No 5.8L boss for Mustang
#141
I love and miss my 302. I think I am going to do another Ranger with a 302 for my daily beater again. AFR heads, mild cam, ported Explorer intake = 300+ to the rear wheels and torque. And some torque. Torque also.
Getting rid of the 302 when they just had it mastered was stupid. I saw a 200,000 mile '94 302 tore down and you could still see the hash marks in the cylinders. Ring and sling was done just for safety measures. They are so cheap to build and you get so much out of them. Now, if you want to build an all out race motor, people may argue, but for a great fun street car, the 302 has great potential and many options. It fits in just about any car too. People ragged on the hyper pistons they used in '93 and up, but the rings and setup on those last engines lasted forever. I had 10# boost at over 130,000 miles with no problems.
Getting rid of the 302 when they just had it mastered was stupid. I saw a 200,000 mile '94 302 tore down and you could still see the hash marks in the cylinders. Ring and sling was done just for safety measures. They are so cheap to build and you get so much out of them. Now, if you want to build an all out race motor, people may argue, but for a great fun street car, the 302 has great potential and many options. It fits in just about any car too. People ragged on the hyper pistons they used in '93 and up, but the rings and setup on those last engines lasted forever. I had 10# boost at over 130,000 miles with no problems.
#142
u guys remeber the 03-04 mach1 they got 310 compared to a 260hp GT then the 05 got almost the same engine/hp wouldnt be surprised if the boss comes out then the next year the new GT would get the engine or close in hp
#143
I Have No Life
Another one I've always thought was killer, was having a 302 in the Miata/MX-5
Talk about a sleeper (well.. i mean..if you have a quiet exhaust
Rolling coffin on wheels...but a sleeper
#144
Post *****
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Location: Berkeley/Redwood City, CA
Posts: 18,614
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
Nothing wrong with a Coffin on wheels I love mine
I too would be a fan of seeing the old 302 tricked out and updated in the new Mustangs. I wouldn't want the 4.6L replaced but it would be nice to have the option of choosing which V8 goes into your car. The more engine options, the better
I too would be a fan of seeing the old 302 tricked out and updated in the new Mustangs. I wouldn't want the 4.6L replaced but it would be nice to have the option of choosing which V8 goes into your car. The more engine options, the better
#145
Hey...I like "IIs" also!! My first V8 car was a '75 MII. That hooked me on the 302. This is the first time in 20 years that I didn't own something with a 302. At least I still have an Explorer intake, A9L and parts and some E7 heads in the garage.
The 4.6 does seem to rev up with no dropping off though. I like it. It is just a completely different beast. I would like to see how a 5.4 or some other larger displacement modular drives in this thing, for sure. I know a positive displacement SC would solve all low-end issues, but I am not ready to go back to FI at this time.
#146
Cobra Member
#147
Post *****
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Location: Berkeley/Redwood City, CA
Posts: 18,614
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
ttbit,
Glad to see another fan of the II :P it was my first V8 car (well, after some work..) too. But I agree with you on the notion of the mod motors revving. The 302 in my II seems to begin to die off at around 5K and is not really all that helpful at 6K. The 4.6L though, that thing never quits once you start revving
Owning the pushrod and the mod V8s is very much the best of both worlds
Glad to see another fan of the II :P it was my first V8 car (well, after some work..) too. But I agree with you on the notion of the mod motors revving. The 302 in my II seems to begin to die off at around 5K and is not really all that helpful at 6K. The 4.6L though, that thing never quits once you start revving
Owning the pushrod and the mod V8s is very much the best of both worlds
#148
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just seems GM, at least in the Vette shop, is exercising greater engineering rigor and discipline than Ford in terms of mass without driving up its relative price -- just shows that it CAN be done.
#149
Legacy TMS Member
Yes, of course, but the Vette's always been a fiberglass bodied two seater with about the same price premium (percentage-wise) over the Stang GT. Yet the Stang gets fat and heavy while the Vette stays lean and light, all while maintaining that same (maybe 50% or so) price premium over a contemporary Stang.
Just seems GM, at least in the Vette shop, is exercising greater engineering rigor and discipline than Ford in terms of mass without driving up its relative price -- just shows that it CAN be done.
Just seems GM, at least in the Vette shop, is exercising greater engineering rigor and discipline than Ford in terms of mass without driving up its relative price -- just shows that it CAN be done.
One thing GM has done well, in addition to the unibody structure, is optimize the pushrod engine and amortize it over a large line of vehicles. That has provided a key weight advantage for Corvette.
If a new larger displacement engine from Ford can make its way from the truck (or other) line with a weight savings, perhaps the Mustang will benefit from that in a similar fashion.
#151
Just seems GM, at least in the Vette shop, is exercising greater engineering rigor and discipline than Ford in terms of mass without driving up its relative price -- just shows that it CAN be done.
#152
Needs to be more Astony
I doubt the boss engine will be lighter then the 3v mod.
#153
Yes, of course, but the Vette's always been a fiberglass bodied two seater with about the same price premium (percentage-wise) over the Stang GT. Yet the Stang gets fat and heavy while the Vette stays lean and light, all while maintaining that same (maybe 50% or so) price premium over a contemporary Stang.
Just seems GM, at least in the Vette shop, is exercising greater engineering rigor and discipline than Ford in terms of mass without driving up its relative price -- just shows that it CAN be done.
Just seems GM, at least in the Vette shop, is exercising greater engineering rigor and discipline than Ford in terms of mass without driving up its relative price -- just shows that it CAN be done.
The Corvette is GM's halo car. It gets the best engineering and technology that GM has. The closest thing to the Corvette that Ford had was the Ford GT.
The Mustang is some forms is a halo car, but it's also a budget $19K V6 coupe. The current Mustang chassis started out as a derivative of an existing chassis. Compromises have been made to sell it at a v6 price and get 140K units built a year. 34K Corvettes were built last year.
The Corvette is a relatively low volume halo car that costs nearly twice as much as a Mustang. The Mustang is a high volume regular production car. Of course the Corvette is going have better, more expensive engineering and technology built into it.
#156
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My point with the Vette is that both it and the Stang have, for a remarkably long 40 some years, inhabited their respective niches relatively unchanged in general parameters, i.e., form, material, function, relative performance, and relative price in the market. A glaring difference is, of course, weight.
Whereas the Vette has kept its trim high-school senior figure, the Stang has bloated with middle-aged weight. The Vette has kept at about the very low 3,000 range while maintaining roughly the same relative cost premium, percentage-wise, over the Stang.
The Stang meanwhile has larded up from perhaps 2,800lbs to about 3,400 -- a gain of over a quarter ton dead weight. Obviously that will have a terrible effect on aggragate performance, handling, braking and efficiency. And this isn't the first time the Stang has supersized itself, recall the '71-'73 version which became the Fat Elvis, neccessitating the crash diet resulting in the carry-the-badge Mustang II. The '79 FoxStang was a trim Mustang done right -- rather contemporary for the time -- but it has been a gradual diet of Big Macs and fries ever since.
Now, with the powerful but oh-so-plump GT500, the Stang has again taken on Marlon Brando'esque mass, all while costing as much a the lean and mean base Vette, which is about as fast in a straight line and will evicerate it in all other performance measures. Sure, you can obstensibly carry two tortured souls in the back seats of the Stang, but that seems like thin justification for over 3/4s a ton of road-hugging lard.
I imagine the '09-'10 Stang will be a rehash of the current chassis, ala the '99 Stang, so there's probably little opportunity to send this draft horse to the fat farm to regain its pony proportions. But hopefully the next real full redesign will pay more attention to the weight issue and realize that sometime, more is not neccessarily better.
Whereas the Vette has kept its trim high-school senior figure, the Stang has bloated with middle-aged weight. The Vette has kept at about the very low 3,000 range while maintaining roughly the same relative cost premium, percentage-wise, over the Stang.
The Stang meanwhile has larded up from perhaps 2,800lbs to about 3,400 -- a gain of over a quarter ton dead weight. Obviously that will have a terrible effect on aggragate performance, handling, braking and efficiency. And this isn't the first time the Stang has supersized itself, recall the '71-'73 version which became the Fat Elvis, neccessitating the crash diet resulting in the carry-the-badge Mustang II. The '79 FoxStang was a trim Mustang done right -- rather contemporary for the time -- but it has been a gradual diet of Big Macs and fries ever since.
Now, with the powerful but oh-so-plump GT500, the Stang has again taken on Marlon Brando'esque mass, all while costing as much a the lean and mean base Vette, which is about as fast in a straight line and will evicerate it in all other performance measures. Sure, you can obstensibly carry two tortured souls in the back seats of the Stang, but that seems like thin justification for over 3/4s a ton of road-hugging lard.
I imagine the '09-'10 Stang will be a rehash of the current chassis, ala the '99 Stang, so there's probably little opportunity to send this draft horse to the fat farm to regain its pony proportions. But hopefully the next real full redesign will pay more attention to the weight issue and realize that sometime, more is not neccessarily better.
#158
Legacy TMS Member
Again, I believe there is an inherent design constraint when you have a 2-seater vs. a 4-seater. Unless the Mustang changes to a 2-seater coupe, shrinks the back seat to the point that no one can sit there, or totally forgoes the back seat, there will always be a weight difference, given the price points at which they sell.
The day GM can make a $26,000 C6 Corvette with 400hp is the day I buy one.
In my opinion, the biggest weight loss plan for the current chassis is to reduce the size (take out wheelbase), lighten the engines (if bigger than a 5.0L V8, all aluminum will be a must), and leave out heavy options like a Shaker 1000 stereo. I predict to that would add cost into the V8 car that would push up even closer to the Corvette in price.
As others have mentioned here, it will be interesting to see what any new V8 engines can do for this part of the weight equation.
The day GM can make a $26,000 C6 Corvette with 400hp is the day I buy one.
In my opinion, the biggest weight loss plan for the current chassis is to reduce the size (take out wheelbase), lighten the engines (if bigger than a 5.0L V8, all aluminum will be a must), and leave out heavy options like a Shaker 1000 stereo. I predict to that would add cost into the V8 car that would push up even closer to the Corvette in price.
As others have mentioned here, it will be interesting to see what any new V8 engines can do for this part of the weight equation.