Automagically

I didn't want to look for the other NASCAR quote but the big block is no more.

As I agree with cdynaco, the big block would be cool, and yet useless now a days. I'm kind of dead on big block's anyway as the small displacement engines are truly holding up to the bigger engines of the past.

These are the reasons I would think that a Boss 429 wouldn't come back. Apparently Boomer says otherwise.

To stir another pot since I love all the Shelby supporters, could the Boss 429 be an SVT replacement for the GT500? Remember, the GT500 had a 429.

Double-EDad

+1 LOL.

Cdvision

Tell that to the 505 hp 7 liter LS7 in the C6 Z06. I have friends that log close to 30 mpg on the highway in their C6 Z06's.
That said I don't see Ford ever developing a large displacement motor. Todays trends of direct injection and boost seems to be the way things are going.

cdynaco

Thanx for making my point.

ford4v429

the 6.2 Hurricane IS designed to be 7 litre capable, I would expect there to be a reason for this...7 litres = 429.

as far as bigblock=gashog assumptions, I dont think thats the case at all...the last bigblocks, yes- but they were 7 point someting compression ratio duds too...my old '69 11:1 429 (well 10.3~11.3 depending on what book you read) got 17 mpg with my mom driving it to work, she got a 74 351 that struggled to get 8 on the same route... with the extreme bottom end torque these things made, you could drive pretty spirited without flooring them, and they still scooted like nothing else.
I bet with todays engine controls, that same old 360 hp @ 4800 / 480 ft-lb @ 2300 would look more like 600 hp and 600 ft/lb- and get mileage in the 25 highway range- and with todays controls, 11:1 on 87 isnt 'impossible' anymore. on the contrary, I wouldnt be suprised if direct injection on a 7 litre could run 15:1 and put out 1000 ft lb.
the new EB 3.5 runs like 12:1 AND 12 psi boost, and that little V6 puts out 370 @ 1500 RPM, and 420 hp up top- while getting 30+ mpg.
I think with direct injection, the limiting factor isnt compression OR boost any more, just simply holding the heads on the engine! With todays gasket capabilities and controls, insane power and mileage can be had in the same engines...wether you keep your foot out of it is up to you.

rhumb

Highly unlikely well see anything bigger than the 5.0 once the 5.4 goes to pasture. Future trends will likely be DI'ed and boosted motors with those tweaks being applied to the 5.0 to make a alpha Stang. At the other end of the performance equation, weight and drag will be reduced so straight line performance will likely increase, though not as much as overall driving enjoyment resulting from greater handling and braking. Additional bonuses will be less thirst (i.e., more beer money) and less fouling of our air.

PS. I'll put myself in the "accept global warming" camp -- one's entitled to their own opinions but not there own facts and just way too many facts from way too many sources point pretty convincingly that things are getting warmer overall.

Five Oh Brian

Remember back in 1974 when the biggest engine you could order in a Mustang was a 171 cubic inch (2.8L) German built V6? 95-105hp, depending on who you ask. Remember just a few years later when the 302 ci V8 took time off again and we topped out with a 255 ci V8? Both of those times we (who are old enough to remember) thought the V8 would never come back - only to be replaced with high tech 4 & 6 cylinder engines. I'm thrilled we have three factory 400+ hp V8's to choose from now (412hp GT, 444hp Boss, 550hp GT500). These are the 'good ole days.' However, a fourth monster V8 with big cubes would be magical and is quite possible with a 7.0L version of the Hurricane V8 (6.2L).

cdynaco

You're right. So the 7.0 comes from a 6.2 stroker motor?




Exactly. Are you still using NOAA's automated sites placed on rooftops and next to heat retaining brick & cement and next to AC units?? Still using algore's phony hockey stick chart??
Regardless, the power of the sun, ocean currents, the evap cycle - even tsunami's dictate global weather; and are all way beyond the pollution sins of man in terms of influencing global weather. Reduce pollution and be better stewards of our home always! But cap & tax us into poverty (for the benefit of trader$ at the Chicago Merc) because of nature?? No!!
We've been cycling warmer since the last little ice age, and the pendulum may well be on its way back.

Bert

I don't think anyone disagrees that the world is getting warmer (though recent weather seems contrary to that trend) -- the question is not whether, it is WHY?

trane

And how simple could it be? EVERYTHING within a system affects said system. When you have over 6 billion human beings pumping effluent and pollutants into the system, it cannot help but have an effect. I don't think any credible scientists have tried to say that humans are the only or primary cause of global warming, only that we need to mind our P's and Q's because what we do here ALWAYS plays a role in how things transpire.

Nothing takes place independent of anything else. There are no actions that happen disparately from everything else in the universe. Everything is inextricably linked; therefore, it's incumbent upon us to take responsibility for what goes on within our control and to not pretend that what we do is irrelevant.

</rant>

Back to engines: I like 'em. The day we're all puttering around in electric golf carts will be a sad one, indeed.

Itravelalot

Tesla Roadster Sport Specs <quote>

VEHICLE TYPE: mid-motor, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door targa

PRICE AS TESTED: $155,850 (base price: $130,450)

ENGINE TYPE: AC permanent-magnet synchronous electric motor

Power (SAE net): 288 bhp @ 4400 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 295 lb-ft @ 0 rpm

TRANSMISSION: 1-speed direct drive

DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 92.6 in Length: 155.4 in
Width: 68.0 in Height: 44.4 in
Curb weight: 2760 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 4.0 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 12.1 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 3.9 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 12.9 sec @ 102 mph
Top speed (redline limited): 122 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 178 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.90 g
</quote>

Do we really need umpteen billion reasons to not spew pollutant into our atmosphere, or admit that there are a very large amount of reputable scientists who have seen from hard evidence that pollution is very bad? Whether or not you can get yourself to admit that some of the things you do to the planet might have a bad effect, they still do. Having said that, it is not at this time always practical to buy a car that is "green". As much as I would like to live green, this is not practical at this time. If I decided to ditch my order for a 2012 Mustang V8 and get a Prius, Leaf, or even the Tesla Roadster, then I would have to realize that I would then instead of being responible for gasses and using too much gas, I would be responsible for pollutant from the batteries and any pollutants that come from energy generation for a plug in electric. That and the Desert heat kills batteries fast, so I would not trust a battery powered car here. Either way, a Yaris or Civic might save a very small amount of pollutants and gas, I do not think that I would be as comfortable and safe in a Yaris as I would in a stang. I need to travel around the country for my job, and I do not want to trust in a Yaris or a Prius. A small block v8 Mustang is still not all that bad as compared to a Hummer or the countless huge pickup trucks around. The gas milage should be on par or better than my v6 powered Sienna. So, if a big block v8 were available in a Mustang, I think that in comparrison to other vehicles that are out now, it really would not be that much worse.

Oh, and by the way, you have to know it is science that needs to fix this mess. The general population of the earth will consume things that are readily available and practical to them. Make a "green" car practical and affordable, and I will certainly do my part. Just do not ask me to pay a good amount more for something that can only go 100 miles on a charge or that has better fuel economy at the price of having a bunch of expensive batteries that will also not do good things when they have to be disposed of.

Bert

Yeah, but some of those things in the system are significant and some are outweighed by others. You'd have to devote all of your waking hours to studying this stuff to sort it out and I haven't done that so I don't have a strong opinion . . . but I do know that the dynosaurs didn't have combustion engines so that couldn't have had anything to do with the cycles that the world has been going through since the beginning of time.

I'm glad to hear that, the way it is presented a lot of the time it sounds like we are 100% to blame . . . and I always laugh when I hear talk about "the actions we must take to stop it at 2 degrees C" or whatever . . . what makes us think that we can actually stop it? And not only that, we are going to put a precise number on it? It's the crazy actions that can be driven by this crazy thinking that are really scary.

Agreed and I think Charlie agreed with that too . . . that's why I spent $10K on an energy efficient boiler that will probably never pay back . . . and better yet, traded in my old Toyata Avalon for a Mustang GT that gets better gas mileage!



Back to topic -- I like internal combustion engines too, when the Chevy Volt comes down in price to be realistic and can make the sound of a small block V8 I'll be interested!

And I do remember the days of the 455 big block, that was an awesome beast . . . but it got about 8 MPG on a good day my little 281 outperforms it in most categories (not torque, but somehow that doesn't translate into real performance anyway) and if we could put an efficient turbo-charger on it . . .

Automagically

I think times have changed for the big blocks, aluminum blocks, better heads, injection, air flow. It may still be a big block but we could easily see at a minimum 23 mpg highway out of a big block car. I now am starting to see the possibilities.

My concern with turbos is that efficient is only the word when the turbo isn't engaged very much. I know turbo technology has changed as well, but let's be honest, turbo's are hungry. There are a multitude of high horsepower turbo engines getting aweful fuel mileage. My BMW apparently didn't have effiecient dynamics built in because my 26 mpg hwy rating is shot to hell. We drove the "more efficient" 2011 335i and it's more efficient because it's even more tame and restrained by the computer. No off the line, no power surge when you punch it. Power on demand? forgetuhboudit!

I will admit that cars like the Evo are just heavy and AWD but if I wanted V8 gas mileage I'd rather have the V8.