Detroit Steel

Could the dream of a future Shelby GT500 rocketed by a 700-horsepower Coyote V8 find itself replaced with the reality of a GT500 equipped with a twin-turbo, 3.5-liter V-6?

Read the rest on the Mustang Source homepage. >>

CiniZter

if it beats a gtr i am happy

5.M0NSTER

if it sounds like the GTR I'd be happy as well

05PRMTX

I don't like the idea of a V6, but I can get over it if it stomps a gtr. In all reality though, thats going to be a tall order without going to awd and some crazy launch control system.

Boomer

Nah
I can see maybe a Mustang with Eco6, but not a Shelby.
Maybe an SE or future base model.

V8s will be around for the forseable future. And since the Shelby's are in the small percentage of the Mustang market, they ARE the ones that can afford to be the V8s.

m05fastbackGT

I wouldn't bet on that Pete and here's why.. We already know that Ford went with the 3.5L Ecoboost 6 for the new Ford GT.. Although I don't agree, it's none the less the direction Ford appears to be moving in thanks to increasing pressure from the EPA to reduce emissions along with requiring higher fuel economy standards..

As much as I'd love to see the next GT500 with either a twin turbo Coyote or perhaps even settle for a single turbo flat plane crank 5.2L ? IMHO it appears that Ford is gradually phasing out the current 5.0 Coyote in favor of the 3.5L Ecoboost 6 and who knows how long Ford will keep the 5.2L FPC in the Shelby GT350 in production

At any rate, I hope that I'm wrong about this, but I also have my doubts as well

Blue Notch

I wouldn't buy it. Not that I could afford it anyways. I love my Coyote.

bob

That is a packaging nightmare in this car. A 90 degree OHC V8 takes up a lot of real-estate. Its a non-issue for an aftermarket company because they don't really test for or have to account for real world long term reliability (and I'm not just talking the engine itself).


a few months ago I was checking out a turbo install on a 6.2 Raptor and the F150 has some decent space under the hood compared to the Mustang. The turbos had to go up front and high (locating them low and to the rear exposes the turbos to debris and thermal shock - not what you want something that flows engine oil and coolant to encounter) and heat shields were everywhere to protect soft parts and electronics from the heat.


Also in this age of "zero" lag turbos people aren't looking into how this is being achieved. Dual scroll low mass turbos are one thing but say the EB engines for example use relatively small piping and plenum volumes in conjunction with small turbos using the aforementioned low mass impellors and dual scroll manifolds to bump the response of the turbo in addition to direct injection for higher compression as well as virtually running the turbo in boost as well.


Its great for low RPM grunt but nearly every review of such systems talks about how the engine performs more like an old pushrod motor with great off-idle performance but runs out of steam as the tach swings toward the top of the clock.


Engineers really haven't solved the issue of turbo-lag and throttle response, they've just shifted the operating range down the scale.


Conversely all these street heroes running 800, 900 or 1000+ horsepower on the street are using big turbos with by comparison substantial lag.


I know a guy running a twin turbo coyote. The car blasts into the 9's all day long every day and on the way to the track gets 30+ mpg. Its impressive on those numbers alone but when you look at the dyno the engine doesn't really make steam until around 5,000 rpm where the curve looks like a Saturn V moon shot.


From a packaging standpoint a TTV6 would be best as a 60 degree bank angle makes more space and you have more space ahead of the engine for packaging.


However this is a segment where the heavy hitter is seen as a V8 and the people who tend to buy these cars are older (they identify more with a V8 as a premium engine) and the Shelby name resonates more with them and that image is a big ol honk'n V8 in either fairly low displacement high revving form or a big low revving (replaced with a supercharger) V8.


Ask yourself why the GT350 didn't get a TTV6? Especially since the Ford GT is getting a TTV6 (because of class rules) and the GT350 more so than the GT500 is seen as an indirect descendant of the LeMans racer.

esfkotaro

It was my understanding that the choice to equip the new '17 GT with the 3.5TT was about requirements for racing where they want to race it. I could very well be mistaken, though. I can, with a fair amount of certainty, assure you that it had nothing to do with the EPA. The GT is far too low-volume of a car to make any impact on the economy\emissions requirements Ford has to meet. Same reason makers like Lamborghini and Ferrari can get away with an average of like, 12mpg.

I see zero probability that the GT500 will see that same engine, so long as the Base GT's are still getting a V8. I'd hope they'd retire the GT500 model name before they go to that, anyhow. I have no issue with the idea of a 600+ HP V6 TT Mustang, but I feel it would be a disservice to the model's history to call it a GT500.

Twin Turbo

This.

The V6 Ecoboost in the GT is already a race proven engine, so much of the running gear for the new GT has already been tested in race conditions. Ford want to win their class at Le Mans in 2016, and they'd have less chance if they had to race a non-proven engine.

And even in the GT, that's around the 600hp mark. The '14 GT500 was 664hp, so whatever is powering the next GT500, it needs more than that.

Whilst I agree packaging turbos into the Coyote would be a packaging nightmare, I'm sure it can be achieved if Ford want to. Who'd have thought they'd have bothered with a FPC in the GT350? Seemed a difficult route to take to achieve their n/a power requirements, but they did it. If they want 700+ out of an Ecoboost V8, I'm sure they can make a couple of turbo fit.

I'd like to think there's at least another 10 years of life left for the V8.......and I want Ford to keep developing it. Even if it were a small capacity (4.7 TT, anyone?) it'd still have that V8 character that no other engine can match, in my opinion.

One very small thing. In the recent Hot Rod article on the new GT, one of the Ford engineers referred to the 3.5 TT V6 as the "small Ecoboost". I'd like to think that means there's a big V8 Ecoboost in development

I want the GT500 to be a straight line luxury bruiser......but one that can also put the power down on the line, and also handle the corners when required.

The GT350 is there for your track days.

WhitePonyGT/CS

My guess is a smaller displacement twin turbo v8. Although the 5.8 DOHC with twins would be cool.

SouthernStang79

So I guess the rumors of replaing the coyote with a turbo v6 are not dead after all.

I could see the GT coming with a choice of two motors in the future. A standard Turbo 6 or a more expensive 5.0

mustangfan410

I think they should drop the v6 and move the 2.3 turbo down as the base and have the turbo 6 in the middle.

Boomer

I think you have that the other way around.
The Eco6 Twin would be more expensive than the 5L N/A V8

bt4

I don't understand the fixation with a cylinder count, nor the concept that somehow a 600-HP V6 is underpowered for a GT500 </eye roll>. Twin Turbo, suggests they could push 700+ horsepower out of a turbo V8. They don't need 8 cylinders to generate 700-HP. Has anyone paid any attention to the 3.5 TT that powers the new GT?

The engine in the new GT is RESTRICTED by class rules to 600-HP. Unrestricted tests by Roush-Yates racing have pushed 1,000-HP on the dyno. According to the engine program manager, the engine ran at 800-hp when the car clocked 223 mph at Daytona. Would that be enough HP and speed to power a GT500? (Where could you use it?)

Speed and handling are not just a function of horsepower. A number of people at car rags (and on this forum) marvel at the Hellcat's 707-HP. But how fast is it? It was beaten around a track by a Mustang GT with 435-HP. (Both cars were out-hustled by the Z28 Camaro.) MotorTrend's 0-60 time was a traction-limited 3.7 seconds. Compare that the the times posted for a lowly Nissan GTR Nismo--with a puny V6 and only 595-HP (WTF, only!), it scoots from 0-60 in 2.7 seconds. For bench racers everywhere that is a full second faster, with less horsepower and less cylinders. There is a penalty for lugging around 4450-lbs--with a big V8 plus blower producing a 57/43 weight distribution.

I would rather that Ford focus on a weight reduction program for future Mustangs, where less is more. I would like Ford engineers to think in terms of the new Kawasaki H2. 4 cylinders (998 cc's). 200-Hp. 524-lbs. Do you think 200-hp is enough to push 524-lbs up to highway speed by the end of the on ramp? (Kawasaki makes a track version built for organ-donors that is a little lighter and has 100-hp more.) The horsepower to weight ratio is far more critical to performance than the cylinder count.

bob

Like the V12's of yor its seen as a premium engine and ask the average person which Mustang they want and even if they don't know the difference between a GT, EB or sixxer the answer 9 times out of 10 will be "If I could afford it I'd go for the V8".


I was taking delivery of some product at work this morning and the driver who is a Honda guy (even made it a point to tell me he was impressed by the mileage he got in a Focus rental but basically said the car was crap and for a few thousand more a Honda was worth the money ) asked about my '15 GT, he really wanted to know about gas mileage and I told him its not bad but you could do better with the EB and V6 cars. He said no way would he go for the T4 and V6, if he was going to buy a Mustang it would be a V8 car, everything else could be had better with a Honda.


The driver obviously wasn't a car guy, just a run of the mill average person but he pretty much represents what you'll find outside of car folk circles.


A V8 Mustang is an aspirational car, A GT500 is practically the poster child for the word aspirational. When somebody steps up to a GT500 they aren't just buying into the power and speed or handling (well lack there of really) they are buying into the entire experience and a big part of that is popping the hood and seeing that V8. Even more so with a big ol' honk'n supercharger strapped to the top.


A GT500 is less about absolute numbers (and by your own observation ridiculous power doesn't equate to superior performance, a 900 horsepower TTV6 GT500 will be just as crappy as a 800 horsepower TTV8 simply because the car wont have enough tire or suspension to cope) and more about living the dream.


To put it simply a GT500 is the automotive equivalent of a **** star trophy wife. It always has been and it always should be. Slavishly reducing this car to a rolling statement of efficiency is a huge disservice and the proof is no farther than resale values for the car.


The C6 ZR1 is a car that blows the GT500 away in practically every performance category and they routinely pop up selling for half or less of the MSRP


By comparison a used 13/14 GT500 can be seen selling for almost its original selling price.


Like the Corvette ZR1 the same is true of Godzilla, GT-Rs have crappy resale value despite being one of the fastest cars on the planet.

m05fastbackGT

After reading over your post, I agree that a twin turbo Coyote would turn out to be a plumbing nightmare and wouldn't be very practical when it concerns a massed produced vehicle including the GT500..

Therefore the only other scenarios that I can think of that could possibly remedy the lack of real estate (space) would be a single turbo V8 with either the 5.0 Coyote, the 5.2L FPC V8 or consider a supercharged version of the current 5.2L FPC V8/5.0L Coyote..

Other than that, the only other scenario that comes to mind is a smaller TT displacement V8 which is highly unlikely due that Ford already has the 3.5L Ecoboost 6 in production and isn't about to justify the costs for developing a new V8 engine just in order to please those select few who won't settle for anything less than having an ole honk'n V8 under the hood including myself

m05fastbackGT

Brian ! I totally understand where your coming from and realize that equipping the Ford GT with the Ecoboost 6 had nothing to do with the EPA requirements..

However the GT500 is a massed produced vehicle despite it's limited production numbers.. Therefore I honestly don't see how else Ford is going to be able to meet the EPA fuel economy requirements other than using the 3.5L Ecoboost 6 for it's powerplant..

As much as I'd prefer Ford come out with a supercharged 5.0 Coyote or even a 5.2L V8 version for the next GT500.. Unless Ford can somehow meet the fuel economy requirements ? Then IMHO it appears as though Ford will be moving forward with the 3.5L Ecoboost 6 and gradually phase out it's modular V8 altogether

Twin Turbo

Sound, for the most part.

The GT500 should be the biggest, baddest Mustang in the line-up. When it fires up, I want small children and old ladies to jump

Yes, a turbo 6 can produce serious HP. Heck, so can a turbo 4.

I'm a Brit, and my love of American muscle cars is much due to the fantastic sound they make. I have absolute respect for anyone that wants a 4 or 6 cylinder Mustang, but the top dog Mustang needs a V8, especially a speciality Mustang like the GT500. I can see a day when the GT is powered by a 6 (probably an Ecoboost 6) but the day the halo Mustang is powered by anything but a V8 will be a very sad day in my book.

Here in England, the uptake on the S550 is something like 60/40 in favour of the V8 (we don't get the V6). And that's in a country where fuel is over the equivalent of $8/gallon! So, I'm not alone in that thought.

bt4

I concede that (you're right at the present) the V8 is seen as the premium engine--based on perception. Perception is one thing--hoisting a trophy is another. No one gives a prize check to the car with the most cylinders--the trophy goes to the driver that crosses the line first.

However, your comment pinged a distant memory of the Ferrari 12's (BTW they were flat 12's, not V12's) and its superiority over other racing engines. It sounded great--and in the right chassis proved to be very fast. There was a driver--Jackie Stewart--you may have heard of him. He won a race or two back in the day. I remember a journalist, enthused about the new Ferrari (1970) 12, quizzing Jackie Stewart--about how great it would be to see Stewart behind the wheel of one of Enzo's sizzling 312B. If I remember correctly, Stewart glared at the journalist and stated, "I don't need a Ferrari." (F1 Championships in 69, 71, and 73--evidently Jackie was right.) Ferrari did go on to win championships after they signed Niki Lauda, and the 312T (1975) proved to be a much better car, of course Jackie Stewart had retired by then. (If his car didn't break, it was very difficult to stay ahead of Stewart. In '69 at the British Grand Prix he lapped the field. In '68 he won the German Gran Prix by over 4 minutes--how's that for a win at the 'Ring?)

Ironically the win in '69 came under the Matra banner--the only time a French builder, the car built in France ever won the F1 mfg. title. In '70 they wanted to switch to their own V12. Jackie Stewart wanted to stay with the Cosworth-Ford V8. In '71 Stewart won another title driving a Cosworth-Ford powered ride. Matra never won another world title.