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:

Several things here. If in say, 1994, when the planning for the Mod engine series was done, you had told me that people in North America woud not only sit still for 2 buck a gallon gas,and 65$ a brl. oil but also demand a half dozen or so new cars with FIVE HUNDRED HORSEPOWER under the hundred grand price limit, I would have called a loud and enforcable BullShennanigans.

The fact that the Mod was planned in V10 and even a theoretical V12 as well as V6 and even a couple of fours is proof that displacement was not the issue. It was packaging the project in every single damm product that Ford makes that was the critical path on the program. And the bore dimmension was the big trade off. The fact that thin wall/liner 5.0 liter 4 valve NA motors make well over 500 horses(in endurance racing trim yes, but 400+ with emissions is a given) establishes that.

The bigger flaw in Fords thinking was the trucks. The Mustangs engine is a truck engine, no if, ands, or buts. And as long as trucks are the prefered means of personal urban commuting, that is a perfect fit. However, the recent shift in fuel price and truck sales means that a bigger percentage of a smaller pie is going to be actual working trucks, and there, GM(and DCX) and its large displacement Cam in Block units have a decided advantage. Torque speaks volumes, and Mods do their best work at high revs. Which to me means that Ford may be throwing the baby out with the bathwater again, in that any new platforms may have to take into account a much larger and thus heavier engine bay/crash structure for the boss series WHETHER OR NOT THEY NEED IT AS IT WILL BE THE ONLY CHOICE!

Even more annoying is the fact that they have missed another boat. V10 touched on it briefly with his example of the O.D. available in GM products. Ford has not taken advantage of transmission technology in so long its painful. The recent announcement of dual clutchs in some future Volvo's is a start, but there are now 8 speed auto's and a dozen manumatics with small light weight cases on the market. The rush to displacement is, in part, I suspect a panacea for the lack of forward thinking in this area.

The TR6060 is a heavy duty old school solution to a high torque 6 speed and the number of high torque FWD tranny's can be counted on one hand. Hands up for a Ford auto that could handle 500+ lbs of torque? Hence the AWD solution to try and mitigate it somewhat. If we are going to see these big numbers from all these engine families for the future, I sure hope there has been at least equivalant thought paid to the other part of the powertrain.

I am not convinced, as two joint projects and at least one native one have not paid dividends yet.

Yes there have been many advances in cylinder head / combustion chamber design, but Ford throws all those advances away by running rich A/F ratios to keep the insides of their engines from melting down. Ford has a lot of work to do on fuel mileage.


The bore spacing (and hence bore diameter) on the Mod motors was determined by the requirement that the V8 Mod motor fit sideways into the Lincoln Continental engine bay and not for emissions requirements. A very costly design blunder by Ford.

I am aware of the packaging issues Ford's plan to employ the Mod motor architecture in fwd vehicles caused. The truly unfortunate part of that equation is that the majority of those vehicles were cancelled, with only the Lincoln Continental you mention making it to production, a reality which made those packaging concessions pointless.

As for the bore being strictly a packaging consideration. That could be the case, but back when these motors were young Ford spun the bore diameter as optimal for emissions. Wether this was simply spin intended to cover for an engine layout compromised soley to create a one size fits all design, or wether this was actually another consideration in development, is something we will likely never know.

I agree with most of what you say. But, I'm not sure that the Boss V-8 is actually going to be bigger than the Mod Motor in any ways which will be problematic. Any potential smaller displacement Boss V-8's which Ford could build (for example say 4.8-5.2L) would certainly employ a block design utilizing a much smaller deck height than the current 4.6L Romeo engines do. In fact, a ~300ci Boss V-8 would likely look a lot like the old 302 Windsor V-8 in terms of bore/stroke relationship, which may give a better example of what we can reasonably expect in terms of packaging changes.

Yes, larger bore spacing theoretically makes for a wider engine, but you have to take stroke and the resulting deck height into account to get an idea of actual width as I'm sure you know. I'm inclined to believe a Boss V-8 of similar displacement poses a good argument for being a narrower package than the Mod motor design currently is. And the Boss will obviously utilize a shorter deck height than the Mod motor does, making the overall package shorter. Length will certainly increase at least a little, but this has seldom been problematic for the Mod Motors (ironic, huh?) and there is certainly room to grow her....especially if it gives back some width and height in the process.

The January issue of Mustang Monthly has the engine I want It sits in a UP restomod 427 FE engine with DC&D electronic fuel injectoin... 525hp n/a, its beautiful!....:nice:

If emissions were the consideration, Ford could have used a wider bore spacing but still used the same small bore diameter allowing for future growth.

The emissions story was more after the fact spin to justify the insanely small bore size of the Mod motor than any real need to reduce the bore.

You want proof, GM somehow managed to keep it's 4" bore, 1950s design small block V8 meeting emissions requirements and putting out more HP than Ford engines though the late 90s when the Chevy SBCII finally came out.

I understand your argument, and am well aware that Ford could have kept wider bore spacing for the Mod motor's whatever bore they chose to employ, and I'm well aware that the smallblock Chevy kept it's ~4 inch bore, but spin or not Ford's entire take on this is worth mentioning since we can likely never really know how the process went down and how influential these things might have been. Either way the simple fact is that the Mod motors small bore hurt the engines power potential, especially when NA, and those days would appear to be ending relatively soon.

I dunno, as maligned as the mod motors are, I think I will miss 'em when they are gone, to bad they didn't at least have the PI heads and better intake when they introduced the 4.6 in the mustang or better yet had the VVT 3v 4.6 from the get go. Oh well hindsight is 20/20

The way I gamed this out, there will again be two deck heights. The 6.2l truck version(and any follow on larger gas engines+ any diesel) will probably end up with a taller deck(again the cheap and easy way to displacement is stroke), but a SOHC head should give that packaging back. And there is the not so little problem of upcoming(current in Europe) pedestrian crash regulations that almost require the lowest possible(and in some cases lower:screwy: ) hood lines. This is proving a major packaging headache in near future designs.

I doubt that any 4 cam version however, will be any narrower for the very same reason the Mod was so wide. It is difficult to pkg. the exhaust side without width, just because of the short side turn radius in the port. The typical way out for that is to raise the exhaust port but then the exhaust port has to be temperature managed all the way out, and that does not help emmisions and cat light off one bit and adds weight and machining/casting cost as well as difficulty in finding room for the exhaust.

Which leads me back to my main worry. I fear that any 4 cam setup will be an after thought,not part of the initial design brief which is most assuredly emmisions and fuel economy. The reason the mod makes such big power in 4 valve guise is that it was engineered first for maximum pumping, then it was backed down to meet weight and cost targets. And for those about to take exception to the need for a 4 cam, part of the reason for the initial setup was the superior swirl(that was almost 14 years ago) of the two smaller intake valves(greater surface and cooling area), and the inital choice of the two stage intake setups on the COBRA and Lincoln engines. Two stage intakes were a direct and suboptimal response to get the hood height as low as possible for maximum flexability, even though the COBRA's all ended up with specific hoods(and the 96-98 power dome was a sexy as was ever made:grin: )
Even now, the initial B series Mod head flows as well as any aftermarket ported head when used with forced induction.

The Mod is still a force to be reckoned with. The all conquering GT engine proved that it is as good as any engine in the industry, but we just got beat by America's inexplicable need for instant torque over all other considerations. I had high hope back then that we would learn why the rest of the industry had choosen high rev, variable intake runner and valve timing engines, but we never learn.

And for those about to question that, why have the high end supercars and the uber Germans(not to mention most racing sanctioning bodies) eschewed supercharging for the most part? Because Nat Asp. is the easiest and cheapest way to control emissions and tune an engine for rev specific fuel economy. Hence the use of more and more gears in transmissions and the fact that large displacement blown cars so easily pull timing(its a function of variable combustion chamber pressure due to density as much as heat that takes the power out).

Great stuff folks, keep it up.:nice: I'm learning as much as I have in months here, and I suspect others are too.

But we do know the process. It was mandated from above that the mod motor had to be short enough to fit sideways in the Continental. Hence the small bore & bore spacing. Simple as that.

So you know, for a fact, that Ford specifically chose this bore spacing strictly because of their plan to make the engine shorter for fwd fitment and not as a combination of that need and the pursuit of lower emissions? Unless you were there and involved in the decision, or knew somebody who was, you can't possibly know this to be absolute truth. I worked in the auto industry for quite some time, with a good part of that time spent working with engineers to help tool up and produce new product for major automakers, and I have seen far dumber decisions made for far dumber reasons than this.

Yes, I know for a fact that the Mod Motor's bore spacing was chosen to meet a specific maximum overall engine length so it would fit in the Continental's engine bay "sideways". And I do know that a lot of people inside Ford were not happy with this mandate as the small bore spacing also limited the width of the main bearings. Bearings were a bit of a problem with early mod motors and they went through several updates. You can make an engine with a wider bore spacing but not use all the available space (smaller than maximum bore), leaving the engine with room to grow displacement. Ford did this with the old FE engines, starting out with a 4.00" bore and eventuall ygrowing the bore to 4.23" (bore spacing is the same).

If you do some research back to the early 1990s when the Mod Motor came out these facts were widely reported & discussed in the automotive press, professional and consumer.

And, I used to be in the machine tool business and delt with the big 3.

Keep in mind that Ford´s beancounters will not like the idea of making an all new, high displacement engine, which according to them will cost a lot of money. What they probably don´t realize, is that many of their loyal Mustang buyers actually want a big engine to show off to the bowtie and Mopar guys. In addition to that, the beancounters think that a paint, bolt-om, and sticker job will attract new buyers. Ford, it might work for now, but when the ´maro and Challenger come out, the Mustang will be eating dust. You are in the business to do good cars, and good cars (especially musclecars) don´t come cheap or with minor bolt-ons

On another board, a member dug up a quote from Car and Driver way back in 81. I ask you to think on the paralells, as I did in that thread.

http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums...dpost&p=125204

My response, I hope some read the others as well.

http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums...dpost&p=125457

Mach, this wasn't directed at you, you merely point out some things that define the thinking. I do not want to be negative on Ford, but as the fall and early winter have progressed, they have not said the right things to indicate that they "GET IT". So much is wrong, and so many shiny shoes need to be stepped on that the sort of people who REcreated the Mustang performance heritage back in 93 and sustained it through the fall of 06 are no longer around for us, and are no longer a part of the organization at Ford.(Every one who was a major force behind SVT is gone. Every one of them. Product planning, engineering, sales and loyalty, and marketing.) There is where the understanding of our performance specific market went. Feel that cold wind from empty halls?

I fear greatly that Ford is about to bring a knife to a gunfight, one that they set up back in 03 when they put a temporary end to GM's pony aspirations. They have let the enemy back in the game by leaving a door of opportunity(just watch how much more sophisicated the Brand X cars are, and how much higher the profit per unit is)and like any Bond type flick, if you take time out to gloat, the enemy will always come back to defeat you. Brand X cars are taking a direct shot at 150 000 units of a market that the Mustang currently is the sole occupier of with sales numbers just north of 150 000 units! When are you going to replace your stang and why? Would you buy another just to keep Mustang viable until a full engineering fix in 2011? Because right now, all Ford is concerned with is the new F-150 and other product, Or we would have had that mid life update next year, not down the road another.

The Hurricane Engine was killed a few years ago by the bean counters.

When Mark Fields got promoted he resurected it (as the Boss) because Fields is smart enough to understand that Ford's engines in both its trucks and performance cars (Mustang) are flat out not competitive (unless a S/C is bolted on and without a competitive V8 Fords high profit truck sales WILL tank.

The bean counters at Ford used to have the final say on EVERYTHING. Within the last month, thanks to Ford's new CEO Mulally, some corporate by laws were changed to remove some of the bean counters power in relation to capital spending.

Let's hope these moves by Fields and Mulally are not too little, too late.

Quote:

---

Or do you really believe you didn't want a leading edge IRS and other class competitive features

---

Hey that'd be me, I'm pretty happy with my strut front end and 3-link rear.

I worked with the big three and several other auto makers for many years myself, and am well aware of the discussions you mention. And I am familiar with the Mod motor's design and it's shortcomings But I have, as yet, seen nothing that would indicate with certainty that the emissions argument had nothing to do with Mod motor's small bore and subsequently small bore spacing. Nothing definative has ever stated outright that fwd fitment was the only consideration, and until I see something relatively irrefutable that states the same I will likely remain unconvinced. And it is worth noting that I feel this way largely because of my experience with the big three.

Planning for ten and twelve cylinder variants, emissions considerations, and fwd fitment issues were all factors in this decision to some extent. There is, at this point, far too little in the way of real evidence to say the fwd fitment issue was soley responsible. If you have a source who indicates otherwise and is definative, or even relatively close, I'd have no trouble buying it, anf frankly it is the most loigcal answer...always has been. But so far one has not appeared of which I am aware to confirm the same absolutely. And I have been burned far too many times when applying logic to the big three's decision making to do so again.

You are confusing 2 different aspects of the Mod Motor's design.
1. External physical size.
2. Internal bore & stroke size.

Yes, the ratio of bore to stroke on the mod motor was chosen for emissions reasons.

However, the bore spacing had NOTHING to do with emissions. The bore spacing, which then determines the maximum bore size, was chosen for packaging reasons.

Ford could have very easily made the mod motor with 110 mm bore spacing but still made the first Mod Motors with the same 90.2mm bore for emissions reasons. This would have given the mod motor room to grow in the future. Ford had done that with almost every prior V8 engine design. Starting out with 110 mm bore spacing would have saved Ford hundreds of millions of dollars in future costs. But 100mm was selected because of an engine length restriction, not because of emissions.

I understand what you are saying, always have, but you are still missing my point. Let me explain.

Your argument obviously relies on the assumption that engineers would not have made the bore spacing so ridiculously small for any reason but a forced packaging compromise. And my argument is...why would we assume that? Why would we limit the possibility of short-sightedness, or even stupidity, to everyone but the engineers?

The Mod motor has a bore spacing of 3.9 inches and change, leaving room for a bit more than the motors standard 90mm bore even if much more is pushing the envelope. Why would we assume that the engineers developing this engine were given packaging criteria which limited them to such a small overall length, and bore spacing, and ignore the possibility that they made the package, and thereby the bore spacing, smaller than they had to? Without doubt a short pakcage size was required, but were the requirements this extreme? Did the engineers go the requirements one better for other reasons even if they seem pointless to us? The argument that Ford engineers had, in prior designs, always made bore spacing larger than necessary in anticipation of pontentially larger bore versions in the future has some merit, but new mistakes are made every day, and I wont excuse engineers from the pool of potential offenders based on what different engineers working for the same company did previously.

As indicated above we do know that the engineers were tasked with making the motor short enough for easy installation into fwd platforms, but far longer engines than the Mod motor have been fitted to fwd vehicles. The fwd packaging argument alone does not rule out the possibility that engineers made the design even smaller than they had to. In a scenario where the Mod motors ~90mm bore was considered attractive for reasons other than packaging, like emissions, plenty of ammunition exists to theorize that engineers could have taken a small package even further. Add in the argument that smaller is better in terms of engine packaging and the possiblity gains even more merit.

Based on my own experience I have no problem imagining engineers, having decided that a ~90mm bore is optimal for emissions and will therefore be employed in all forseeable future variants, and in possession of the knowledge that 10 and 12 cylinder variants would eventually join the family to address the issue of larger displacement version of the design, questioning why they would design in more bore spacing than needed to accomodate a ~90mm bore even if they had the option to do so. Would I agree with that argument? No. But my belief that the same is short sighted or even illogical does not make it any less likely to have occured. As I have stated before in this thread I have seen engineers make decisions far more questionable than these for far dumber reasons. Why would I assume Ford's engineers are fundamentally different?

I am making assumptions about the potential order of events to be sure....but since we don't know what order these decisions were made in, what criteria the engineers had to work within, or what weight each particular issue carried, assumptions would seem to be the order of the day. The above is but one of countless possible scenarios.

You are too eager to excuse engineers from responsibility here IMO, especially as many of the truly bad decisions I saw during my time in the auto biz were made by the same. Frankly, I'm surprised that you are so quick to dismiss the idea that engineers could have done something this ill-advised without being forced to given your apparent experience in the business. In my experience, and without any intention of insulting anyone, an engineer left unsupervised is like a Lieutenant with a map....a disaster waiting to happen. There are exceptions of course, but engineers can be as unrealistic as accountants in my experience even if the bean counters do seem to get all the guff.

We're beating a dead horse at this point.

Much of the mod motor's design criteria was determined by Ford's marketing & finance departments, not the engineers.

You're choosing to ignore well documented information on the mod motor's design criteria & history which is making further discussion pointless.

Really? Would the same apply to your prior argument that D2C wasn't flexible and that there was no reason to believe that it was? Of course, that was even more extreme than this case since there was effectively no evidence at all indicating D2C was strictly a 2-seat, swb platform. But you bought into the rumour mill which circulated those rumours hook, line, and sinker largely because you were looking at the argument backwards....and frankly seemed to be looking for reasons to support your argument instead of examining the validity of the same and all alternatives. You were determined that D2C's flexibility needed to be proven rather than taking the more logical approach, which would have been to find evidence that D2C wasn't flexible and to continue examining all possibilities until either was proven accurate. Of course the former was the more logical approach to the question since what evidence we have would lead one to believe that D2C is a flexible platform.

Here your simply skewing the argument rather than looking at it backwards, but you are happily accepting the 'reasons' that leaked and dismissing all alternatives which is no less unfortunate. And ironically you are doing so with far less evidence than we had to indicate that D2C was/is flexible, indicating something of a double standard on your part. The first pertinent question regarding your complete dismissal of all other scenarios is...can we assume that the information we get regarding issues like this is generally complete or accurate? Of course not, as indicated by the ridiculous argument that D2C absolutely wasn't flexible, the even more ridiculous argument that D2C was C1 based, and the assertion that the Mazda 6 platform has nothing to do with the older European Mondeo. If leaked information regarding those was incomplete or misleading, and it was, you cannot accurately assume this situation is any different without evidence to indicate the same.

In light of this the question you should be asking is...are there other plausible explanations?..... even if they are less likely. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised by your complete dismissal of scholarly method in your approach to this issue. I'm not ignoring the information we have as you assert, I'm just not willing to blindly accept it as you seem to be. That said I'll agree, there is little point in continuing this discussion since your contributions here and in the thread where D2C's flexibility were discussed combine to make it clear that you are simply interested in convincing others that your argument is correct, an approach which makes it very difficult to hold a serious discussion or learn something new.

:shower:

So what do we make of this? http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs...701010343/1148

"it marks the debut of a new engine family -- the TwinForce V-6.
The TwinForce V-6 is a 3.5-liter gasoline engine that features twin-turbocharged direct injection for performance that rivals larger and less fuel-efficient V-8s. In the MKR, it delivers 415 horsepower and 400 lb.-ft. of torque on E-85 ethanol. Ford plans a family of TwinForce engines to power a number of Ford and Lincoln products."

And does it mean anything to future Mustangs? I can say that some what I percieve to be accurate sources suggest that the 400+ number is not only doable, it is done and production iminent as a flex fuel. So why one earth would Ford offer a H/B engine at slightly more power, with all the tradeoffs?(weight ,cost, and simplicity vs. fuel economy ,traditional modability, and packaging among other things)

I love the idea of a pure corner carving Stang, but many will scream bloody blue murder if a Mustang GT DOESN'T have a V8!(I might just be among them)

So we face an interesting question. Does the Mustang HAVE to have a V8 in its bread and butter pony car, or would the BEST engine for the company and the car do?

:eyebrow:

In another post I mused that the Duratec Turbo six engines might be Ford's planned replacement for the smaller, 4.6L Modular V-8's, and engine I previously thought would likely be replaced, in part at least, by a smaller version of the upcoming Boss V-8. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a turbo V-6 in the Mustang so long as V-8's are still available as well. Ford Australia effectively does exactly that with the current Falcon and it's lineup of L-6, Turbo L-6, and V-8 engines. In fact, a twin turbo V-6 Mustang with IRS sounds like a great follow-on to the SVO IMHO. I think the bigger worry is wether Ford would intend for the same to replace smaller V-8's in the F-150 lineup as well, and how that might be received by the crowd loyal to those trucks.

I'd also be very curious to see how a 'Twin Force' V-6 stacks up to a 5.8L SOHC Boss V-8 from a pricing perspective. The V-6 is smaller and utilizes a shorter crank, fewer pistons/rods, etc....all of which are advantageous for various reasons. But that same V-6 has disadvantages relative to the V-8 in this respect as well. V-6 designs utilize more complex crankshafts than do 90-degree V-8's which serve to increase production costs. Factor in the Duratec's DOHC's, 4-valves per cylinder, and twin turbos and there exists a compelling case that the Twin Force might not be cheaper to produce than the SOHC Boss V-8 as is.

And the Twin Force would certainly require premium gas as well, somewhat off-setting the improved fuel economy the engine offers relative to the Boss V-8. In the end, I like both the Boss and the Twin Force given what little we know of them, and I'm not yet ready to say that either would be the best engine for a hi-po Mustang as each would seem compelling in it's own way. I would love to see them collectively replace the Modular V-8 giving us better engines while also providing more choices...which would seem to be exactly what we are going to get.

Despite what the nay-sayers forecast it would seem to be a good time to be a Ford enthusiast if this is the future.

Some things are iconic and best left alone and Mustang, rear wheel drive, and V8 is one of them although there is certainly room for a TTV6 SVO like SE (I dunno how much room, but I'm sure there is some none the less)

Maybe Ford would be better served crafting an actual 2 seat sports car, tightly wrapped around said TTV6 as its entry into the world of ultra high performance sports cars. Something roughly the size and weight of a gen III RX-7, but sporting 400+ hp/tq.

Thank you Bob, I tend to agree.

There is a lot of other factors though. Ford is attempting to fix just about every part of its operations all at once(except perhaps the dealers :shame: ), and I think even the most die hard of us would agree that the performance end of it is not the biggest product hole.

So they have stated that this engine program(D35+ ne TwinForce) is the bread and butter one, with the boss series filling some holes as well. If Ford has to engineer from scratch at least one full size rear drive sedan(perhaps two if Lincoln is to survive), a B class car, and is in the middle of a complete redo of the F-150 and all that that means, try and find time for a solid redo of the Fusion and its sisters(and if it lives the 500), as well as a solid midlife on our Mustang, all by 2010(thats just three full years, ouch) I think its safe to say they don't have any resources for a proper Vette fighter.

The last very effective shot was the GT, but they not only quit making it, with no follow on, (no economies of scale as planned, say GR-1 or Daisy) AND completly dismantled the entire organization that did that car, but there is no evidence that they are planning anything else to placate the true blue enthusiast.(Don't hold your breath for the Boss thing folks, please don't allow yourself to be dissapointed)

I'd tend to agree regarding the V-8 issue as well with my thoughts being that a TT V-6 might fit into the Mustang lineup just fine, but not at the expense of V-8 offerings as well. I may not have made this as clear as I had intended in my prior post.

You're getting a bit carried away and chosing to completely change the topic from engines to platforms.

First, there is a HUGE leap in making a D2C based sedan like the Interceptor than building a 1 off show car from Mustang hardware lying around in the parts bin. If the Interceptor ever makes it to production, let's look at what it's platform will be. Chances are it will be a far cry from the present D2C.

2nd, I never said that D2C had anything to do with C1.

Stay on topic or give it up.

I never stated that you claimed D2C had anthing to do with C1. I used that rumour as an example of why supposedly valid information is only blindly accepeted by the foolish, and how the same can become widely accepted as authoritative even when inaccurate. The same could easily be argued relative to your assertion that D2C isn't flexible, given that everything we know about D2C points to a flexible platform.

Those examples were largely given in response to your assertion that I was disregarding 'well documented' information. My response, as indicated by the above, is that this 'information' needs to be shown to be well documented, and cannot simply be called the same simply because it is the most likely explanation, which is what appears to have occured here.

As for the Interceptor and MKR being based on parts 'laying around the place'. Ford could have easily based these concepts on the revised DEW98 platform underpinning the Jaguar XFC concept, and likely with far less fuss than lengthening D2C provided. If these are truly simple concepts then there would be no harm in doing the same and little logic in not employing that platform. As I stated earlier every shred of evidence we currently have points to D2C being a flexible platform, and the evidence continues to mount daily.

This applies to the Mod motor debate because you conveniently ignore the information that doesn't support the side of the argument which you have chosen in both scenarios, regardless of validity, indicating a disregard for scholarly scrutiny in your posts which appears to constitute a pattern.

Far from being off topic I simply pointed out inconsistencies in the methods you apply when evaluating possible scenarios. In fact, the one constant throughout your arguments is that you aren't consistent in your application of logic and scrutiny.

I posted a link to this article in the "Other Fords" forum. I find this section of the article particularly interesting:

You might find it interesting, but I find this dishartening if not flat out depressing.

I'm insulted that you think I'm blindly foolish.

The jury had not yet given us a verdict on how flexible D2C really is.

Not me. If they pull it off the shelf for the MKR and (hopefully) the Interceptor, there's a better chance it'll find it's way into future Mustangs. It's that old "economies of scale" thing. :grin:

I apologize. In my current line of work I am accustomed to writing rather dramatically, and I don't always remember to "turn it off" in places like this. No insult was intended as I do respect your opinion on the subject wether I disagree with it or not. Again, I apologize.

heresy
 

Would it be heresy to suggest adding a V-10 to the line up?

The Boss 302 and the Boss 429 get a lot of ink. But overlooked in the mix was the short-lived Boss 351. With each edition in street tune, the Boss 351 was the best performing of the 3.

Ford engineers have already created (and shelved) a terrific 351 CI motor (Brad has it listed on this site in the prototype section).

The 5.8 (350.9 cubic inches) V-10 in 4V DOHC configuration did fit in the previous Mustang and generated 430-hp N/A.

A Mustang SE--a Boss 351 with a 430-HP V-10, would be a radical departure from pony car tradition. But the performance might win over the market segment oriented toward the V-8 models.

Don't worry about it, I couldn't resist taking advantage of a good opportunity to bust your stones. We're all just sitting here bench racing. Nothing we say or do here is really going to change the world.

We've already beaten this dead horse. As my handle suggests, I was a proponent of Ford putting a low deck, high revving V10 in the Mustang. The 351 CID V10 in the Mustang, the 390 CID V10 in the Cobra roadster show car and the 427 CID V10 in the 427 show car are awesome engines.

However, a V10 Mustang is not going to happen. Too expensive to build, to long, too heavy and too fuel thirsty. The new Boss V8 (Hurricane) will be used instead. The Boss V8 will also replace the current 6.8L V10 truck engine.

My support of the V10 was because when the Hurricane V8 was canciled, Ford was in dire need of good N/A performance engine. A low deck V10 mod motor looked like the only option. But now that Ford has revived the Hurricane (as the Boss) in rumored 5.8L & 6.2L displacements, a V10 Mod motor no longer makes sense.

You're right, (sigh) it won't happen. I expect you are dead-on on the expense.

Too long? The engine fit in the mule, a 2003 GT. The 1999-2004 frame was narrower, and shorter than the current frame. If the DOHC V10 fit in that chassis I suspect it would fit in the current Mustang.

Too heavy? The 2003 Boss 351 project car listed at 3565, which is only about 100-lbs heavier than the 2003 Mach 1 (3465 or 3475 I can't remember which) with the MOD 4.6. Slipped into a current GT, the aluminum 351 would weigh more than the stock 4.6 but still it would be several hundred pounds lighter than the Shelby GT500 (3900-lbs, or thereabouts--the 5.4 iron-block with the supercharger is not light.)

Thirsty, you're probably right. I get fair gas mileage from my 2006 GT, but it's not in the same league with a Toyota Prius. But even with 2 extra cylinders it probably wouldn't be any less economical than an Expedition, and problably more efficient than a Hummer!

I too, was impressed with the V10 concept motors and the power that Ford managed to produce from N/A engines. Too bad none of them made it to production.

Yes, too long. There is a huge difference between fitting the engine in a one off prototype and making a production car that meets crash standards.

The extra weight on the GT-500 isn't only from the engine. Bigger wheels, bigger tires, bigger brakes, etc. all add to its weight.

Yea I agree a 5.8L all aluminum V10 would not weigh anymore than the iron block S/C GT-500 engine (maybe less), but it ain't gonna happen.

::Sigh:: A 5.8 3V VVT Aluminum V10 would have been pretty nice and could easily belt out 380 to 400 HP.

Go watch the J Mays video on the Inteceptor. He very specifically says that although the Interceptor concept is built on a stretched D2C, should a vehicle like the Interceptor make it to production it will require extensive changes to the D2C platform.

Good enough, but then it would still be on a modified version of the D2C platform which means that it is flexible. And frankly, I would only think it logical that the transition from SRA coupe with a ~107inch wb to an IRS-sprung sedan with a wheelbase roughly ten inches longer would require changes that could be called extensive. But again, the very fact that Mays is indicating that you can ge there from here proves my point.

can we just get a 5.0 GT with at least 400hp to face the maro

5.0...no...

5.8... yes

How about a 7.0L cobra jet

As much as everybody wants it, the right answer should be NO

Yeah, I'm nuck'n futts, but hear me out.

What is a Mustang GT essentially, its an entry level V8 car. Everybody wants a GT500 (okay, GT500 haters dont chime in, this is for illustrative purposes only), Not everybody can afford a GT500, but alot of people can afford a Mustang GT and to be honest, for 99.9999999999999% of the people out there, the performance level is right in the sweet spot, it takes turns nice, it stops nice, it accelerates nice, and its a nice livable package (people who suffer traumatic back injury from SRA equipped vehicles butt out too) and its affordable. If you start jacking up the performance level to keep up with the Jones then it adds to the cost to the car and all of a sudden your entry level V8 car is no longer an entry level V8 car. GM seems to be going for a base V6, a hardcore V8 car and an over the top V8 car. Ford hopefully will stick with a base car, an entry level V8 car, the hardcore SE cars and an over the top model so that everbody can enjoy that thing called Mustang.

Yeah it will suck with some arrogant bowtie goon hands you your GT arse with his hardcore Z-28, but realize that there will be more of you than them (meaning more aftermarket goodies) and you didn't have to wait till retirement, get rid of your newborn's college fund and get a second mortgage for a downpayment just to get a V8 pony car.

Said it many times, no replacement for displacement. :grin: Bring the big blocks, NA. :metal:

As many here have commented, sometimes modifying an existing good performance machine can cost as much as purchasing one outright with the larger engine, etc.

Good points Bob,

I agree, the GT does serve as a bargain basement V8 sport coupe, even if a bit thin on features, content and engineering in places (5 spd MTX, buggy axle, hard plastic interior, adequate at best brakes). But it is cheap entry into the 300hp RWD club and looks sharp to boot.

I'm not too much of a fan of the porcine and pricy GT500, despite its good looks and prodigious straight line performance. It does well reflect a (too) accurate 21st century rendition of the original GT500, warts, weight and all.

Where the Stang lineup is a bit thin is in the midrange and breadth of its performance envelope, with perhaps exception given to Shelby's own well balanced GT.

The lineup screams for more of a balanced performance package, ala the Boss 302, rather than the current unidimensional drag/stoplight racers. Slap a highly tuned 4V 4.6 behind a tight 6-speed MTX, snatch the Brembo's off the GT500 and finally bring the back end of the car into the 21st century with the nearly released IRS and enjoy the pleasure of tearing up Z cars, Boxsters, M3s anywhere, any road, any time.

For quarter mile crowd, why they haven't already plucked a 4V 5.4 off the parts shelf, tune it up past 400hp and create a Mach I is beyond me. Tart it up as most drag racers seem to like over the top styling and basically keep the live axle chassis and voila, instant street cred for the straight line mavens.

And of course, a mix of the Mach I motor with Boss chassis bits wrapped in less-is-more styling would make for an easy Bullitt, the gentleman's performance car of the Stang lineup.

Why Ford hasn't is, I guess, easy - complacency. The Stang's basically been the only game in town, especially with the GTO on hiatus, so rather than being pro-active, they've rested on their easy-gotten laurals (winning a game of one player).

Hopefully Mulally (sp-?) is slapping a bit of vigor into the moribund Ford beauracracy and we'll actually see this oh-so-obvious fleshing out of the Stang lineup, espcecially now that some heavy hitters are getting ready to stride onto the field in the guise of the Camaro and Challenger. Ideally, this all would have been done in time to head off these incipient challangers rather than playing catch up after the fact, but I'd settle for that too.

It's beyond me too as to why Ford wouldn't at least dust off the Terminator engine and give us a 400HP SE or stick a 5.4L N/A engine in the Mustang. It would be very easy to take the Navigator 5.4L, 3V and tune it for the Mustang or take the old 4V, 5.4 Navigator engine. With the Navigator now using 3V heads and the Aviator out of production, Ford has all kinds of excess manufacturing capacity for 4V heads. Seems like a no brainer to me to bring back the Mach 1 and Teminator engines.

Ford's got all that hardware sitting on the shelf unused and Ford has a customer base with money in their hands waiting for the next SE Mustang that has more HP than a GT. So why doesn't Ford just do it?