302 Cubic Inch V8 headed for Mustangs in 2010

[TehMac]

News is the 5.0L V8 Coyote is headed to the 2010 Mustang later this year, and that the engine has been mapped out to produce around 400bhp and 400 lb-ft.

Sounds brilliant. 😀

Plus, the V6 Eco-Boost is looking to produce around 355-365 bhp, but considering it's all turbos and shit, I bet people will be playing with that as well. :Q

That said, I'd like a 6.2L V8 from Ford to stick into a stock mustang. Produce the ultimate sleeper effect.


I've also heard secondhand that in a magazine, Ford confirmed that the next iteration of Mustangs will have Independent Rear Suspension. I'm not sure if this is a track pack or not, but if this is the case, these two changes sounds like Ford is getting ready to lay the hammer on both the Challenger and Camaro.


I'm excited. 😀

 

[thedarkwolf]

The 5.0l doesn't really do much for me. I'd rather seem them put the eco-boost in them making its full 415hp instead of the de-tuned for fwd based transmissions 365hp.

 

[TehMac]

I'm not sure. I read online that the Eco Boost in the Mustang will produce around 355 bhp, because they want to compete with the Camaro RS and Dodge Challenger R/T.

But that is online stuff, so I'm not sure how true it all is. Don't forget you could probably electronically chip the thing to produce well over 420bhp. A car designed for boost like that could probably be chipped up to 500 bhp at the very max, but good luck with gas mileage (well considering they're turbos, you might get 14-18 mpg 😛).

 

[KentState]

What other engines our currently have a similar displacement and in a 32 valve configuration and produce that much HP and torque?

 

[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.

 

[TehMac]

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.

I like the 2010 body style, if anything it harks back more nicely than the 2005 rendition.

The back looks particularly nice, it's just some of the photos taken suck. The mustang looks really nice in person. It just needs some nice suspension tuning and it'll be fine.

Plus, a good chip on the 5.0L will give you 450bhp off the crank right there. Plus, a supercharger will render power over 500 bhp. Couple this with IRS in 2011 (hopefully) and we'll get a cool car.

 

[kevman]

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.

yeah 2010+ definitely looks like ass.

 

[TehMac]

What are you guys saying? :Q

Ok, I like the front of the 2005s a bit better, but the 2010's rear looks awesome.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: kevman

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.

yeah 2010+ definitely looks like ass.

i like the new body style. it looks *MUCH* better in person

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: TehMac

Plus, a good chip on the 5.0L will give you 450bhp off the crank right there. Plus, a supercharger will render power over 500 bhp. Couple this with IRS in 2011 (hopefully) and we'll get a cool car.

the next iteration of Mustangs will have Independent Rear Suspension.

sounds to me like IRS if well off into the future. the 2010 is a pretty big makeover and those usually happen just past the halfway mark of the model's life. of course, the last model of mustang lasted from 1979 to 2004, so who knows how long this basic package will be around. the front suspension on the current mustang is from the focus, and the rear suspension on the focus is inexpensive enough that it'd probably be trivial to change to.

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?

the LS460 makes 380 hp and 367 ft lbs of torque, so it's not far off.

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
sounds to me like IRS if well off into the future. the 2010 is a pretty big makeover and those usually happen just past the halfway mark of the model's life. of course, the last model of mustang lasted from 1979 to 2004, so who knows how long this basic package will be around. the front suspension on the current mustang is from the focus, and the rear suspension on the focus is inexpensive enough that it'd probably be trivial to change to.

I was thinking the same thing, but I don't know. Ford has been getting a lot of flak, and it could be they'll offer their "track pack" mustangs with IRS in the future.


Thing is, they need to confront the unions about cutting costs. They're doing better than GM and Chrysler, but as long as the unions keep charging outrageous costs, Mustangs of this caliber are going to be priced in the 30k range. For that money you can get a great BMW or an Audi, which is what people are doing.

 

[Black88GTA]

Ford was probably getting tired of being slammed for the live rear axle by the car rags. It's about time they put IRS in it anyway.

Originally posted by: ElFenix
of course, the last model of mustang lasted from 1979 to 2004

You accidentally an entire generation. Fox body was 1979 - 1993, with a minor refresh in 1987. SN95 was from 1994 - 2004, with a minor refresh in 1996, and again in 1999.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Black88GTA
Ford was probably getting tired of being slammed for the live rear axle by the car rags. It's about time they put IRS in it anyway.

Originally posted by: ElFenix
of course, the last model of mustang lasted from 1979 to 2004

You accidentally an entire generation. Fox body was 1979 - 1993, with a minor refresh in 1987. SN95 was from 1994 - 2004, with a minor refresh in 1996, and again in 1999.

SN95 was still fox based.

Originally posted by: TehMac

Thing is, they need to confront the unions about cutting costs. They're doing better than GM and Chrysler, but as long as the unions keep charging outrageous costs, Mustangs of this caliber are going to be priced in the 30k range. For that money you can get a great BMW or an Audi, which is what people are doing.

UAW has agreed to bring ford's labor costs in line with toyota's

 

[Black88GTA]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Black88GTA
Ford was probably getting tired of being slammed for the live rear axle by the car rags. It's about time they put IRS in it anyway.

Originally posted by: ElFenix
of course, the last model of mustang lasted from 1979 to 2004

You accidentally an entire generation. Fox body was 1979 - 1993, with a minor refresh in 1987. SN95 was from 1994 - 2004, with a minor refresh in 1996, and again in 1999.

SN95 was still fox based.

Loosely, yes...but they changed / updated so much of the chassis for the SN95s that they can't really be considered to be built on the same platform, IMO.

 

[evident]

i'll take a g37 or 335i instead

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
UAW has agreed to bring ford's labor costs in line with toyota's

if that's true, that sounds promising.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: evident
i'll take a g37 or 335i instead

and you'll be paying many many thousands more for it.

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: evident
i'll take a g37 or 335i instead

and you'll be paying many many thousands more for it.

I dunno, a premium GT package costs around 35k with a track pack.

That is ridiculous. Especially considering a lot of cars of equal space and practicality can beat it both in terms of interior quality. Essentially, only enthusiasts are going to buy this, and they're going to wait for them to go down in price or get them used from suckers--unless the suckers chipped the engine to get output to 380-400 bhp.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: TehMac

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: evident
i'll take a g37 or 335i instead

and you'll be paying many many thousands more for it.

I dunno, a premium GT package costs around 35k with a track pack.

That is ridiculous. Especially considering a lot of cars of equal space and practicality can beat it both in terms of interior quality. Essentially, only enthusiasts are going to buy this, and they're going to wait for them to go down in price or get them used from suckers--unless the suckers chipped the engine to get output to 380-400 bhp.

and a base GT starts at $25k.

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: TehMac

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: evident
i'll take a g37 or 335i instead

and you'll be paying many many thousands more for it.

I dunno, a premium GT package costs around 35k with a track pack.

That is ridiculous. Especially considering a lot of cars of equal space and practicality can beat it both in terms of interior quality. Essentially, only enthusiasts are going to buy this, and they're going to wait for them to go down in price or get them used from suckers--unless the suckers chipped the engine to get output to 380-400 bhp.

and a base GT starts at $25k.

Yeah, but you're missing out on a lot I bet. Plus, again, Audis, BMWs, Infinits can be get for pretty cheap in that area.

I like the Mustang, but if you recall, back in the 1960's, the Mustang was ~$2,500 with a V8 engine, has inflation really blown the roof since then or has the cost of production gone up, or a combo?

I'm sure it's a combo, but I bet the price could be reduced further.

Btw, as a side note, the Mustang with a V8 289 (4.7L) producing 271 bhp was considered to be a brilliant sports car, and it also had a limited slip differential--it was designed to handle and the interior was brilliant and well done as well. Cheerful, but with sportiness in mind.

They don't make em like that anymore. 🙁

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: TehMac

I like the Mustang, but if you recall, back in the 1960's, the Mustang was ~$2,500 with a V8 engine, has inflation really blown the roof since then or has the cost of production gone up, or a combo?

I'm sure it's a combo, but I bet the price could be reduced further.

is anyone paying anything near sticker on a mustang that isn't a special edition? trying to compare cars based on MSRP is often pointless.


$2,368 in 1964 got you a 101 horsepower, 170 cubic inch 6 and 3 speed manual. that's about $16288.78 in 2009 dollars. compare the feature content of that car to a base mustang from today and you get so much more stuff from a new mustang (safety, quality, durability, creature comforts, etc.) that the new mustang is probably less expensive when considered overall. (of course, the .gov's official inflation statistic doesn't take into account quality improvements, which is one of the reasons why the .gov's inflation measure may over-estimate inflation)

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: TehMac

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: TehMac

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: evident
i'll take a g37 or 335i instead

and you'll be paying many many thousands more for it.

I dunno, a premium GT package costs around 35k with a track pack.

That is ridiculous. Especially considering a lot of cars of equal space and practicality can beat it both in terms of interior quality. Essentially, only enthusiasts are going to buy this, and they're going to wait for them to go down in price or get them used from suckers--unless the suckers chipped the engine to get output to 380-400 bhp.

and a base GT starts at $25k.

Yeah, but you're missing out on a lot I bet. Plus, again, Audis, BMWs, Infinits can be get for pretty cheap in that area.

I like the Mustang, but if you recall, back in the 1960's, the Mustang was ~$2,500 with a V8 engine, has inflation really blown the roof since then or has the cost of production gone up, or a combo?

I'm sure it's a combo, but I bet the price could be reduced further.

Btw, as a side note, the Mustang with a V8 289 (4.7L) producing 271 bhp was considered to be a brilliant sports car, and it also had a limited slip differential--it was designed to handle and the interior was brilliant and well done as well. Cheerful, but with sportiness in mind.

They don't make em like that anymore. 🙁

and how many of them have 400hp/400 ft-lb? 0 🙂

same deal with the camaro SS - no, it probably won't handle as well as a 3series, A4, or G37.. but you can't get anywhere close to that kind of power for the money with those cars.

 

[Bandit1]

IRS costs dough,that's why.It's give and take.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Bandit1
IRS costs dough,that's why.It's give and take.

and yet the focus is still a pretty inexpensive car

 

[HannibalX]

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.