Boomer

3.6x
could mean any range between 3.60 and 3.69

I'm guessing it'll be a 302 though, not exactly right on the mark 5L

Mackitraz

What do you guys think CAFE strategy revisions hold for the Mustang and Ford for the next full model? Seems like many feel that massive strategy revisions are worth the eventual gain. Lightness would seem a natural direction to find some help in compliance.

It just seems to me that in some ways it's an easier solution to give people what they want and still make it easier on the manufacturer. You can make a sporty car that goes fast and can still rely on a smaller displacement engine to make compliance easier. Oh god. I think I just described a Honda.

hi5.0

^^^ I don't think so. Maybe a S2000, but that's about it. A Lotus would be a better embodiment of those traits. If anything good comes out of the new CAFE standards, here's hoping it leads to a smart reduction in vehicle weights across the board without sacrificing safety or power output. A reverse of the trend toward ever-heavier automobiles over the past 15-20 years.

GTJOHN

If GDI is all that they claim, we should be in very good shape. We know the performance is there, I am just skeptical on the durability at this point.
Anybody on this board own a MazdaSpeed6 with 100k miles?

rhumb

Hopefully the CAFE/EPA standards will force a bit of engineering discipline on Ford and the Mustang now that the prices on the fuel buffet line are essentially doubling -- off to the fat farm to loose some road-hugging weight.

Hopefully, unlike in the '70s, modern technology will not result in performance debacles such as the Mustang II. GDI, VVT, DSG, etc. have the potential to maintain and even enhance performance while greatly improving economy and ecology.

Remember, the most pertinent aspect for (straight line) performance is the power to weight RATIO, not necessarily a particular amount of power per se, and that ratio can be attacked just as much from the weight side as the power side, the latter of which has been pretty much the case lately resulting in the tail chasing death spiral of ever fatter cars needing ever more powerful and thirsty motors, never mind the other deleterious effects on braking and cornering performance.

A 3200 lb Mustang would only need about 425hp to achieve the same power to weight ratio as the GT500 leviathan, a figure that ought to be readily achievable by a 4V, VVT, GDI 5.0. And that lighter mass would inevitably make for a much better handling and braking car and leave a lot more coin in the beer fund after fill up time.

I don't see any reason why GDI systems would be innately less durable than comparably complex EFI systems. Indeed, lowered combustion chamber temps might slightly enhance overall engine durability.

goesfast

You're right. It won't be exactly 5.0, but close enough to call it that. Even a slightly over 400hp lump in a present weight Mustang is enough to give a GT500 multiple headaches. There was a track test by the fellow from Top Gear that tested a Roush Mustang vs. a GT500. The GT500 didn't do so good due to the porky factor.

jsaylor

I don't agree with the argument that the upcoming 5.0L V8's rumored hp ratings would be surprisingly high for a 2011MY Mustang GT. Past FoMoCo habits have been cited more than once in reference to the same, but this approach neglects the most important reasons why such a thing is newly plausible.

First, the upcoming new CAFE standards are changing things very quickly, and the open-ended nature of the legislation rightly has the auto makers running scared. Fuel economy has to improve substantially right now, and Ford knows it. Given this, the widespread implementation of direct injection on a much quicker schedule than initially anticipated is hardly a surprise, The bonus here is that direct injection substantially improves both fuel economy and power when employed in an engine, which makes a serious improvement in hp and torque anything but surprising.

Second, the reality is that the 5.0L V8 almost certainly had to go a very long way to justify its own existence in a world where Ford's upcoming GTDi 3.5L V6 is going to produce 340hp and 340+lb-ft of torque, particularly with somebody like Mulally in charge. Some may argue that Ford would never rid the Mustang GT of a V8 engine, but the reality is that things far more shocking than that have happened and the drive to improve fuel economy is going to claim more than a few victims. To justify producing a 5.0L V8 in light of the new GTDi V6 said V8 would almost certainly have to prove equally capable and more likely superior in terms of power development and at least decent in terms of fuel economy....not only to justify the use of such an engine in the Mustang but to make such a V8 suitable for use in other vehicles. To be blunt a 400hp/360lb-ft of torque V8 which knocks down 24-25mpg or more is probably about what you would need to prove the V8's case and none too much extra. I wouldn't be surprised if hp and torque were shuffled just a bit, for example the layout of the 5.0L and the performance of other brands DI engines makes it easy to believe that specs could end up as 380hp/385lb-ft torque rather than the currently rumored 400hp/360lb-ft of torque. Still, the overall power envelope seems unlikely to change much because the engine needs this kind of power to justify it's own existence.

While there is no guarantee that this will happen by the 2011MY I have no doubt that it will indeed happen and, if not be the 2011MY, then not long thereafter. At some point in the near future the 5.0L DOHC DI V8 is the only small V8 you'll see at Ford, if for no other reason than Ford cannot afford to continue building these engines without DI or with the smaller bore of the 4.6L as both seriously compromise fuel mileage, and that is a luxury Ford no longer has.

Boomer

I agree...on a 2011MY Mustang GT vs a 2008 GT500

But who's to say that the 2010+ GT500 isn't going on a diet either?

jsaylor

A 5.0L V8 producing near 400hp and 360lb-ft of torque backed by a six speed manual in a 3500lb coupe would be a 12 second car. For comparison, the new IS F V8 produces 416hp @ 6600rpm and 371lb-ft of torque @ 5200rpm and still managed a 12.7 second 1/4 mile in a Motor Trend comparo while dragging around a 3800lb car and 19 inch wheels. The IS F did have the benefit of an eight speed automatic but it needed it since the rear axle ratio is only 2.94:1. Even better, while the IS F only manages 23mpg highway the reality is that Toyota probably got a little bit o' the shaft' from Yamaha on this one and we can almost certainly expect significantly better.

Toyota handed over their gleaming new 4.6L V8 used in the LS and GS models to Yamaha in hopes of getting back a monster. Instead, despite bumping displacement to 5.0L Yamaha only managed to find another 36hp and 4lb-ft of torque sacrificing a notable amount of low end torque in the trade no less. Not an overly impressive improvement for a seriously reworked engine which gained .4L of displacement. Even more, the Yamaha massaged unit gives up 3mpg highway compared to the standard 4.6L Lexus mill despite similar gearing and a 600lb weight difference. A simple IS460 would likely have been just as fast, gotten significantly better fuel mileage, and been a lot cheaper too.

The good news is that the above means that a 5.0L V8 which produces 400hp and 360lb-ft of torque could easily knock down 27 or 28mpg under the hood of a new Mustang if properly executed. A 12 second Mustang GT rated at 27mpg with 400hp and a seriously broad torque band would not make for particularly happy campers in either the Camaro or Challenger communities, In fact, I'll go so far as to say that such a thing could ultimately be a deal killer for both cars.

usmcrebel

they should just kill the GT500, just b/c of the greedy *** behind it. i know SVT has their hands in it, but i think they would do better to dump the greedy bastard and let SVT reign again.

i think as far as weight/power goes you probably wont see much of a change in the GT model, you might even see a SLIGHT gain in weight due to the 5.0 weighing more, but why change something you don't have to? in the V6 i think you see weight savings of a little more than 100lbs.
these 5.0l motors are not going to be tuned and will yield amazing results when they are, i think you'll see 400-425hp with that coming down to like 380rwhp in a 3600 lbs-3750lb car (dry w/ no driver) and thats still worlds better than the tank dodge is bolstering.
All in all im not worried about the maro, i think ford is gonna suprise the hell outta GM, i cant wait to see what they got though.

jsaylor

My thoughts exactly.

rhumb

An interesting corollary to jsaylor's discussion is that apparently Audi will be going back to a twin turbo V6 configuration for its S4 (and S6?) models for pretty much the reasons he states. Ford undoubtedly is facing the same sort of calculus too and may come to similar conclusions.

That said, I don't see either Audi's excellent 4.2 totally disappearing nor Ford's putative 5.0. But these might be applied to a much more limited range of specialty models (RS-R, GT500) than more general models (S4, Stang GT).

So might the Stang GT get a TT V6, while the upcoming(?) 5.0 will be a more exclusive GT500/other SE option? While the lack of an entry level GT V8 would obviously and understandably cause howls, CAFE and EPA might dictate it.

Hopefully, Ford might better bolster their smaller, more efficient but credible performance car offerings (Fiesta and Focus RS models, new Capri) to counterbalance the negative CAFE/EPA effects of large V8 models. Currently, those sub-Mustang offerings are pretty spare and abysmal now.

jsaylor

I've said it before, but it is worth saying again. SVT was a money loser that also failed to either a: seriously improve a noticeable amount of non SVT cars by the process of trickling down tech or b: cast a seriously improved image over the rest of Ford's lineup. Bring something like that to Alan Mulally's desk and he is going to ask you if the people continuing to green-light the program are brain damaged, and not without cause. Whatever you may think of Shelby or his name the interest created by replacing the SVT Cobra with a Shelby GT500, and the reduction in power and scope of the SVT/SVE organizations, is likely the only reason were still getting any kind of uber Mustang. We may like bargain priced Cobra's which end up with 5k rebates, but Ford doesn't.

According to insiders the Mustang is on a pretty serious diet, so serious it has affected engine program decisions outright. If we don't see something a weight reduction in all models I'll be surprised, but I do agree that we absolutely wont see a weight increase.

Agreed. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if, by 2011, we have a 400hp Mustang GT which straddles the price of the V6 Camaro and the base V8 model all while delivering fuel economy similar to the V6 and performance that beats the V8. Just my opinion.

boduke0220

When are we gonna learn anything new?

Moosetang

Can't wait until November?

goesfast

A present day 4.6 3valve Mustang (2008 Mustang GT) with a touch over 400hp will embarrass a 2008 GT500 due to the instant weight savings. It's been done already. And you don't have to forward to 2011MY either. That would be totally embarrassing.If a 2010 GT500 is produced, yes it could go on a diet; called the "GT350 Diet". 5.0 DI sporting 400+hp. There would be no need for a GT500 then.

Boomer

Obviously the lighter car is going to be nimbler and quicker around a track.

For what the 500 is, you get a fast car (it is...whether its heavy or not) with some nice potential
(the motor can be softwared up in HP VERY easily if Ford chooses to do so) to a point where the 4.6 3v would explode to keep up HP wise.

It's all releative to what you want to achieve.
Bottom line, both are probably going on a diet.

So what does your magic 8ball have to say about a 2010+GT500 Hrmmmmm?

max2000jp

Call me a pessimist, but I do not believe this one bit. The current S197 uses an Aluminum block and heads. The hood is also aluminum. The exterior bumpers are also very light too. Where is the decreased weight going to come from? Well it can come from two methods: Downsizing the car OR increasing the amount of lightweight materials. We know that the S197 isn’t changing dimensions. That leaves us with trimming material weight. Those lightweight materials would be carbon fiber, magnesium, or aluminum. Now take into account that Ford needs to keep the price in check. I personally think that the next gen will be near the 3450-3500 range. Added content and safety equipment typically adds weight from generation to generation. There are some exceptions; They all use carbon fiber, balsa wood, or aluminum.

V10

I've seen a bore size of 92.2mm thrown around in several places (+2.0mm over the 4.6 bore). 92.2mm = 3.6299".

I have not seen any believable stroke #s, but I saw in one place 3.63 x 3.63
3.63 bore & 3.63 stroke gives 4.92L = 300.5 CID
3.63 x 3.643 gives 301.6 = 4.94L - same disp. as the old 302 / "5.0"
3.63 x 3.68 gives 4.99L = 304.7 CID

V10

Part of the equation is that the 4.6 will be replaced by some sort of GDI V6, probably a 3.7L that produces around 300 HP.

I tend to think that when the 3.5 GTDi finally appears it will make more than 340 HP. Ford has a history of understating HP in the early announcements. Remember Ford only promised 250 HP for the D35 when it was first announced.

So I'd say that the 5.0 GDi V8 will have to be quite an efficient performer to have a place in the product line. I suppose there will be customers who will only by V8s, even when gas hits $10 / gallon and the manufacturers will oblige as long as such a V8 can be squezed into CAFE requirements.

One missing item is that to make the 5.0 GDI V8 a viable product, it will have to be used in other vehicles. Even if it becomes the standard Mustang GT engine, Ford cannot possibly profitably produce it at a volume of 80,000 / year. So a version of the 5.0 will have to show up in trucks & big SUVs to make it production profitable.