This, plus the lower center of mass/gravity afforded by the valve train is perfect for a sports car like the Corvette. The only other engine configuration that gets that low is the boxer, which a certain manufacturer in the Zuffenhausen district of Stuttgart, Germany uses.

While part of me realizes this could very well happen, another part of me hopes that you are incorrect. The Mustang GT has always been about (relatively) cheap V8 power, and should be for all time.

 

I don't doubt that they thought it was necessary at one point (given the displacement arms race that was going on in the early 00s), but since the program's inception, events had seen to it that large displacement engines are going to be rarer and rarer going forward. I do agree that if it happens, it will likely be a non-street legal vehicle, or possibly a crate motor of some sort.

 

Ford didn't shoehorn the engine into the Mustang--it simply would not fit. None of the original Boss 429 Mustangs were finished on a Ford assembly line. They were shipped to Kar Kraft for a major overhaul of the engine bay and firewall. (It can be done--John Coletti squeezed one into a '94 Mustang--but it was a one-of custom application.)

I doubt we'll see a Mustang assembled in the same fashion as the original Boss 429 from Ford and Kar Kraft.

 

On a hunch, I did a search on the USPTO website for 'Boss 429', and turned up three results, all listed as dead, with the most recent one filed in 2007. However, there IS an entry for Mach 1, filed by Ford Motor Company, filing date February 23, 2012. Interesting...

 

Yea I did my own search a while back and saw a bunch of interesting trademarks too. Unfortunately I learned (through searching and a lawyer friend) that these trademark filings mean very little. Companies are required to file these periodically to avoid abandoning the name/brand. If you look, you will see a Model T trademark filing in May of this year.

 

Sorry for the long post, but this is very interesting (granted, maybe only to me).

First, I agree with the Captain's thought process. You can tell a lot from a company's trademark filings. Ford's filings discussed above tell me that Ford is thinking of introducing a Mach 1 at some point, but not a Boss 429. The only Boss 429 applications are for Boss 429 "accessories", not the car itself, and as the Captain noted, even they are "dead", indicating a lack of interest by Ford.

The "Mach 1" application covers, among a lot of other things, "automobiles", and it is alive and doing well. This application was filed on the basis of Ford's "intent to use" the mark in connection with an automobile, not just "accessories". The application was allowed, and a notice of allowance was issued on 2/26/13. At this point, to obtain a registration, Ford must produce and ship a Mach 1 automobile, provide to the trademark office the date of the earliest shipment of the car, and provide examples (specimens) of how the mark is used. Ford must either accomplish this by 8/26/13, or file for a six month extension. Five six month extensions are available for an ultimate deadline of 2/26/16. Therefore, Ford could be using the strategy mentioned in this forum of introducing basic versions of the 2015 Mustang initially, and then adding other levels in future years.

By the way, the US trademark system is based on use of the marks, not just filings. A company cannot keep its trademark registrations alive just by filing renewals. The marks must remain in use, and evidence of use must always accompany the renewal applications. The Model T filing in May mentioned by MRiley is, however, very interesting. This application is also based on intent to use. It follows one just like it that was filed on 12/10/09; this one was allowed on 7/27/10. Ford never filed the proof of use needed to convert this application to a registration (i.e., they have not resurrected the Model T). The final extension runs on 7/27/13. Thus, the new application was filed on 5/29/13. Another Model T registration covering automobiles actually issued to Ford on 6/10/03; evidence of use provided by Ford to support a registration appeared to be old Model T manuals. This registration was cancelled, presumably when Ford failed to file the required declaration of use by 6/10/09. The only thing I can tell from all this is that Ford is trying its darndest to keep control of the Model T name, and not just for "accessories", but for the automobile itself. Hard to imagine that Ford is planning to market a modern vehicle called the "Model T".

 

Wait..... They're bringing back the model T? Yes!

 

you would see a ford 427 before a boss 429 .1964 thunderbolt 427 cammer motor. which can be done with the 6.2 now.

 

Big blocks are not going to happen. I loved the 427 SOHC, but it really wasn't much of a street engine--too many rpms were required to make it scream. The drag strip was it's natural habitat. Connie Kalitta simply destroyed the competition with the Bounty Hunter. The 429 for the street was equally hobbled. The NASCAR motor could breathe and easily developed massive horsepower--the street motor was so choked down it was easily outclassed by the Boss 351.

More likely the power you see now and in the future will be supplied by forced induction. I rather hope to see a Mustang powered by a turbo-4 again. Cosworth is hinting at supplying a production motor to a car company since they are withdrawing from F1. I hope it is Ford. I would love to see a 3,000-lb Mustang powered by a 1.6 Cosworth turbo-4. (Cosworth can deliver 300/HP/L). I would love to take a seat in a 3,000-lb car with a 50/50 weight distribution, IRS, and a 500-hp turbo-4.

 

A Ford Mustang Cosworth would be cool.

 

Not necessarily disagreeing but what kind of longevity does a 300-400hp turbo 4 have?

 

A concern of mine too. While four cylinders alone might be simpler and less complex than, say, eight cylinders, when you start lashing on all manner of complex turbo systems that need to work together rather finely to work well, that may well obviate the simplicity of just four cylinders.

In some sense, multicylinder engines are only somewhat more complex than fewer jugged motors in that the added complexity is basically iterative -- simply adding more of identical basic and well understood componentry. One cylinder is basically just a duplicate of any other cylinder, nothing different for the most part.

Turbo motors, on the other hand, add on all sorts of very different types of componentry, each with its own design, engineering and operating parameters. These differences and the need for a complex interplay between all these elements can, I think, make long term reliability and perhaps durability, a more challenging issue, not to mention maintenance and repair.

The other concern would simply be the much higher loadings, temperatures and pressures on many of the parts. Presumably they will be built of sufficiently robust stuff to widthstand those increased demands over, say, a lighter loaded big 'ol V8 putting out comperable power, but I imagine the tolerances in the operating parameters are much narrower and result in less robustness should things start getting out of synch/spec.

 

There's also the cost to look at. I'm perfectly fine with going to lower displacement and turbocharging providing the cost is not too much higher and the engine is still smooth and sounds nice. Getting 100 hp/liter in a turbo engine is old news, even 125 hp/liter is affordable, like in the Focus ST. But 200 hp/liter or more is going to be very expensive, it's going to suck down gas like a big engine, and it's probably going to wear out faster.

Technological progress is ever marching and some day 200-250 hp/liter will probably be common, affordable, and reliable, but we're not there yet.

 

What kind of longevity does any high performance engine have? Higher performance usually implies a shorter life span. Longevity for the motor in a John Force TF/FC is about 1320 feet (and roughly 4 seconds). But that is the price you have to pay if you want to go from 0 to 314 mph in a quarter mile.

High horsepower comes with a price, even for V8's. It is naive to think a blown 5.8 with 662 HP has a greater shot at longevity than a turbo-4 built to crank out 484-HP and turn 10,000 rpm. Neither is a very good bet to reach the 500,000 mile mark. But, that really isn't the point of either engine.

Even N/A motors at a high tune are probably going to be less reliable that those at a lower tune. Put a cold air kit and re-flash the tune on a 2006 GT and you will get more horsepower and better performance. You will also in all probability shorten the life of your engine. (I am considering a swap to a 5.0 for my 2006.)

If longevity is a primary concern when you are looking for a vehicle, a diesel is a better bet than a gasoline engine. I have seen DD (Detroit Diesel) motors with over a million miles on them including a DD 8V92T (a 430-hp turbo diesel). These are engines built to withstand the rigors of constant service and the stress of pulling 60,000-lb loads. (But that 12.1 liter 8V92 doesn't fit to well in a car the size of a Mustang.)

I drive a MS3 (2008) with 80,000 miles. I have had a problem. The Bose 6-CD changer refused to load or eject. The turbo may not last as long as the 4.6 in my 2006 GT, but so far so good. (PS I had the CD changer fixed--driving with tunes is much better than driving without!)

 

What do you consider a high tune compared to a lower tune. Would you consider the Hybrid tune that AM makes a high tune? And how much shorty life to the engine is the real question. I wonder how may mustangs are running with 200k miles and have been running a tune for years? I wonder what the longevity of engines are and transmissions are with running a performance tuner.

 

Good questions--sorry I can't offer much of an answer. High tune--lower tune--is subjective and hard to quantify. But a safe example: the 1.6L Ecoboost in the Ford Focus is a conservative tune, in my opinion. The Cosworth 1.6--not so conservative, since it produces about 300-hp more than the Ford.

 

Another "no" + 123345. Unless it is a version of the "BOSS/Hurricane" engine under the hood of a non-street legal Mustang taking the place of the Cobra Jet.

 

It just won't fit


The trinity 355 barely fits between the strut towers.

I guess I could measure my 6.2L Raptor motor and see if it would fit but I doubt it.

With heads a 429 DOHC motor is a helluva lot wider than a 427 OHV like the Vette.

 

They have a RAPTOR, how about a, "MODEL T-REX!" Raptor on big giant steroids.

 

Love it.