leaks
Cobra R Member
Joined: September 26, 2007
Posts: 1,931
Likes: 0
From: Massachusetts
I guess we shall agree to disagree folks! Just to let you know I'm not drinking GM kool aid or anything. I have driven both cars and I feel these cars are performance equals, magazine stats show the same.
As far as the Z28 it is slotted to debut for the 2012 model year, not sure if Ford has any updates planned for the GT500 for 2012. Should be an interesting battle and I think the Camaro will be priced higher (more limited than GT500, unique magnetic ride control, IRS, CTS-V or ZR-1 sourced engine). Regardless of which car is faster at the end of the day the GT500 will be my pick. The 2011 SVT package is practically perfect for me in terms of looks,performance,refinement.
As far as the Z28 it is slotted to debut for the 2012 model year, not sure if Ford has any updates planned for the GT500 for 2012. Should be an interesting battle and I think the Camaro will be priced higher (more limited than GT500, unique magnetic ride control, IRS, CTS-V or ZR-1 sourced engine). Regardless of which car is faster at the end of the day the GT500 will be my pick. The 2011 SVT package is practically perfect for me in terms of looks,performance,refinement.
Mach 1 Member
Joined: January 14, 2008
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
From: Maryland
Honestly, is this how spoiled people are getting with the recent Mustang powerplants? 
Do people realize how much horsepower that is: 540?! If I were a Ford person reading quotes like this, it would make me wonder what I'd have to do to satisfy people. By 2020 people are going to be complaining that the top of the line Mustang won't have 750HP, the GT won't have 600HP and the "lowly" base model won't have 425HP. This is getting a little ridiculous in what people expect in terms of power in their cars. Remember folks, as awesome as the Mustang is, it's not a supercar.
[/END RANT]
Do people realize how much horsepower that is: 540?! If I were a Ford person reading quotes like this, it would make me wonder what I'd have to do to satisfy people. By 2020 people are going to be complaining that the top of the line Mustang won't have 750HP, the GT won't have 600HP and the "lowly" base model won't have 425HP. This is getting a little ridiculous in what people expect in terms of power in their cars. Remember folks, as awesome as the Mustang is, it's not a supercar.
[/END RANT]
I'm with ya man. I love the feel of high Torque and tons of HP too but there is only so much you can use on an American road anyway.
With that said I think any more than 725HP is just to much.
Mach 1 Member
Joined: January 14, 2008
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
From: Maryland
So here it is guys, I found an early rendering of the 2014 mustang! It definitely has some Fox body influences while still retaining some the s197's retro Q's
Attachment 80621
Attachment 80621
I think they would have sold more foxes if they looked like that.
Mach 1 Member
Joined: January 14, 2008
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
From: Maryland
Interesting, if with a few table spoons of salt (it is coming from MT, after all, and they tend to be a bit speculative at times.)
That said, my guess would be a combo of option 1 (evolutionary update) and option 2 (more M3 sophisticate) as I think the NextStang, to make its business case, will have to have a much broader, i.e., international, appeal all while retaining its basic DNA and appeal to the home market.
Some things will be inevitable: smaller, lighter, sleeker and more efficient simply to be able to comply with future laws, regulations and conditions. After that, things get trickier in terms of bringing the Stang fully into the 21st century yet maintaining essential elements of its DNA.
The American market will demand a stonking V8, thus the new 5.0 will be retained, yet the world market will demand a suspension not based on a Roman ox cart, thus an IRS. Likely a top motor version for foreign consumption might have the TT3.5 Egoboost as an alternative or option to the V8. Efficient yet perky four bangers would undergird the engine lineup, perhaps with Egoboosting turbos, while the unblown V6 would make more of the meat of the lineup, Stateside at least.
Vehicle dynamics and braking would go from a second tier consideration that it is on the current car to being co-equal with straight line performance for a more fully balanced performance envelope rather than the narrower drag-strip/stop-light focus of the current car.
Styling would be a more forwarding looking interpretation of classic Mustang design ques, but still clearly a Mustang if not quite as retro as the current version.
Pricing would have to be kept pretty consistent with what they are today, stateside, though overseas, where the Stang would be a bit more of a boutique car of sorts, higher price points would be plausible.
Overall, in a sense, what would assure the Stang's continued success would be what has allowed it to survive and thrive for nearly 50 years already, the capability to be many things to many people. It just might have to be a few more things to a few more people come 2014 to continue to thrive.
That said, my guess would be a combo of option 1 (evolutionary update) and option 2 (more M3 sophisticate) as I think the NextStang, to make its business case, will have to have a much broader, i.e., international, appeal all while retaining its basic DNA and appeal to the home market.
Some things will be inevitable: smaller, lighter, sleeker and more efficient simply to be able to comply with future laws, regulations and conditions. After that, things get trickier in terms of bringing the Stang fully into the 21st century yet maintaining essential elements of its DNA.
The American market will demand a stonking V8, thus the new 5.0 will be retained, yet the world market will demand a suspension not based on a Roman ox cart, thus an IRS. Likely a top motor version for foreign consumption might have the TT3.5 Egoboost as an alternative or option to the V8. Efficient yet perky four bangers would undergird the engine lineup, perhaps with Egoboosting turbos, while the unblown V6 would make more of the meat of the lineup, Stateside at least.
Vehicle dynamics and braking would go from a second tier consideration that it is on the current car to being co-equal with straight line performance for a more fully balanced performance envelope rather than the narrower drag-strip/stop-light focus of the current car.
Styling would be a more forwarding looking interpretation of classic Mustang design ques, but still clearly a Mustang if not quite as retro as the current version.
Pricing would have to be kept pretty consistent with what they are today, stateside, though overseas, where the Stang would be a bit more of a boutique car of sorts, higher price points would be plausible.
Overall, in a sense, what would assure the Stang's continued success would be what has allowed it to survive and thrive for nearly 50 years already, the capability to be many things to many people. It just might have to be a few more things to a few more people come 2014 to continue to thrive.
Shelby GT350 Member
Joined: April 20, 2010
Posts: 2,121
Likes: 3
From: Dallas
Interesting, if with a few table spoons of salt (it is coming from MT, after all, and they tend to be a bit speculative at times.)
That said, my guess would be a combo of option 1 (evolutionary update) and option 2 (more M3 sophisticate) as I think the NextStang, to make its business case, will have to have a much broader, i.e., international, appeal all while retaining its basic DNA and appeal to the home market.
Some things will be inevitable: smaller, lighter, sleeker and more efficient simply to be able to comply with future laws, regulations and conditions. After that, things get trickier in terms of bringing the Stang fully into the 21st century yet maintaining essential elements of its DNA.
The American market will demand a stonking V8, thus the new 5.0 will be retained, yet the world market will demand a suspension not based on a Roman ox cart, thus an IRS. Likely a top motor version for foreign consumption might have the TT3.5 Egoboost as an alternative or option to the V8. Efficient yet perky four bangers would undergird the engine lineup, perhaps with Egoboosting turbos, while the unblown V6 would make more of the meat of the lineup, Stateside at least.
Vehicle dynamics and braking would go from a second tier consideration that it is on the current car to being co-equal with straight line performance for a more fully balanced performance envelope rather than the narrower drag-strip/stop-light focus of the current car.
Styling would be a more forwarding looking interpretation of classic Mustang design ques, but still clearly a Mustang if not quite as retro as the current version.
Pricing would have to be kept pretty consistent with what they are today, stateside, though overseas, where the Stang would be a bit more of a boutique car of sorts, higher price points would be plausible.
Overall, in a sense, what would assure the Stang's continued success would be what has allowed it to survive and thrive for nearly 50 years already, the capability to be many things to many people. It just might have to be a few more things to a few more people come 2014 to continue to thrive.
That said, my guess would be a combo of option 1 (evolutionary update) and option 2 (more M3 sophisticate) as I think the NextStang, to make its business case, will have to have a much broader, i.e., international, appeal all while retaining its basic DNA and appeal to the home market.
Some things will be inevitable: smaller, lighter, sleeker and more efficient simply to be able to comply with future laws, regulations and conditions. After that, things get trickier in terms of bringing the Stang fully into the 21st century yet maintaining essential elements of its DNA.
The American market will demand a stonking V8, thus the new 5.0 will be retained, yet the world market will demand a suspension not based on a Roman ox cart, thus an IRS. Likely a top motor version for foreign consumption might have the TT3.5 Egoboost as an alternative or option to the V8. Efficient yet perky four bangers would undergird the engine lineup, perhaps with Egoboosting turbos, while the unblown V6 would make more of the meat of the lineup, Stateside at least.
Vehicle dynamics and braking would go from a second tier consideration that it is on the current car to being co-equal with straight line performance for a more fully balanced performance envelope rather than the narrower drag-strip/stop-light focus of the current car.
Styling would be a more forwarding looking interpretation of classic Mustang design ques, but still clearly a Mustang if not quite as retro as the current version.
Pricing would have to be kept pretty consistent with what they are today, stateside, though overseas, where the Stang would be a bit more of a boutique car of sorts, higher price points would be plausible.
Overall, in a sense, what would assure the Stang's continued success would be what has allowed it to survive and thrive for nearly 50 years already, the capability to be many things to many people. It just might have to be a few more things to a few more people come 2014 to continue to thrive.
Bullitt Member
Joined: December 17, 2007
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
1. The motor is alright, but it is pushing it in terms of age and if GM tries to stick with pushrods much longer I would argue that they could find themselves way behind the curve.
2. Actually yeah, it is...particularly to the manufacturer. And remember that the Camaro had to break out the skip shift feature to even knock that down. With an actual weight difference of about 300lb between these two cars, and roughly similar aerodynamics, GM is left with some explaining to do and some serious soul searching if they are going to find a way to keep offering competitive V8 engines in a meaningful amount of vehicles.
3. Sounds great on paper but the reality is that you're talking about a pre bankruptcy GM that spent like the bill was never going to come due and a pre revival Ford that lacked direction. Right now GM looks to be pretty slow and clumsy.
4. The Z28 is extremely unlikely to be facing the existing GT500 by the time the uber-Camaro actually shows up. Although, I have no doubt the current GT500 is the benchmark, which means the Z28 will face off against a new GT500 that it was never designed to compete with. Like I said, slow and clumsy.
5. Honestly, I think Ford seldom even considers what GM's product lineup looks like or what their plans are when they make their decisions because I don't think they view GM as a legitimate long term competitor. And to be blunt about it, I think they are right.
RE #1: GM is way, way behind the curve on V8s--they were as good as any in the 'Fifties, but that was over a half-century ago. Eisenhower was president, and gasoline was under twenty cents per gallon (I could buy regular at the Service Distributors service station about a mile from home for twenty-two cents per gallon even as late as 1965). I think TiVCT really lights up the wrinkled face and saggin' ******* on GM's pushrodders--a technology that can't be adapted to a single camshaft. New regs will bury pushrodders cold and deep no matter what fond heritage may be thrown in the grave and buried with them. There are reasons that swords, shields, and chariots aren't seen on the battlefields of the 21st centruy, but that's what GM stalwarts are totin' into battle to face the fire-on-the-run mechanized armor of Asia, Europe, and Dearborn. Even the Koreans have the LS engines in their sights--the refreshed Genesis with its much improved 5.0L V8 isn't capable enough to take on the Mustang GT, so the Koreans are out to
the Camaro SS convincingly. But that's a large, slow target at close range in the crosshairs of the periscope...RE #2: I've heard that GM is covertly talkin' to Honda about providing engines to replace all their LS engines--the bail-outs sorta mandate that Honda build the necessary engine plants in North America to do this since shipping them from Japan would not go over too well, huh? I dunno if Honda will balk at allowing their engines to be called GM engines, but for enough money I'm sure they'll be reasonable and accommodating...
RE #3: Yeah, GM needs to face the fact that consumers are seeking substance more than style in this century. Camaros & Firebirds (not to mention Pontiac, Saturn, Hummer, Oldsmobile...) fell flat early in this century for that reason and soon the new Camaro will repeat that stellar performance.
RE #4: Proving you can match older models spec for spec is sorta comic, in a tragicomedy sort of way--like sending the cavalry out to rout the columns of tanks storming over the last line of defensive trenches.
RE #5: Ford has known for a long time that it ain't GM that could put them out of business--it's all those affordable, reliable, economical, comfortable, technologically sophisticated Asian products gobbling up the mainstream vehicle market. WRXs, GT-Rs, Evos, and Genesissies are intriguing--but only a distant tangential glancing blow compared to the dismembering swaths cut by Accords, Civics, Camrys, Corollas, Siennas, Odysseys, and fleets of highly-rated SUVs and CUVs. Ford wisely changed their priorities to take on the Asians instead of the no-longer-relevant local boys quite some time ago, and that was the real impetus behind the development of highly sophisticated V6, V8, and I4 engines. As I said: swords, shields, and chariots won't cut it anymore...
Greg "Eights" Ates, Volume XVI
Last edited by Eights; Nov 17, 2010 at 12:07 PM.
You can implement multiple cam timing using a single cam using cam-in-cam technology like on the final year or two of the Viper run.
Don't underestimate GM's smallblocks.
Due to the volume of engines out there, part commonality, massive capacity for power gains and huge aftermarket, the LSx is essentially the "1980s Ford 5.0" of this era of hot-rodding.
Don't underestimate GM's smallblocks.
Due to the volume of engines out there, part commonality, massive capacity for power gains and huge aftermarket, the LSx is essentially the "1980s Ford 5.0" of this era of hot-rodding.
Bullitt Member
Joined: December 17, 2007
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
You can implement multiple cam timing using a single cam using cam-in-cam technology like on the final year or two of the Viper run.
Don't underestimate GM's smallblocks.
Due to the volume of engines out there, part commonality, massive capacity for power gains and huge aftermarket, the LSx is essentially the "1980s Ford 5.0" of this era of hot-rodding.
Don't underestimate GM's smallblocks.
Due to the volume of engines out there, part commonality, massive capacity for power gains and huge aftermarket, the LSx is essentially the "1980s Ford 5.0" of this era of hot-rodding.
There may be patents covering that cam-in-cam technology, and I'll bet they aren't GM patents.
I am not underestimating anything--if Ford still made pushrodders, they'd face the same daunting challenges that any other vehicle manufacturer still offering pushrod gasoline engines would face (Let's see--that would be GM, Chrysler, and maybe some Third World manufacturers of agricultural equipment...) in trying to create a clean-burning, smooth-running, decent-performing, excellent-mileage Vee engine. Having four independently variable camshafts probably has an exponential advantage (four times four) over trying to satisfy the same regulations with only one. But if you want to believe that a single camshaft and a battery of pushrods is on an equal footing with four camshafts and thirty-two valves when it comes to satisfying emissions & mileage regulations, what harm can it possibly do? After all, didn't Oldsmobile offer an OHC V8--and how much good did that OHC V8 do Oldsmobile?
Greg "No harm, no foul--Play on." Ates
Shelby GT350 Member
Joined: April 20, 2010
Posts: 2,121
Likes: 3
From: Dallas
06GT: Ummm....we're talkin' OEM stuff that meets all regulations necessary to be legally sold in the US. That cancels out a lot of aftermarket performance parts for the LS and for the DOHC 4-valve TiVCT 5.0L V8 as well--although the TiVCT needs 'em less than the LS needs them (Can you possibly imagine how much an aftermarket outfit would charge to develop DOHC 4-valve TiVCT heads for an LS engine? Whew!)
They wouldn't, because the entire engine architecture would have to change to go from push rods to OHC. Thus you might as well swap in a Northstar V8 and go that route. I have seen a NStar V8 in a 2000 Camaro, it was gorgeous. I have pictures somewhere. The kind on photo paper, not taken with a digital camera. So I could estimate cost at about $20,000 per engine or more.
There may be patents covering that cam-in-cam technology, and I'll bet they aren't GM patents.
I am not underestimating anything--if Ford still made pushrodders, they'd face the same daunting challenges that any other vehicle manufacturer still offering pushrod gasoline engines would face (Let's see--that would be GM, Chrysler, and maybe some Third World manufacturers of agricultural equipment...) in trying to create a clean-burning, smooth-running, decent-performing, excellent-mileage Vee engine. Having four independently variable camshafts probably has an exponential advantage (four times four) over trying to satisfy the same regulations with only one. But if you want to believe that a single camshaft and a battery of pushrods is on an equal footing with four camshafts and thirty-two valves when it comes to satisfying emissions & mileage regulations, what harm can it possibly do? After all, didn't Oldsmobile offer an OHC V8--and how much good did that OHC V8 do Oldsmobile?
Greg "No harm, no foul--Play on." Ates
Oldsmobile had absolutely nothing going for it. Nothing. No car that was worth a single crap. Olds was an overshadowed brand that never got any attention and was developing terrible cars off of Cadillac scraps.
I can't terrorize the GM engines as I used to be a huge fan. Do I think they need to step into the world of today? Sure. But on that note I might as well tell Ford to chunk the solid axle while I'm at it. If you have a good thing going, keep it until something better actually makes its way in.
My dad's Caprice carried an LT1 in it. At 400,000 miles the car was still running smooth.
Last edited by Automagically; Nov 18, 2010 at 11:16 AM.
Shelby GT350 Member
Joined: April 20, 2010
Posts: 2,121
Likes: 3
From: Dallas
GTR Member
Joined: September 28, 2009
Posts: 6,284
Likes: 1
Shelby GT350 Member
Joined: April 20, 2010
Posts: 2,121
Likes: 3
From: Dallas
Sad news about the Falcon but you can't sell them like that every year. I hope to see a Mustang platform and hopefully the news of the IRS is true as well. Not really sure how they will incorporate the weight savings into the new model to offset the little bit of extra weight for the IRS.
Anyone else hear anything to back up these claims in the article?
Legacy TMS Member
Joined: May 16, 2004
Posts: 5,206
Likes: 18
From: Bristol, TN
RE #1: GM is way, way behind the curve on V8s--they were as good as any in the 'Fifties, but that was over a half-century ago. Eisenhower was president, and gasoline was under twenty cents per gallon (I could buy regular at the Service Distributors service station about a mile from home for twenty-two cents per gallon even as late as 1965). I think TiVCT really lights up the wrinkled face and saggin' ******* on GM's pushrodders--a technology that can't be adapted to a single camshaft. New regs will bury pushrodders cold and deep no matter what fond heritage may be thrown in the grave and buried with them. There are reasons that swords, shields, and chariots aren't seen on the battlefields of the 21st centruy, but that's what GM stalwarts are totin' into battle to face the fire-on-the-run mechanized armor of Asia, Europe, and Dearborn. Even the Koreans have the LS engines in their sights--the refreshed Genesis with its much improved 5.0L V8 isn't capable enough to take on the Mustang GT, so the Koreans are out to the Camaro SS convincingly. But that's a large, slow target at close range in the crosshairs of the periscope...
the Camaro SS convincingly. But that's a large, slow target at close range in the crosshairs of the periscope...
RE #2: I've heard that GM is covertly talkin' to Honda about providing engines to replace all their LS engines--the bail-outs sorta mandate that Honda build the necessary engine plants in North America to do this since shipping them from Japan would not go over too well, huh? I dunno if Honda will balk at allowing their engines to be called GM engines, but for enough money I'm sure they'll be reasonable and accommodating...
And honestly, I couldn't see GM doing it, the LSx engines are very iconic and as much a face of GM as the Corvette or the Camaro. Personally, if GM goes this route they will be dead to me.
Thread Starter
Mach 1 Member
Joined: September 10, 2009
Posts: 956
Likes: 0
From: Boston
Back on the subject a little. While reading the article I had a thought that it would be interesting to see if this possible platform issue were a true thing and that if all is failing that the Mustang will see its very own platform and later, the other lines will expand off of this. Could be nice to see an exclusive Mustang platform that is the top tier and everything else is worked off of it.
Sad news about the Falcon but you can't sell them like that every year. I hope to see a Mustang platform and hopefully the news of the IRS is true as well. Not really sure how they will incorporate the weight savings into the new model to offset the little bit of extra weight for the IRS.
Anyone else hear anything to back up these claims in the article?
Sad news about the Falcon but you can't sell them like that every year. I hope to see a Mustang platform and hopefully the news of the IRS is true as well. Not really sure how they will incorporate the weight savings into the new model to offset the little bit of extra weight for the IRS.
Anyone else hear anything to back up these claims in the article?
also thanks for getting this back on topic!
Last edited by xlover; Nov 19, 2010 at 08:58 AM.
GTR Member
Joined: October 18, 2006
Posts: 5,553
Likes: 11
From: England
Sad news about the Falcon but you can't sell them like that every year. I hope to see a Mustang platform and hopefully the news of the IRS is true as well. Not really sure how they will incorporate the weight savings into the new model to offset the little bit of extra weight for the IRS.
Anyone else hear anything to back up these claims in the article?
) that state the development is on again, still in Australia, and the Falcon is not dead. So, whilst it'd be nice for the Mustang to have the platform all to itself for a while, I don't see it happening that way.
Be good to see some updates on this though
Member
Joined: November 5, 2010
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
That's an old article from Jan 2010........there have been subsequent articles (they're here somewhere, I'm just too lazy to search for them ) that state the development is on again, still in Australia, and the Falcon is not dead.
So, whilst it'd be nice for the Mustang to have the platform all to itself for a while, I don't see it happening that way.
Be good to see some updates on this though
) that state the development is on again, still in Australia, and the Falcon is not dead. So, whilst it'd be nice for the Mustang to have the platform all to itself for a while, I don't see it happening that way.
Be good to see some updates on this though
http://www.fpv.com.au/the-new-boss-v8.aspx
