They should stick with ecoboost, I think branding it ecoboost would both maintain the corporate naming standard for the DI turbo motors as well as be hilarious for a 600+hp engine to be "eco" anything.

 

How about no special nomenclature at all? I don't see the fascination with calling it eco-related when its a V8 powered performance vehicle. It works for the smaller engines but not really on the V8s.

 

I said the same awhile back but a turbocharged coyote seems to have taken on a life of its own. In any event I'm still pondering how they would get such an engine to fit? As the turbochargers move away from the engine the exhaust gas loses energy (the EB CJ favors forward placement) and if a production car were to ape the ecoboost powered Cobra Jet you would be placing the turbochargers right down in between the front end drive and the radiator, not to mention reliability issues with having to duct hot exhaust gas from the engine all the way forward to a pair of turbos.

The most reliable setup would be to use a pair of cast iron manifolds and mount the turbos directly to the manifolds towards the rear of the engine as this keeps them close to high energy exhaust gases, away from the front end drive and radiator (less stress on the front end components and the radiator) and also avoids hanging the turbochargers on the end of duct work bridging the manifolds and turbos.

It will be interesting to see if this engine materializes as a production piece and how Ford implements it.

It also goes without saying that by adopting an ecoboost type V8 engine Ford could save money since the internal components don't have to be as rugged. Rather than a forged assembly, Ford could use piston squirters in conjunction cast pistons and powdered metal rods (see GM's LSA motor).

 

Yep "Powered By Ford" or "Powered By SVT" is all that needs to be said.

 

the ecoboost tag lines are about power and efficiency, if they could have the worlds most powerful production V8 and 25-26 mpg that would be quite an achievement. Plus i am sure the brand marketing ppl wouldnt mind the association of the ecoboost engines with the top dog performance car, you can foresee a salesperson selling the ecoboost upgrade on one of the other models... or even an ecoboost 4 mustang..., "dont worry about power, same technology as the shelby gt500..... plus look at the mpg"

i am not advocating the car be festooned with ecoboost badges but i think that is how they should brand the engine

 

April fools?

 

If the real thing looks like their rendering, it won't matter what engines are available. That thing is hideous!!

 

A turbo-5.0 has a lot of appeal. And I have no doubt someone will figure out how to put one in a Mustang. But whether Ford can make it happen on an assembly-line scaled-down Mustang is a horse of a different color (pun intended). I can still remember the Boss 429 (when they were introduced). Ford made a Mustang. Ford made a 429-V8. But they couldn't make the two come together on a Ford assembly line. The car had to be assembled by Kar Kraft--with major modifications to make the motor fit in the confines of the engine bay.

With the economic constraints of today's market, I cannot see Ford offering a Mustang with an optional engine that would require modifying a base configuration, particularly one that would require hand assembly, or paying a sub-contractor to perform some fabrication after the assembly process. Particularly if something else had to be sacrificed, i.e. A/C. (The Boss 429 didn't offer A/C: there was simply no place to put it.)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=w0fOPDXo4Tg#

 

Pretty cool but there have been some GT500s that broke the 200 mph barrier in the Texas Mile with a supercharger (which is a bit harder because the GT500 isn't as aerodynamic as the GT or V6 Mustang).

I think the real issue with turbocharging is that its seen as a more advanced technology like direct injection so that's the main force driving the want for it.

I really wonder how many people would be let down by Ford if they didn't adopt turbocharging for the next gen GT500 for say packaging reasons?

 

Good question. I am anxious to see what the new Mustang brings to the table. I see a lot of interest in forced induction, and I am a fan (my other car is a MS3). However, I am more interested in the overall package. How does it perform? How does it handle? How much does it weigh? Everything is relative.

Case in point 146-HP doesn't sound like a lot. But it is relative to what is provides power for. If it goes toward supplying power for a FWD 3,000-lb compact sedan, then, no it is not a lot of power. If that 146 horsepower is supplying torque to a 450-lb motorcycle (YZF-R1 )--Bonzai!

 

I have numerous problems with that article. More and more these day major publications sell out.

First off we already know the boss 302 is done. They suggest that the NA 5.0 would be used for the boss. That is poor research and writing that immediately makes my loose respect and validity for the article.

Second is the ford emblem on the front of the car. Everyone knows that the mustang has, is, and will never be branded ford. That is a really bad and again poorly researched photoshop of a fusion and 2012 mustang.

 

Never say never.

 

The phrase is "...for versions LIKE the Boss". I read that to mean something to be similar to a Boss, not a new version.

Ford badges currently appear on the Mustang (wheel caps) and have appeared on past versions in various places. I'd say it very much is "branded as Ford". Does not it say on the 5.0L cam covers "Powered by Ford"?

It is about as researched as anybody out there can guess, based on what people have heard in the popular press for awhile now. While it is not the most attractive version, many other speculative images have similarities.

 

How surprised are we all gonna be when it finally comes out and does not look like anything we have been shown. The mystery of the century. LOL

 

The Fox cars all had blue ovals on the front and rear deck lid....

 

This. I honestly guess this. It's not going to look like anything anyone has posted. And we're all going to be surprised.

 

What about mounting the turbos in the middle of the V, like the new powerstroke diesel - closer to the exhaust outlets (you have to reverse the way you think about flow in the heads - exhaust out the center, intake to the outside).

With the narrower body and higher hood, this could work. Managing the heat would be the hard part - maybe that's the driver for the rear mounted vents?

 

The new powerstroke motors are ridiculous. I still cant really figure out how they made their newer turbo system work. Luckily those truck engine bays have plenty room to shove a huge intercooler and radiotor into. Idk how that would transfer to the next gen mustang if they went with a similar set-up for FI

 

I don't think swapping the flow path would work quite as successfully with a gasoline application, well an affordable solution anyways.

Swapping the flow path on a diesel isn't as big an issue since the engine doesn't require a throttle, where a gasoline engine does unless the engine is designed with some sort of variable lift strategy that takes the place of a throttle.

Fuel delivery is a non issue as both engines can use direct injection.

Exhaust routing for a diesel in a truck probably isn't to big a deal with all the real estate under the hood, on a car its a different matter since you would have hot exhaust gases that most likely would pass down the middle of the "V" and down to the rear passing perilously close to the firewall with all sorts of stuff that would be adversely affected by the heat (battery - if ford kept it on the passenger side, master cylinder, brake booster and so on), or you could opt to send it over one of the cam covers which would expose that side of the engine to a lot of heat right on top of the ignition system at the very least or send it out the front down and then back.

Given the slimmer margin on a passenger car having two very different engine configurations makes it a lot less likely to happen.