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 **** 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. Bring the big blocks, NA.

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, ****** 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?