2013/2014 BOSS 429 RUMOR
9/1/12, 05:09 PM
#141
BOSS Member
Join Date: May 21, 2010
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It should be pretty easy to yank the 5.8's supercharger, put on a CAI and a tune and send it out!There's a better chance of another Bullitt (there won't be!!) than a Boss 351. I don't think the Mustang world could handle another Bullitt with the way "those" people react to it.
9/1/12, 06:22 PM
#142
Post *****
Join Date: December 14, 2007
Location: State of Jefferson Mountains USA
Posts: 20,005
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
With it's 9.0:1 pistons it'll be a screamer. Not to mention the cams that are optimized for forced induction. Why go through all the trouble of basically re-engineering an engine when you could get the same power out of a 5.0L but more efficiently? Wasting money just to use the moniker '351' is just stupid.
Plus, look at all the displacement options from after market suppliers for the just the 4.6 block. You mean to tell me Ford can't do this if they wanted to? Then why did they even bother modifying the 5.4 if modifying is such a difficult re-engineering feat according to you?
And regardless how efficient the NA 5.0 is, applying many of those same efficiencies to more displacement would make a fantastic engine. While Ford has always done more with small displacement, there are also a lot of Mustangers that bang their head on always having to compete with one arm tied behind their back with little NA engines.
You and a few others make it sound like its dam near impossible to accomplish - which is ridiculous. How the hell did we ever make it to the Moon - or Mars - which such loser attitudes? So I disagree with your 're-engineering' argument. Its like Brian said, its not the engineering, its the government guru's that have to be schmoozed - as usual.
Last edited by cdynaco; 9/1/12 at 06:38 PM.
9/1/12, 06:50 PM
#144
Post *****
Join Date: December 14, 2007
Location: State of Jefferson Mountains USA
Posts: 20,005
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
I'm not saying anything about conspiracy Steve - just the hoops that Brian cited.
Because its not about engineering. Its about whether Ford wants to take on certification or not. And whether that would be profitable or not for shareholders.
Because its not about engineering. Its about whether Ford wants to take on certification or not. And whether that would be profitable or not for shareholders.
Last edited by cdynaco; 9/1/12 at 06:53 PM.
9/1/12, 07:19 PM
#145
Originally Posted by cdynaco
I'm not saying anything about conspiracy Steve - just the hoops that Brian cited.
Because its not about engineering. Its about whether Ford wants to take on certification or not. And whether that would be profitable or not for shareholders.
9/1/12, 07:26 PM
#146
Post *****
Join Date: December 14, 2007
Location: State of Jefferson Mountains USA
Posts: 20,005
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Right. I get that.
But then again that could be said for most if not all of the SE's - because I doubt the upcharge always covers that investment. But it satisfies a market segment and keeps buyers upgrading. The marketing guys have to rationalize that with the bean counters.
I'm just defending against the posts that say its dang near impossible engineering wise. That's silly.
9/1/12, 07:43 PM
#147
Originally Posted by cdynaco
Right. I get that.
But then again that could be said for most if not all of the SE's - because I doubt the upcharge always covers that investment. But it satisfies a market segment and keeps buyers upgrading. The marketing guys have to rationalize that with the bean counters.
I'm just defending against the posts that say its dang near impossible engineering wise. That's silly.
9/1/12, 07:49 PM
#148
Post *****
Join Date: December 14, 2007
Location: State of Jefferson Mountains USA
Posts: 20,005
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Definitely! They did great - esp for a two year run. 
Only the insider knows if each unit was profitable or not - or whether "rounding out the field of SE's" for the Mustang brand is what made it worth it.
And like most SE's, that engineering gets shared in future production Mustangs to help amortize that expense, right?
Only the insider knows if each unit was profitable or not - or whether "rounding out the field of SE's" for the Mustang brand is what made it worth it.
And like most SE's, that engineering gets shared in future production Mustangs to help amortize that expense, right?
9/1/12, 08:48 PM
#149
BOSS Member
Join Date: May 21, 2010
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taking the blower off the 5.8L to make it N/A is akin to engineering a whole new engine, which involves engineering all new parts and durability test which takes quite some time. New pistons, cams, intake, etc. Doing all of this for a small run of one MY is not going to happen when an all new car is on the horizon and the money is better spent on that program. The 5.8L is just an upgraded version of the 5.4 with only minor parts revisions needing to be made, it uses an existing blower and cams for one. Taking one part off and adding another that already exists is much cheaper than designing and testing a completely new one.
As you may have noticed, all of the Ford vehicles that used the older 4.6 and 5.4 engines are being replaced. The 5.8 is a lame duck and Ford is not going to put money into a small run of N/A engines. The money spent on development of the new Shelby engine will easily be recouped based on sale price and production run. Even so, it's days are numbered.
As you may have noticed, all of the Ford vehicles that used the older 4.6 and 5.4 engines are being replaced. The 5.8 is a lame duck and Ford is not going to put money into a small run of N/A engines. The money spent on development of the new Shelby engine will easily be recouped based on sale price and production run. Even so, it's days are numbered.
9/11/12, 07:45 PM
#151
Post *****
Join Date: December 14, 2007
Location: State of Jefferson Mountains USA
Posts: 20,005
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
The 5.8L is just an upgraded version of the 5.4 with only minor parts revisions needing to be made, it uses an existing blower and cams for one. Taking one part off and adding another that already exists is much cheaper than designing and testing a completely new one.
Where I'm coming from is what you stated above. The 5.8 is an upgrade of the 5.4 engine right? The 5.4 is an engine that was used NA in Ford trucks while it was supercharged in the GT500. See what I mean?
Last edited by cdynaco; 9/11/12 at 07:53 PM.
9/12/12, 02:40 PM
#154
Post *****
Join Date: December 14, 2007
Location: State of Jefferson Mountains USA
Posts: 20,005
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Speculation, wishful thinking, or not, a little gear head talk is a breath of fresh air on TMS these days.
9/12/12, 02:44 PM
#155
Originally Posted by cdynaco
Really Steve? Since when is Mustang talk not allowed on a Mustang forum?
Speculation, wishful thinking, or not, a little gear head talk is a breath of fresh air on TMS these days.
9/12/12, 03:24 PM
#157
Originally Posted by cdynaco
I don't know what that's supposed to mean. It just seems odd that you have made several attempts to stop the discussion that is in the 'Rumor Mill' section.
(No pun intened . . .) 
)
9/12/12, 03:31 PM
#159
Legacy TMS Member
Rumors was a great Fleetwood Mac album! That said, while it's likely to not happen, the conversation regarding what it would take is entertaining. The ones that go on within Ford must be equally, if not more, entertaining! 
9/13/12, 05:37 AM
#160
BOSS Member
Join Date: May 21, 2010
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2. Back then the 5.4L had a big future and was what they had at the time. Considering it's old technology it's not going to happen for a 1 year run. The 5.4/5.8 has a couple more years MAX.