What engines yould you like to see...
 

on the 2010 Mustang?

3.5L V6 on the ford Edge and tweak it for more torque

4.6L V8 375 HP on GT

5.0L V8 425 HP on Bullitt, Boss 302

5.4L V8 500 HP GT500 (yes it stays)

6.1L V8 550 HP on Mach1, FR500T edition, Boss 429 SE

All above:metal:

If you are tlking about stock GT, then 4.6L V8 375 HP :metal:

:yup: stock GT

Any opinions?

I doubt well see anything over 350 cubes because of gas and what not, but the rest seems resonable. I think the 5.4 will turn into another special model.

Somewhat realistic wishlist:

Base
3.5L V6 - 225-250hp with some nice torque

GT
4.6L 3v or 5.4L 3v with 350-380hp
option 5.8L 425hp BOSS engine

SE
5.8L BOSS engine 425hp

Topdog (Cobra, GT500 etc)
6.2L BOSS engine (500-550hp)

I've always been partial to the 5.0- 302, but what the hell... bring back the 351, better yet the 429 :metal:

I seriously doubt you'd see anything as highly tuned as a 425 hp 5.0, thats getting right up there toward 100hp/liter. Not saying it cant be done (a 2v mod motor can do that), but given what we are used to seeing from domestic manufacturers and large displacement engines in particular, I'd say something a bit south (350ish) would be more like it. I'd also say that 7.0 liter engines wont probably show up any time soon (as much as everybody would like) :(

I'd think this would be more likely; 3.5 V6, 5.0 Base V8, 5.8 to 6.0 SE V8. Hopefully with a big V8 we will have something in the 450 or so N/A horsepower range.

I want real retro ... build 428-CJ again!

bump

My prognostications:

Base: 275hp 3.5
GT: 350hp 4.6
Boss/GT350: 400hp DOHC 4.6
Mach I/Bullitt: 425hp 5.4
GT500: 525hp DOHC SC 5.4

This precludes the Hurricane/Boss motors appearing in the meantime, which, given Ford's tortuous development record and precarious financial state, seems likely.

Um is anyone at FORD reading this, great line up here.:jester: :nice:

Personally, I think Ford should forget all these "options" and use a 170hp 6 across the line.

Hmm, since this is a wish list I'm going to drop some drivetrain combos which I know wont make it, but which are every bit as viable as anything else and which, IMO, should make it. I've always thought that the Mustang needed a more varied portfolio of offerings to satisfy the vast market which it has the potential to, rather like Porsche's 911 only on a much grander scale. So I've got quite a few ideas. Please note that I'm putting some trust into what I consider some of the more viable rumours surrounding the upcoming Boss V-8. I'll also put in a few other pertinent bits about how I think these should go down, hope nobody minds.

First, all engine black and heads should be CGI asap given the huge cost and weight savings that this techonology can provide. Only the V-6, LX, and GT models would be expected to produce their power on 87 octane fuel with everything else using premium. The progression of models below would be based on price and not displacement as it might first seem. Obviously many of these models would be of limited production with some, like the GT500 and GT350 being very limited while others, like the GT500KR and GT350R, would be severely limited in terms of production number by any measure much like the Cobra R's of the past were. Sorry if the torque numbers don't quite match up since I came up with this on the fly.


2010 lineup

V-6: 3.5L, DOHC/24-valve Duratec V-6 (~275hp) with 5M or 5A and IRS

LX: 5.0L, SOHC/8-valve Boss V-8 (~340hp/365lb-ft tq) with 5M or 5A and SRA

GT: 5.8L, SOHC/8-valve Boss V-8 (~385hp/400lb-ft tq) with 6M or 6A and IRS

Mach-1: 6.2L SOHC/8-valve Boss V-8 (~450hp/450lb-ft tq) with 6M or 6A and SRA

GT350: 5.8L DOHC/32-valve, DI, Boss V-8 (~465hp/440lb-ft tq) with 6M or 6A and IRS

GT350R: 5.8L DOHC/32-valve, DI, Boss V-8 (~525hp/465lb-ft tq) with rear mounted 6M and IRS

GT500: 7.0L DOHC/32-valve, DI, Boss V-8 (~625hp/550lb-ft tq) with rear mounted 6M or 5A and IRS

GT500KR: 7.0L, DOHC/32-valve, DI, Turbo-Supercharged/INT, Boss V-8 (~800hp/850lb-ft tq) with rear mounted 6M or 5A and IRS

Certainly a dream lineup, but probably more hallucinatory given Fords dire condition, especially at the top end of the lineup. While IRS capacity has been engineered into the D2C platform, a rear mounted tranny would be a whole other kettle of fish and require and extensive, expensive reengineering and retooling. Also, such a range of motors, and all the testing, certifying, service support and other expenses would also be very unlikely.

Not to mention the effect on Ford's CAFE let alone the cost of certifying all those different engines in the Mustang.

Time for a reality check.

Given that no tooling exists for any IRS Mustang setup at the moment, and that it seems unlikely that Ford would drop the IRS initially intended for the 05GT into the next model as is, a possibility which assumes they even finished that design in the first place, developing tooling for front and rear mounted transaxles seems none to taxing given the greater variety and appeal it would offer in the lineup by bringing further differentiation to top line models.

As for the variety of engines I listed, it is hardly as extensive as you make it sound. The V-6, GT, and Mach-1 are all powered by engines which are already here or which are known to be on the way. Also, considering the fact that we now know with some certainty that the Boss V-8 family will eventually replace Romeo altogether a smaller displacement version of that motor seems a certainty. While we don't know what size that engine might be 5.0L seems unlikely to be very far off in either direction, so it fits well enough for the time being and represents a future offering we can also logically expect will appear.

The DOHC 5.8L V-8's powering the GT350 and GT350R are no stretch either given the fact that the rumour mill has been buzzing with the news that DOHC versions of the Boss V-8 will appear some time after the SOHC units do. This would hardly be unusual given the fact that Ford did exactly that with the Romeo V-8, and it seems even more likely given Ford's long term commitment to implement Direct Injection accross the board. Again, these are simply versions of engines which we have relatively good reason to suspect are coming anyway.

This leaves the 7.0L V-8's powering the GT500 and GT500KR as the only "pie in the sky" offerings here. And frankly, that doesn't even apply very accurately to those since they would be little, or no, different than what Ford did with past Cobra R milss, or ven the current GT500's mill for that matter. It could certainly be no different than what GM is doing with the Z06.

Yes, the variety I included would require more initial investment. But it would also increase demand for the Mustang lineup overall, not to mention keeping demand from waning as much in the long term limiting the need for incentives. An accountant would likely prefer to limit development on the front end thereby saving money initially, but in the long run how beneficial is this? In that scenario you will eventually be forced to either offer greater incentives or limit production in order to compensate for the lower demand less variety brings.

No doubt when that time comes our accountant is going to be pointing to the lower initial investment as justification, but is that way really better? What you really got in the trade is a car that appeals to fewer people overall and which doesn't sustain it's appeal as well in the long run. I think I'd rather spend money now knowing that I almost certainly will get a better rate of return, and garner a better image for my car and the brand, for my trouble.

As for Ford being too cash strapped to commit to this. Companies that make fiscal decisions as though they were going broke usually find a way to do so. Ford cannot afford to rest on their laurels with any model, especially not the more popular ones. If well executed a broader Mustang lineup could be both more appealing and more profitable, which more than justifies any initial costs. What Ford needs to do in order to get out of this 'dire situation' is to build better cars that deliver far more than expected and which appeal to as many people as plausible in the process. There is no better place to start...or continue...that mission than the Mustang.

Really? I have to assume you are basing this logic on the age old idea that larger engines must inherently get worse gas mileage and produce more emissions than do smaller ones. While this generally holds true that comparison requires virtually identical engines but for displacement to be acccurate....put simply it is a pretty generic measure.

More than one source has stated that the 5.8L does no worse than the 4.6L 3-valve in terms of emissions and will produce better mileage in the trade. Given the fact that GM's LS series V-8's provide better mileage than the modular typically does despite their far larger size, and that this has been a sore spot for Ford, I see no reason to doubt the mileage improvement claims.

Given the more advanced nature of the design I see no reason to doubt the clean emissions claims either. So what do I have above? A V-6 offering which could logically be expected to have better mileage and emissions than the model it replaces, a LX V-8 which could reasonably be expected to offer better mileage and emissions than the current GT, a GT which could be expected to offer equivelant, if not better, emissions and better mileage than the current GT. See a trend here? And one could logially expect the LX to supplant some GT sales (but obviously increasing Mustang sales overall) further improving the mileage and emissions outlook for the lineup.

Also, given the advantage that DI and premium fuel would lend the GT350 in this regard it should prove little or no worse on mileage and little worse on emissions than the SOHC GT would depite it's power. Take into consideration the fact that Ford is building about twice as many GT500's right now as they ought to, and that combined domestic GT500, GT350R, and GT500KR production on a yearly basis should maybe be 3/4 of what current GT500 production is which would improve the situation even more, and I fail to see the problem with my lineup.

As for the cost of certification, although I addressed this above, I can see your logic. Far better to offer fewer models with less overall appeal, and eventually be forced to incentivize the model range heavily to move cars than to spend more money initally and offer a broader range of product which has greater appeal, better longevity, and improved long term profits. Funny, your logic regarding development costs sounds exactly like the thinking that drove Ford and GM to the brink of bankruptcy in the first place, and which led to ill-conceived product like the compromised, and frankly pointless, Triton V-10 you apparently sourced for a screen name.

At least you aren't alone.

It's simple physics. The larger the displacement, the more air an engine pumps at the same RPM. The more air it pumps, the more fuel is required to maintain an acceptable A/F ratio.

Go check the chat sites about how horrible the gas mileage is on the 5.7L Hemi. The 5.7 Hemi 300C is one of the worst offenders for having real world gas mileage far worse than the rated EPA mileage.

The way to get the mileage back is to use taller gearing like like the .5 OD ratio in a lot of GM trannies.

Ford has the worst gas mileage in the industry. Part of the problem is they run rich A/F ratios. This is usually done to reduce internal engine failures as the extra fuel has a cooling effect. Ford has a lot of homework to do to improve the mileage on all its engines. Expectations for the upcoming Boss engines are very high. We'll see if reality lives up to expectations.

I agree with everything you state above more or less. The only thing I'll point out is that advances in technology (combustion chamber design, fuel injection, etc) make a difference in fuel mileage as time marches on no matter what the engines size. A point which is obvious, that I'm certain you are well aware of, and which has not been previously stated or refuted in this thread, but it is worth mentioning in any thread where fuel mileage is discussed.

That said, with regard to what the engines I list could or would do to harm Ford's CAFE ratings, I'll still say that Ford could easily employ the engines I mention above and greatly improve their CAFE ratings. The reason Ford's V-8 engines tend to drink greater amounts of fuel than they should are numerous as you point out.

One area which I think has caused some issues, and which is hotly contested, is the rather small bore the modular design uses. While this is perfect for emissions, which was the initial idea, it is hardly ideal from a power production standpoint, a fact which ultimately has an adverse effect on mileage. In fact, I've always suspected that the Modular V-8's tendency to take so amazingly well to forced induction was not a product of some mystifyingly perfect setup for F.I., but rather that the shortcomings those small bores produced in a naturally aspirated engine are largely compensated for in a forced induction setup.

Unfortunately for Ford they went the small bore route to good emissions right before technology made that avenue pointless. In fact, I've long suspected that moving this new V-8 to a larger bore had as much to do with correcting the issues that the Mod motors small bore brings to the table in terms of power, etc as it does with simple displacement limitations.

As for the factors you mention, frankly many of them help to support my theory that Ford could employ the engine lineup I mentioned and increase fuel mileage as well. Yes, a lot of the issues you mention have more to do with execution and driveline issues than the engines themselves, but better mileage is better mileage no matter how you get it.

Duratec 60 deg V6 DOHC 3.5L = 275hp/250tq Base Mustang

Duratec 60 deg V8 DOHC 4.6L = 350hp/340tq GT

Duratec 60 deg V8 DOHC 5.4L = 390hp/390 tq Optional GT

BOSS 6.2L 90 deg V8 SOHC = 445hp/440tq Boss/Mach 1

Super Cobra Jet 6.2 90 deg DOHC = 600hp/600tq supercharged GT 500

:metal:

:hyper: