 | | 
09-24-09, 04:56 PM
| | Founding Member | | Join Date: April 2002 Location: Texas
Posts: 535
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by BL00DSH0T  That is what I have been saying.
With nothing comfirmed yet I'm pretty sure the line up will be similar to this:
V6 3.7L 250HP
V8 4.6L 315HP
Boss 5.0L 400HP | That's pretty much what I was thinking. And I'm sure you are going to be paying about $40k for that new 5.0 as well. I think it's going to take another massive economic downturn, and I mean more than what's happening now, to lead Ford away from the tried and true GT V8. |
09-24-09, 05:01 PM
|  | Founding Member | | Join Date: June 2001 Location: Garrett, IN
Posts: 785
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin01 That's pretty much what I was thinking. And I'm sure you are going to be paying about $40k for that new 5.0 as well. I think it's going to take another massive economic downturn, and I mean more than what's happening now, to lead Ford away from the tried and true GT V8. |
The only argument I have for that is, Ford says EcoBoost 4cyl and 6cyl will replace V6 and V8 in 90% of it's line by 2013. You have to figure the super duty trucks will still be V8. I don't know how many percent that leaves for the mustang to stay v8?
Like I said before though, I would take EcoBoost over a 1979 302 any day!!! |
09-24-09, 05:05 PM
| | Founding Member | | Join Date: April 2002 Location: Texas
Posts: 535
| |
I'm sure they are talking about the sedans. Not the Mustang. And this being an American issue, I can tell you the V8 trucks won't be going anywhere soon either. Actually, I'll put a large wager on that bet.  |
09-24-09, 05:24 PM
| | Founding Member | | Join Date: June 2001 Location: Garrett, IN
Posts: 785
| | | |
09-24-09, 06:27 PM
| | Founding Member | | Join Date: April 2002 Location: Texas
Posts: 535
| | | |
10-10-09, 12:49 PM
| | Member | | Join Date: September 2009
Posts: 1
| |
I still keep wondering if they are going to really do away with the 4.6 totally.
My buddies also keep slamming me for buying a 2010 a few weeks ago since the 5.0 is on the way but I don't think it will bother me too much.
I am not racing the car and it has an auto in it...a first for me...because I have to deal with my kids all the time.
I wonder if the 5.0 really will be a the base GT motor or an option like it is on trucks with the option of a 4.6 or 5.4.
Is the 4.6 being dropped completely? |
10-10-09, 03:39 PM
|  | Official Member | | Join Date: May 2009 Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 426
| | | |
10-10-09, 04:40 PM
| | Founding Member | | Join Date: April 2002 Location: Texas
Posts: 535
| |
So, to make sure I'm on the same page here, the supposedly new 5.0L that's going into the 2011-ish mustang is based on the 5.0 32valve coyote motor right? The cammer motor? If that's the case, that puppy weights in at about 534lbs dressed. To the current 4.6L's 435lbs. I can understand increasing weight from a safety standpoint, but I don't get why they would add 100lbs from just the engine. Unless this new 5.0 is a stroked version of the 4.6. I wonder if they would just upgrade the trans they have now rather than building new ones. The 5R55S just came out...can't see them switching already with the time invested in that one. Not sure about the 3650 though. |
10-12-09, 05:35 PM
| | Founding Member | | Join Date: June 2001 Location: Garrett, IN
Posts: 785
| |
Hello?! That’s why I say go EcoBoost. It is actually lighter than the 4.6L. One website claimed over 150lbs lighter (don’t know how accurate that is).
So you could have a 3.5L twin turbo making more than a 250 lb heavier 5.0L. Granted the 5.0L would be easier to get more power out of, but still. |
10-14-09, 09:54 PM
| | Member | | Join Date: December 2006 Location: lawrenceville, ga
Posts: 31
| |
If they put an ecoboost in the GT i will be saying hello to a camaro ss instead of a mustang... Why would you take a damn ecoboost over a push rod 302? It is extremely easy to get big power out of a 302, and even easier to work on. By the way i had a 347 92 GT with almost the same specs as your 347.   |
10-14-09, 10:01 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: May 2009 Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 426
| |
The new 5.0L 302 isnt a pushrod....its a DOHC......... |
10-14-09, 10:50 PM
| | Member | | Join Date: December 2006 Location: lawrenceville, ga
Posts: 31
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by SS02 The new 5.0L 302 isnt a pushrod....its a DOHC......... | I realize that, I was referring to when he said he would take an ecoboost over a 79' 302. |
10-15-09, 04:25 AM
|  | Founding Member | | Join Date: August 1998 Location: Houston TX
Posts: 815
| |
I still don't understand how people say that the 5.0L v8 is easier to make more power then the Ecoboost. Ultimely I would say right off the bat putting a supercharger on the supposed 400HP V8 keeping things equal like Cr. and all that stuff with the 4.6 should net something like 80-150HP increase with your average run of the mill supercharger kit. This will also cost you around 5 to 6 grand to do if the costs are the same.
Take the Twin Turbo V6 now, add a boost controller, better intercooler and do some tuning you can see similar returns but for a lot less money. Ok so you start with less HP, around 360 or so if you use SHO numbers but the weight savings in the drivetrain is a definite advantage.
Don't get me wrong I love a nice V8 especially in a Mustang as it has the magic old school nostalgia feeling that no other powertrain can provide, but I'm also not blinded by this and can see the advantages of having an ecoboost engine under the hood. Ford knows this, they are not dumb, they know that if they ax the V8 option completely the Mustang will lose a lot of people who for reasons ranging from nostalgia to downright shortsightedness will jump ship if that happens. I wouldn't worry but I'm just saying look at the big picture.
Ford did some excellent turbocharged applications in years past rising to the pinnacles of motorsports because of their excellence in engine building and turbocharged technology, Think Capri GTX-5, Sierra RS Cosworth, Escort RS Cosworth, etc. etc. I'm pretty damn stoked to see the same level of craftsmanship finally making its way under the hood of the Mustang.  |
10-15-09, 09:16 AM
|  | Official Member | | Join Date: September 2005 Location: Corpus Christi, TX
Posts: 376
| |
I would never buy a GT with ecoboos engine.
For one, the 5.0 already makes more power N/A than the ecoboost, so once you start doing mods its all over with.
Two, no V6 is going to sound like a V8
And three, I don't need to get a rocket science degree to work on a twin-turbo'd sixer, the DOHC V8 may not be the easiest thing to work on but I'm very familiar with it and trust me, I did a lot of work to my 05 and modding these engines is not as difficult as some would like to say. |
10-15-09, 12:12 PM
| | Founding Member | | Join Date: June 2001 Location: Garrett, IN
Posts: 785
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by bluestang50 I realize that, I was referring to when he said he would take an ecoboost over a 79' 302. | Man, did I stir the pot or what?!?! What I meant by this is, in the 70's Ford tried to get better gas mileage and the horsepower numbers sucked. I think a lot of people are being way to optimistic thinking Ford won't try to improve mileage again. I also don’t think they are going to exclude the mustang in this.
So when I say I would rather have 3.5L EcoBoost than a crappy @$$ 110hp (not sure on the real #’s) 1979 302, I mean that ford has found a cool way to improve the mileage and I’m down with it. |
10-15-09, 10:45 PM
|  | Official Member | | Join Date: September 2005 Location: Enfield, CT
Posts: 689
| |
I would never buy a mustang with a V6. I don't see why they can't make 350hp out of the 4.6 it wouldn't be hard. Heck I'm doing it with my 2v 4.6 right now. A 350hp 4.6, track pack and new 6 speed transmission would be a killer combo. |
10-16-09, 01:11 AM
| | Member | | Join Date: August 2009
Posts: 26
| |
EcoBoost will not be in the Mustang for a long time if ever!
But getting big numbers out of one is not as easy as many think. You have HPFP(high pressure fuel pumps), direct injection tuning and turbos that are most likely at their limit as most are on factory turbo cars.
The price it would cost to have eco boost on a Mustang would put it right up there with the GT if not more. |
10-16-09, 06:41 AM
| | Member | | Join Date: August 2009 Location: SSF, CA
Posts: 24
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by cougar_68 Man, did I stir the pot or what?!?! What I meant by this is, in the 70's Ford tried to get better gas mileage and the horsepower numbers sucked. I think a lot of people are being way to optimistic thinking Ford won't try to improve mileage again. I also don’t think they are going to exclude the mustang in this.
So when I say I would rather have 3.5L EcoBoost than a crappy @$$ 110hp (not sure on the real #’s) 1979 302, I mean that ford has found a cool way to improve the mileage and I’m down with it. | i can cosign to that ive owned a 4banger 89 notch good gas milage but wtf is a stang with 88hp? im down with the ecoboost im only a 19 year old entering college looking for something new for 2011 or 2012 not cost effective on gas with the advantage of power heck if the rumors of the 300+hp v6 is true ill be going with that either or..
Last edited by \\J//; 10-16-09 at 06:51 AM.
|
10-16-09, 09:35 AM
| | Member | | Join Date: December 2006 Location: lawrenceville, ga
Posts: 31
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by walter Ford knows this, they are not dumb, they know that if they ax the V8 option completely the Mustang will lose a lot of people who for reasons ranging from nostalgia to downright shortsightedness will jump ship if that happens. | How in any way is it shortsighted to want a v8 in a muscle car??? |
10-16-09, 09:46 AM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: September 2005 Location: Enfield, CT
Posts: 689
| |
Everyone talks about gas mileage but in reality the V6 and V8 get very close gas mileage. With the six speed auto and manual transmission that is to be going into the 2011 stang the gas mileage will be even better for both engines. |
10-16-09, 12:46 PM
| | Member | | Join Date: September 2009
Posts: 28
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by BL00DSH0T
But getting big numbers out of one is not as easy as many think. You have HPFP(high pressure fuel pumps), direct injection tuning and turbos that are most likely at their limit as most are on factory turbo cars.
| I have to disagree. There is a 2010 Taurus SHO that ran 12.75@108 with just a tune on the Ecoboost engine. Pretty impressive for a 4400lb car. Imagine that engine in the Mustang. |
10-16-09, 07:11 PM
| | Member | | Join Date: August 2009
Posts: 26
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by All-Or-Nothing I have to disagree. There is a 2010 Taurus SHO that ran 12.75@108 with just a tune on the Ecoboost engine. Pretty impressive for a 4400lb car. Imagine that engine in the Mustang. | Big numbers as in whp. Besides I have seen many companies push DI turbo cars well past what the turbos can do safely just to run down the 1/4mile and post a impressive time. Not say that is what they have done, but that claim doesn't hold up to what I said. |
10-16-09, 08:32 PM
|  | Official Member | | Join Date: January 2006
Posts: 264
| |
I don't care how much HP a ecoboost V6 has or how much lighter it is than a 4.6. Driving a GT with a V6 is like drinking non-alcoholic beer.  |
10-17-09, 09:39 AM
|  | Official Member | | Join Date: September 2005 Location: Tallahassee Fl
Posts: 385
| |
Its funny how some ppl are closed minded.  |
10-17-09, 10:31 AM
| | Member | | Join Date: September 2009
Posts: 28
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by BL00DSH0T Big numbers as in whp. Besides I have seen many companies push DI turbo cars well past what the turbos can do safely just to run down the 1/4mile and post a impressive time. Not say that is what they have done, but that claim doesn't hold up to what I said. |
So if this engine is doing this thru an AWD set-up don't you think the WHP will increase in a RWD set-up. The engine is not being pushed past the turbos limits either. This isn't what Ford has claimed, this is from what a guy who bought the car has done. Ford has tested this engine up to 500hp safely too. So I guess I don't understand what you mean by "the claim doesn't hold up to what i said" | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Rate This Thread |  Linear Mode | | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
| | | |
| |
