jsaylor

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.

JETSOLVER

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?

jsaylor

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.

bob

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.

JETSOLVER

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 ), 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)

jsaylor

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.

V10

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.

jsaylor

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.

TomServo92

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

V10

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

V10

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.

TomServo92

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.

jsaylor

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.

bt4

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.

V10

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.

V10

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.

bt4

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.

V10

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.

bob

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

V10

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.