable.

My point was simply that Corvette could be shrunk a lot easier between the C5 and C6 versions without compromising passenger room because it only accounts for 2 passengers, not 4. Unless the Mustang becomes a 2-seater, the design constraint is more challenging.

PS - I am definitely aware of the innovative approaches in the Corvette for the body structure.

PPS - I spoke with one of the interior packaging engineers and he mentioned they walked a fine line between "too much" and "not enough" back seat room on the S197. I believe he is quoted in Mustang books discussing that.

 

I'm curious about these Boss engines to see what they weigh compared to the 5.4 4v with SuperCharger. Not only that ..but in size.
Hopefully they are packaged smaller than the 4.6 and 5.4

 

usmcrebel you say "i don't know much about motors and gearing" then you say "I know for a fact with the tech. available today it is more than feasible to produce a 600hp car that get 20-28 mpg and anything under that should be able to easily achieve 30+."

This reminds me of how the government doesn't know anything about building cars but it's telling the car companies they have the technology to get more mileage and how much mileage they should get.

There is absolutely no reason Ford isn't giving you the best mileage they can. Mileage is more than engines and gearing. Weight and aerodynamics are just as important. Light weight materials cost more money and the Mustang could be more aerodynamic but it would loose it's appeal. It's a balancing act, that judging by the mustangs success, they have done very well.

As far as Ford sticking with an engine. They have be building the 4.6 sense 1991. I think that shows they have "stayed with it."

You also said "the GT500 was a great idea to get the minds off the release of the new maro, that's all i think it was." The GT500 is the SVT Cobra that was in development while the Camaro was laying dead along side the road. They have been making Cobras on and off sense 1993. If anything the success of the Mustang and GT500 is the reason GM is bringing back the Camaro.

Even with all the things they could have improve on in the GT500. They're selling for more then retail. As far as Ford is concerned, if they spent any more money improving the car, it would have only given them less profits.

 

pretty much the vette is a rolling masterpiece....the z06 is a fuel efficient supercar that would blow the doors off anything nearly practical on the road, and even most impracitical cars. i love mustangs dont get me wrong, but vettes r the perfect car and by far the best for the money