• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

302 Cubic Inch V8 headed for Mustangs in 2010

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Falloutboy
Originally posted by: KentState
What other engines our currently have a similar displacement and in a 32 valve configuration and produce that much HP and torque?
Click to expand...

the 6.0L LS3 motor in the vette easily does. and while being a bigger displacement its smaller footprint wise because its OHV and not DOHC with very simlar economy if not better for the LS motor. and this is the base LS motor, and not the LS7 which is the same block just bored and stroked more which produces way more power than any ford motor, while being cheaper to produce and simpler.
Click to expand...

I'm well aware of the LSx motors as I owned a GTO, adore the Vette, and would love a new Camaro, CTS-V, or G8 GXP.

My question was more about how the new engine stacks up to similar designs. It seems that at least with hp and torque, that Ford has outdone other V8 32v engines of similar displacement. In my book, that's a good sign of the future of Ford. Heck, if a future Mustang came with that type of engine, IRS, and around 3500lbs, I would consider it.
 
Originally posted by: Ronstang
Too bad they riced out the body and it looks like ass for 2010 forward. They really messed up a nice car. All they had to do for 2010 were some minor tweaks on the exterior and make the upgrades in the interior....which is where this car has been lacking since 2005.
Click to expand...

wait...wait...what? I thought that is exactly what they did. Some minor exterior improvements and a much better interior. Maybe I missed a giant rear wing or something in the pictures...
 
Originally posted by: crazySOB297
Originally posted by: KentState
Originally posted by: AMCRambler
Meh. Get an '06 GTO. 400hp, 6speed, IRS and 3725lbs.

$18,000.
Click to expand...

Just wish you could get side airbags, GPS, and room for wider tires.
Click to expand...

Then it wouldn't weigh 3725lbs.
Click to expand...

A fender flare, a few airbags and a GPS antenna+double din unit might might 35lbs and I'm being generous on the high side there.
 
Originally posted by: mwmorph
Originally posted by: crazySOB297
Originally posted by: KentState
Originally posted by: AMCRambler
Meh. Get an '06 GTO. 400hp, 6speed, IRS and 3725lbs.

$18,000.
Click to expand...

Just wish you could get side airbags, GPS, and room for wider tires.
Click to expand...

Then it wouldn't weigh 3725lbs.
Click to expand...

A fender flare, a few airbags and a GPS antenna+double din unit might might 35lbs and I'm being generous on the high side there.
Click to expand...

+ the unsprung weight of the wider wheels and tires.

Is it a huge amount? No. But the difference is there and everyone in this thread is wining about the weight of the pony cars...
 
Originally posted by: crazySOB297
Originally posted by: mwmorph
Originally posted by: crazySOB297
Originally posted by: KentState
Originally posted by: AMCRambler
Meh. Get an '06 GTO. 400hp, 6speed, IRS and 3725lbs.

$18,000.
Click to expand...

Just wish you could get side airbags, GPS, and room for wider tires.
Click to expand...

Then it wouldn't weigh 3725lbs.
Click to expand...

A fender flare, a few airbags and a GPS antenna+double din unit might might 35lbs and I'm being generous on the high side there.
Click to expand...

+ the unsprung weight of the wider wheels and tires.

Is it a huge amount? No. But the difference is there and everyone in this thread is wining about the weight of the pony cars...
Click to expand...

Eh, whatever, these are muscle cars, the kind of cars where you use the loud pedal for steering and actually ending up at the correct exit for a corner is nothing but a bonus. 300,400,500hp, no one NEEDS that kind of HP rating, you could easily have a just as quick 190-218hp Elise but lets face it, that's sort of the point of these cars.

Screw mileage, environmentalism, get a giant slab of V8 American steel(maybe aluminum now) on the front axle, make it RWD and make sure the tires have less grip than the engine can provide under a 4000rpm clutch drop and call it a day.

I think people expect too much. They want cheap, they want it to be powerful and they want it to have a high quality interior, they want it to look good.

I mean FFS what you guys want is basically a BMW M3 with an American badge..... for $25k. You want a M3? Buy your freaking M3 already, but I can tell you it's not going to be anywhere near $25-$30K.

These cars are all incredible values as they are. I mean you have to give up one of the basic tenents of pony cars to get the other. You can have the luxo interior, but then forget about the V8. You can forget the V8 but then forget the $25k price or you can get the price and forget the interior.

These cars, even the LRA Mustang handle very well already. The interiors, especially on the Mustang look damn good and the price is unmatched.
 
What I'm curious is in the 1960's Mustangs had brilliant interiors for ~2,738 bucks with a V8 attached as well. Unless inflation has spiked so drastically since then, I think there is a problem Ford is having--the costs of production are higher than they used to be.

I don't think inflation has been that drastic. I know it spiked ugly in the '70's, but it settled down in the '80's and 90's.
 
Originally posted by: TehMac
What I'm curious is in the 1960's Mustangs had brilliant interiors for ~2,738 bucks with a V8 attached as well. Unless inflation has spiked so drastically since then, I think there is a problem Ford is having--the costs of production are higher than they used to be.

I don't think inflation has been that drastic. I know it spiked ugly in the '70's, but it settled down in the '80's and 90's.
Click to expand...

The current V6 Mustangs make a fair bit more power than the standard 289 V8 in those old Mustangs. They did not have side airbags, not even standard airbags. They didn't have crumple zones or shoulder belts. They didn't even have reverse lights as standard equipment. Base price did not include air conditioning, no intermittent wipers, the radio was AM only didn't even have 4 speakers. They had no standard power assist for the brakes or steering.

The interiors were stylistically nice, but in terms of features they are worlds inferior to the new cars.

ZV
 
http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-coyote-v8.html



so, ummm... from what i'm reading, those are australian numbers being reported. and they have less stringent emissions regs than north america does. so 400/400 may not be the final NA numbers.

edit: damnit why aren't falcons being sold in the US? i swear we get the shaft. no fiesta, no good focus, and no falcon. wtf. we're the damned home country!
 
I don't get it.

Ford preparing 5.0 making 400/400.

Ford also preparing to introduce the 6.2 making 425/425.

Both are going into the F150. 5.0 is replacing the 5.4L which is weak/underpowered, compared to it's competition. The 5.0 is the base model.

So...why bother launching two brand new engines with minimal power differences? Sure, more displacement, but 25 more hp/lbs ft of torque? It's one thing if they were meant for totally diff apps (5.0 solely in the Mustang, 6.2 solely in the Fx50 series trucks) but I'm just a lil confused.
 
Perhaps the difference is in the way it delivers the power? Motor internals, powerband & rpm range, etc? Some motors with very similar peak power numbers perform utterly differently, and are suited for vastly different applications.
 
Ark - that was my thought process too, but there aren't diff applications they're applying it too. (Both in the Fx50 series) I think for the average consumer, they see "25 more hp/torque for an extra $2500? No thanks". I guess they'll have to do a good job of educating the average consumer (or even me) on what the advantages of one over the other is.

Personally, after seeing the Raptor, the 6.2 looks badass. 🙂 It'll be nice seeing the 302 back in the Mustang too though...I just wish there was a little larger discrepancy in power between the two.
 
Well, that's a good point. Of course the F-series is a pretty wide range of vehicles really. I could see one motor not delivering that peak power outside of a narrower/higher powerband, and this being the base F150 motor, and the other motor delivering substantial torque lower (the 6.2L) and for a wider powerband, being good for towing/heavy-duty apps.

I agree though, not a very big difference in peak power numbers.
 
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Well, that's a good point. Of course the F-series is a pretty wide range of vehicles really. I could see one motor not delivering that peak power outside of a narrower/higher powerband, and this being the base F150 motor, and the other motor delivering substantial torque lower (the 6.2L) and for a wider powerband, being good for towing/heavy-duty apps.

I agree though, not a very big difference in peak power numbers.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing Ford is preparing to surprise everyone with the 6.2l putting out 500/500. Only way it makes sense.
 
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Well, that's a good point. Of course the F-series is a pretty wide range of vehicles really. I could see one motor not delivering that peak power outside of a narrower/higher powerband, and this being the base F150 motor, and the other motor delivering substantial torque lower (the 6.2L) and for a wider powerband, being good for towing/heavy-duty apps.

I agree though, not a very big difference in peak power numbers.
Click to expand...

The change in displacement could just come from different heads or crank giving two distinct power bands like you said. I just don't see how there can be a huge price difference.
 
Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
Ark - that was my thought process too, but there aren't diff applications they're applying it too. (Both in the Fx50 series) I think for the average consumer, they see "25 more hp/torque for an extra $2500? No thanks". I guess they'll have to do a good job of educating the average consumer (or even me) on what the advantages of one over the other is.

Personally, after seeing the Raptor, the 6.2 looks badass. 🙂 It'll be nice seeing the 302 back in the Mustang too though...I just wish there was a little larger discrepancy in power between the two.
Click to expand...

Premium fuel v.s. regular fuel. That's a big deal for people.

That's why the Toyota/Lexus V8 are 4.6L and 5.7L on Lexuses and Trucks respectively. Exact same engine family, block, etc, similar power figures but, but one uses 91 and the other 87.

Also IIRC the Boss V8 is twin valve SOHC, dual spark plugs per cylinder and the ability to be stretched into a much, much higher displacement because of the 4.5"+ bore centerline (I think reports as high as 7.2 or 7.3L are possible).

The architecture and spcifications far demonstrate the Boss as the V8 designed to hold the high displacement market while the Coyote holds the high performance market.

The Boss V8 is a truck engine. Simple, probably cheaper to produce v.s. the Coyote V8, ability to be stretched to mugh higher displacements, essentially, their "low tech" V8 as opposed to the Coyote which will be the more fuel efficent, quad valve, dual camm tech based V8.
 
Originally posted by: iFX
The Mustang should have received IRS during the mid-model refresh ten years ago in 1999. Ford says it's a cost thing but what they really mean is that they don't want to make changes to their lines and parts contracts for the existing live axel setup. People who absolutelty wanted IRS had to buy the high-end Cobra models since they were the only cars equipped with IRS (1999, 2001, 2003 and 2004). All Cobras are hand built so Ford didn't have to make changes to their primary Mustang lines, parts contracts or retrain workers, etc. IE - the accountants won again.

Ford could have engineered the 2005 Mustang from the ground up with IRS - since it's built on a hacked up DEW platform (Lincon LS, Ford Tbird & Jaguar S-Type) which was already equipped with IRS. I've heard various numbers tossed around by Ford claiming IRS would add $5,000 to $8,000 to the price of the Mustang GT - which is BS since the platform was already engineered with IRS - they had to makes changes to it to accommodate the live axle.

Anyway, when it comes to engines Ford has a great little V8 in their inventory which should be the Mustang's base engine IMO. The 3.9L V8 producing 280 HP and 280 torque. The mid range engine could be the modular 4V 5.4L producing 350 HP and 390 torque (or somewhere in the neighborhood). The high end engine could be the 5.4s big brother, the modular 3V 6.8L V10 making somewhere in the neighborhood of 475HP and 50 torque. I think it would be foolish for Ford to get into a horsepower war with anyone regarding the Mustang. Ford is capable of producing some high HP engines for sure but that isn't really what sells the Mustang - 1990s Mustang sales are a good example. The F-body cars made more HP from 1993 to their death and the Mustang still outsold those cars 10 to 1. Ok, enough of my yapping. I know everyone won't agree with my engine choices, that's ok. 🙂

Anyway, I've always been a HUGE Mustang fan. I pretty much love every generation of Mustang, yes, even the Mustang II. What's kept me from buying a new one recently is the lack of certain features that should be standard on 2000+ car, like IRS. There are those in the Mustang community who want a live rear-axle because they drag race... well, those people, who buy Mustangs (typically used ones) and gut the car to go racing are a small portion of Mustang owners - the average Mustang owner (who will be buying a V6-Auto which makes up something like 80% of Mustang sales) wants IRS. Ford, you need to listen to the people buying new cars, today not the motorheads (and I am one) who typically don't buy new and make up a teeny tiny portion of Mustang owners.
Click to expand...

I don't really agree with your engine choices. If you're talking the non-supercharged 5.4 and any variant of the V10 you're talking about big, heavy truck motors that really have no place in a sports car.

I like the 4 cylinder ecoboost as a base engine, the 5.0 32 valve as the GT engine, and the 6 cylinder ecoboost as an SVO option. Every one of these engine will be much lighter than the 5.4, and much much lighter than the V10. Couple this with IRS (and maybe a transaxle to distribute the weight better, like the 'vette) and you'd have a decently fast, great handling car.

Of course, the odds of a transaxle are basically zero, but it would be cool.
 
Originally posted by: alkemyst
Originally posted by: KentState
Originally posted by: AMCRambler
Meh. Get an '06 GTO. 400hp, 6speed, IRS and 3725lbs.

$18,000.
Click to expand...

Just wish you could get side airbags, GPS, and room for wider tires.
Click to expand...

or fold down rear seats.
Click to expand...

Forgot about that and the lack of a trunk. Pretty hard to take anyone besides yourself to the airport due to the lack of space.
 
Originally posted by: alkemyst
Just an FYI horsepower means nothing without knowing the gearing and weight of the vehicle.

My 1966 mustang was putting down about 300HP and weighted right about 2500lbs. I don't know of any mustang in the last 10 years that weighed much less than 3500lbs.

My 300HP was pretty mild mods...simple heads, 600CFM carb, edelbrock intake, cam, ignition/distributor, headers and exhaust. Balanced and blueprinted and compression knocked up to 10:1. Had a shift kit in the C4. The mustangs that could beat me from modern years either idled like crap or were boosted.

1000lbs is like adding 50% back to the car, everything gets worse except the comfort and NHV....this is one of the main reasons I like my 240SX, I am at right around 2750lbs + once I relocate my battery to the rear I am looking at almost perfect weight distribution, tuning my suspension I will be right on.

Don't get me wrong though these modern muscle cars are wonderful daily drivers and properly tuned can make great track cars...however; they just don't have the feel like an ultralight sports car running a huge engine. The 289 and 427 cobras were monsters just would never fly with today's rules and regulations on safety.
Click to expand...

It's not just the safety features that have added weight over the years. It's that the size of the cars have grown. Look at the dimensions of a modern Mustang compared to the original.

1966 Ford Mustang Fastback (the best looking Mustang):

Weight: 2,519 lbs
Wheelbase: 108 inches
Overall length: 181.6 inches
Overall width: 68.2 inches
Height: ???

2009 Ford Mustang GT:

Weight: 3,356 lbs
Wheelbase: 107.1 inches
Overall Length: 187.6 inches
Overall Width: 73.9 inches
Height: 55.4 inches

I suspect that the new Camaro is also dimensionally larger than the original as well. That pig of a Challenger is definitely bigger.
 
Originally posted by: LordMorpheus
Originally posted by: iFX
The Mustang should have received IRS during the mid-model refresh ten years ago in 1999. Ford says it's a cost thing but what they really mean is that they don't want to make changes to their lines and parts contracts for the existing live axel setup. People who absolutelty wanted IRS had to buy the high-end Cobra models since they were the only cars equipped with IRS (1999, 2001, 2003 and 2004). All Cobras are hand built so Ford didn't have to make changes to their primary Mustang lines, parts contracts or retrain workers, etc. IE - the accountants won again.

Ford could have engineered the 2005 Mustang from the ground up with IRS - since it's built on a hacked up DEW platform (Lincon LS, Ford Tbird & Jaguar S-Type) which was already equipped with IRS. I've heard various numbers tossed around by Ford claiming IRS would add $5,000 to $8,000 to the price of the Mustang GT - which is BS since the platform was already engineered with IRS - they had to makes changes to it to accommodate the live axle.

Anyway, when it comes to engines Ford has a great little V8 in their inventory which should be the Mustang's base engine IMO. The 3.9L V8 producing 280 HP and 280 torque. The mid range engine could be the modular 4V 5.4L producing 350 HP and 390 torque (or somewhere in the neighborhood). The high end engine could be the 5.4s big brother, the modular 3V 6.8L V10 making somewhere in the neighborhood of 475HP and 50 torque. I think it would be foolish for Ford to get into a horsepower war with anyone regarding the Mustang. Ford is capable of producing some high HP engines for sure but that isn't really what sells the Mustang - 1990s Mustang sales are a good example. The F-body cars made more HP from 1993 to their death and the Mustang still outsold those cars 10 to 1. Ok, enough of my yapping. I know everyone won't agree with my engine choices, that's ok. 🙂

Anyway, I've always been a HUGE Mustang fan. I pretty much love every generation of Mustang, yes, even the Mustang II. What's kept me from buying a new one recently is the lack of certain features that should be standard on 2000+ car, like IRS. There are those in the Mustang community who want a live rear-axle because they drag race... well, those people, who buy Mustangs (typically used ones) and gut the car to go racing are a small portion of Mustang owners - the average Mustang owner (who will be buying a V6-Auto which makes up something like 80% of Mustang sales) wants IRS. Ford, you need to listen to the people buying new cars, today not the motorheads (and I am one) who typically don't buy new and make up a teeny tiny portion of Mustang owners.
Click to expand...

I don't really agree with your engine choices. If you're talking the non-supercharged 5.4 and any variant of the V10 you're talking about big, heavy truck motors that really have no place in a sports car.

I like the 4 cylinder ecoboost as a base engine, the 5.0 32 valve as the GT engine, and the 6 cylinder ecoboost as an SVO option. Every one of these engine will be much lighter than the 5.4, and much much lighter than the V10. Couple this with IRS (and maybe a transaxle to distribute the weight better, like the 'vette) and you'd have a decently fast, great handling car.

Of course, the odds of a transaxle are basically zero, but it would be cool.
Click to expand...

1. The Mustang is a very heavy car. It is not a nimble, street course demon: it is a drag-strip car just like the muscle cars of way-back-when. As such, the Mustang "Guys" love the live axle, and hate the IRS because of wheel hop.
2. The Mustang Cobras are built on the same assembly line the standard mustangs are built on. As such, your comment about the 'accountants winning' because they didn't want to change the assembly line is complete bunk. The line is already set up to handle IRS assembly.
3. The Windsor Engine plant, where the 5.4L is produced, is living on borrowed time. The Modular V8's are being phased out in favor of higher MPG higher power engines. In addition, they do not make a 4V version of the 5.4L. That is a hand built Cobra at Romeo.
4. The 6.8L engine will not FIT in a mustang, nor will the 6.2L.

I like the 4 cylinder ecoboost as a base engine, the 5.0 32 valve as the GT engine, and the 6 cylinder ecoboost as an SVO option. Every one of these engine will be much lighter than the 5.4, and much much lighter than the V10. Couple this with IRS (and maybe a transaxle to distribute the weight better, like the 'vette) and you'd have a decently fast, great handling car.

You're spot on, though the base may not be an ecoboost (they are $). I would guess the new 3.5L non-boosted stock.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top