What would be your response to this statement.....

[NIKwoaC]

The thing about these "new" engines, is that, if you understand internal combustion engine design and thermodynamic fundamentals whatsoever, the power and torque figures are really not that impressive at all. It's really to be expected if you look at the physics of it. These concepts have been around for years. What is impressive, if the fact that they are doing it in PRODUCTION cars and at the PRICE they are doing it at. It says a lot for modern manufacturing and engineering. The performance specs of these engines are nothing magical, but the reliability and the low cost is.

 

[Gearbanger 101]

Sure it may be 2 cylinders less but again, its only .3L smaller, so i dont think there is replacement for displacement

Thanks for proving my initial point. The displacement difference between the 3.7L Ford V6 and the 4.0L BMW V8 is only .3L and the torque difference is minimal. The displacement difference between the 5.0L TiVCT and the 6.2L LS3 is substantial....yet guess what....torque and horsepower figures are virtually identical.

Like I said. I'll take a high efficiency engine with a well designed head, cam(s) and intake package over a clumsy big displacement bruiser any day if it meas I'm going to make similar horsepower levels.

we both know that the LS series will respond much better to mods than the TiVCT.

What do you mean "we" white boy? I don't remember ever agreeing to that?

We've seen the 2011 Mustang in full weight trim run 10's with nothing but bolt ons. I can't think of an LS1, 2, or 3 powered Camaro in history that can make that claim....can you?

We haven't even scratched the surface on this new TiVCT engine yet, so how can you so confidently make such a statement when these cars are running so fast and haven't even cracked a bolt on a cam cover yet?

I just dont see why everyone is raving over how "new" the engine is when BMW has already done it. And now that ford has done it with more torque i'll bet you bimmer will come back with the same engine with more torque and horsepower, even if it means jumping to 5.0l, imagine that, probably would make 500hp at 8k rpms and 400lbs a torque
In fact they already have it "kinda" the S85 engine makes those numbers, but its a V10, but a 5.0l displacement none the less. Either way ford is running an import engine now

Ford has been running DOHC V8 engines in multiple production vehicles for the last 18-years now.....and they were experimenting with them in non production vehicles as early as the first half of the 60's? Why are you under the impression that this is some sort of new endeavour for the company?

Sure, maybe advancements have been made in cam timing, head/intake design, etc, over the years but the basic premise has been the same. Four valves support more airflow than two.

It's really admirable that BMW is making those kinds of power figures with their 4.0L engine, but I would hardly call it revolutionary. As stated, the torque figures are lacking and you've really got to spin them to make the digits.

I would really be impressed if they put out equal horsepower and torque numbers like the Ford does....but alas, they do not. I mean hell.....Honda's F20C engines make 240hp with only 2.0L of displacement....so if playing the math game is your thing you should be more impressed by them than anything else mentioned in this thread. I mean...who cares that they only make 150lbs ft/tq, right?

It's all about balance...and the fact that the new 5.0L TiVCT makes both impressive horsepower and torque numbers from idle to red-line, with silky smooth operation and driving characteristics, yet still put out fewer emissions and get better economy than the previous smaller model.....all while doing so in an affordable....dare I say inexpensive (compared to the European competitors) package speaks volumes for this new mill.

Anyone who is anything but thoroughly impressed by this engine quite frankly can't see the forest through the tree's.

 

[Shaolin Crane]

Thanks for proving my initial point. The displacement difference between the 3.7L Ford V6 and the 4.0L BMW V8 is only .3L and the torque difference is minimal. The displacement difference between the 5.0L TiVCT and the 6.2L LS3 is substantial....yet guess what....torque and horsepower figures are virtually identical.
I dont know how that proved your point, but whatever, I'm not impressed either way. Give it a year before chevy starts offering better flowing heads with more CNC work done to them and they will put away the new 5.0
Like I said. I'll take a high efficiency engine with a well designed head, cam(s) and intake package over a clumsy big displacement bruiser any day if it meas I'm going to make similar horsepower levels.
thats fine, i'll take raw cubes any day


What do you mean "we" white boy? I don't remember ever agreeing to that?

We've seen the 2011 Mustang in full weight trim run 10's with nothing but bolt ons. I can't think of an LS1, 2, or 3 powered Camaro in history that can make that claim....can you?
Bolt ons, im sure you're talking about N20, cause ive yet to see a '11 GT into the 10's without it, other than the evolution performance with the most unsafe tune ever and a stripped car, if we're going that route of "bolt ons" i know camaros, vettes and firebirds that have gone deep into the 9's with just "bolt ons", nonetheless there are at least 6 camaros over on ls1tech in the 10's with stocks heads/cam
We haven't even scratched the surface on this new TiVCT engine yet, so how can you so confidently make such a statement when these cars are running so fast and haven't even cracked a bolt on a cam cover yet?

I'm physic


Ford has been running DOHC V8 engines in multiple production vehicles for the last 18-years now.....and they were experimenting with them in non production vehicles as early as the first half of the 60's? Why are you under the impression that this is some sort of new endeavour for the company?
Thats exactly what I said, its nothing new and im not impressed by any of it.
Sure, maybe advancements have been made in cam timing, head/intake design, etc, over the years but the basic premise has been the same. Four valves support more airflow than two.
And more cubes equals more airflow
It's really admirable that BMW is making those kinds of power figures with their 4.0L engine, but I would hardly call it revolutionary. As stated, the torque figures are lacking and you've really got to spin them to make the digits.
I never said it was revolutionary, i said its nothing new
I would really be impressed if they put out equal horsepower and torque numbers like the Ford does....but alas, they do not. I mean hell.....Honda's F20C engines make 240hp with only 2.0L of displacement....so if playing the math game is your thing you should be more impressed by them than anything else mentioned in this thread. I mean...who cares that they only make 150lbs ft/tq, right?
They dont, yet, but im sure they will soon
It's all about balance...and the fact that the new 5.0L TiVCT makes both impressive horsepower and torque numbers from idle to red-line, with silky smooth operation and driving characteristics, yet still put out fewer emissions and get better economy than the previous smaller model.....all while doing so in an affordable....dare I say inexpensive (compared to the European competitors) package speaks volumes for this new mill.
We're comparing engines not cars, And affordable, well thats to be determined cause they are still going for 30-40k and thats ridiculous for a mustang
Anyone who is anything but thoroughly impressed by this engine quite frankly can't see the forest through the tree's.
Then you better give me an appointment with the ophthalmologist, cause im not impressed.

.....

 

[Gearbanger 101]

So you like long winded, huh.....

FWIW i'm not all that impressed with the new Mustang or Ford's decision to scrap a simple and effective design in place of a complicated, over-engineered engine that produces non-impressive numbers (considering that it could have achieved the same or better had it stayed OHV). As Leonardo DaVinci said, "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication".

What choice did they have? The 302 OHV wasn't cutting the mustard anymore. The power was too low and emissions and mileage was too high. How much horsepower they might have been able ring out of it would have been irrelevant if they had to further sacrifice mileage and emissions to do it.

Now, i'm pretty sure you're going to counter back with the whole "smooth silky operation, effortless driving, gas mileage, etc." argument. With this being said, you're assuming that the majority of Mustang owners and prospective buyers look for this when buying a Mustang. Frankly, if I had 40g's to spend on a new car and wanted something "comfy" i'd be heading to the Lexus or Mercedes dealer lol.

And why wouldn't I use those points as part of my argument. It's not important to the pushrod diehards because it’s quite frankly unattainable and they couldn’t make it happen with a 302 even if they wanted to. You speak of what Ford "could have done" done, but in the end, they never did.....nor has anyone else since.....and this engine was around for 35-years for them to prove it. Make the power part was easy. There have been 400+hp 302’s around since the 60’s. Making it driveable, efficient and reliable enough to stuff behind the strut towers of a daily driver was the hard part.
You state how unimpressive the 5.0 TiVCT is with its complicated and over-engineered design....even though trounces the most powerful N/A EFI production 302 OHV by over 170hp and 100lbs/ft of torque and quite frankly best it in every other category as well.

I mean really.....unimpressive??? The new heads on this thing outflow Yates NASCAR castings, right out of the box.....STOCK!!! The short blocks are designed to handle anything reasonably thrown at them. Their dry weight is only 430lbs (about 30-50lbs lighter than the last 302HO). They promote nearly 100% volumetric efficiency throughout most of the power band and over 110% efficient at peek torque. And does it all while knocking down 26mpg in a 3,500lb car. How is this thing unimpressive again?
I’d bet you’d be impressed if it was a 302 OHV putting out these types of stats though wouldn’t you? I think you’re problem is more OHC envy than anything else.


Besides, if emissions, mileage and smooth operation aren’t a priorities for you, that’s fine. Then just imagine for a moment if you will, what these engine are capable of once the aftermarket starts putting out some real performance pars for them. I mean....we’ve already seen low-11’s/high-10’s out of them with bolt ons and mid-10’s with a small shot of nitrous. What will they be capable of with aggressive camshafts and CNC head programs?!? The 302 OHV got 35-years to do it....and you’re practically deeming this engine a failure less than 6-months into production.


I'm sorry to say, but the majority of modern Mustang owners are in fact looking for more for their money than just spooling snot in a straight line.....that's why the Fox went away in the first place. Why should someone dropping $35,000 on a new Mustang have to sacrifice comfort, handling, refinement, etc when you can have it all and run low-12's right off the showroom floor. Hell, for that kind of money, one should expect it......and Ford delivered! You have an issue dropping that kind of cake on a GT.....no worries, go spend 22K on a V6 and whip up on previous Fox/SN96 Mustangs all day long. Either one will get the job done.

Quite frankly, the only ones I hear complaining about the new Mustang are the diehard Fox and/or pushrod guys who have convinced themselves that the Fox was the last great American sports car and the 302 OHV was the last great engine Ford ever built. Performance stats and reality be damned. :sctrach:

I think it’s a little sad really that the some of you in the Fox crowd are choosing to be such snobs about this. It’s almost like talking to a Corvette owner?

 

[Kdubslugga]

The only thing bigger than envy is the mouth that it comes out of...

Wow ive never heard that. Definetly using that one!!

Appreciate you all letting me vent on ya, im much better now!!

 

[Bullitt347]

Really?

What about GM and the LS1? Sure, it was an extra 48 ci but it wouldn't be inconceivable to think that Ford could have done the same thing with the 302.

Case in point: If OHC was indeed the "way of the future" why did GM choose not to go the route of the LT5?

Answer: Because they could get better performance with a simpler design and lower cost (i.e. LS1).



As mentioned before, the numbers are nothing magical. There are plenty of OHV crate engines in the Ford Racing Catalog that can put out those kind of numbers.


But they get crappy fuel mileage and could not pass a OBD2 emissions test.




LOL You wish. I could have easily went with a 96-98 or even an import for what I paid for my fox.



Well, you mentioned how great the design the new 5.0 is so I'm willing to bet that the new 5.0 will peak much sooner in terms of performance than anticipated.

This is a bet that you will lose.

In addition to this The parts are also going to cost a ****load more than fox parts and much harder to install by the average person.

Initially yes. But give it 10 years, (1/3 the time for r&d of the 302) and everyone will have cheaper parts and everyone but you will be comfortable in working on it.




If Ford would have stuck with the OHV and further developed it, the price would without a doubt have been more reasonable and people would not have to drop 35-40g's on a Mustang in the first place.

And yet it would lag behind the performance of the larger offerings by GM and Mopar. In this case engine architecture would dictate that you go big or you get beat, change the design (i.e. new 5.0) and the numbers/game dramatically change.

 

[Shaolin Crane]

I mean....we’ve already seen low-11’s/high-10’s out of them with bolt ons and mid-10’s with a small shot of nitrous:

Again, Evolution Performance is the only one. It was not in street trim, was stripped to the bone, and was running a tune that could never be driven on the street. More like mid to low 11's with bolt ons, and low to high 10's with nitrous. Nothing a fox cant do with the same amount of effort. And keep your "die hard fox owner" comments to yourself this time.

 

[mycaptainchris]

My ex boss has a McLaren SLR.

So now you can say that you have a buddy, who has an ex boss, who drives a Supercharged McLaren SLR, that'll beat his geo tracker. Then tell him, if McLaren are supercharging their cars, it has to be right.

 

[SashaBlack]

Look, just key his car when you're on break.

 

[powershift46]

Jeez, ford puts out a mustang that can spank a camaro stock for stock and all you get is pissing and moaning about it. Its to much like a BMW, well, guess what, its all been done before, time to utilize technology that works. Chevy went down the tank for a reason, my wife's 07 Equinox has the same engine as her 85 fiero and feels like a 93 Lumina. Old doesn't mean good, it means old.

 

[90mustangGT]

So he's bragging about what his buddy has, and how it's better than what you have, but he drives a Tracker..... really, is there much more to be said?

He's jealous of what you have and he in his small mind thinks that because he drives a Tracker that makes him inferior. He thinks you know this, so he's going to try to humble you to bring you down. He's an insecure person who doesn't know what life is about. Humor him.

 

[Shaolin Crane]

Jeez, ford puts out a mustang that can spank a camaro stock for stock and all you get is pissing and moaning about it. Its to much like a BMW, well, guess what, its all been done before, time to utilize technology that works. Chevy went down the tank for a reason, my wife's 07 Equinox has the same engine as her 85 fiero and feels like a 93 Lumina. Old doesn't mean good, it means old.

The reason Chevy went down the tank is cause they are a ****ty company, not cause they make bad cars.

 

[powershift46]

The reason Chevy went down the tank is cause they are a ****ty company, not cause they make bad cars.

That was always my belief, I now own a few and know it was a combination of the two.

 

[Gearbanger 101]

What about GM and the LS1? Sure, it was an extra 48 ci but.....

Ahhhh yes.....the inevitable but. Are you really going to sit here and fluff off nearly 50 ci like it’s got nothing at all to do with the LSX series engines success? Their displacement is one of their primary they’re even capable of making over 300hp. I mean really....if the OHV design was that superior, why didn’t they concentrate their efforts on the 305 HO or something in the similar displacement range, instead of scrapping them altogether for the LSX series?

Case in point: If OHC was indeed the "way of the future" why did GM choose not to go the route of the LT5?

Answer: Because they could get better performance with a simpler design and lower cost (i.e. LS1).

You mean the 5.7L DOCH LT5 that made over 80hp more than the best LS1 with the same displacement and churned out 405hp nearly 10-years before they were finally able to accomplish it with their famed Z06....that LT5? Do you really believe that with 10-years more R&D, they couldn’t have accomplished even more impressive figures than that? Just look how far the 4.6L came in just 10-years when it made its way into a Mustang in 1996 by comparison? Displacement stayed the same but horsepower increased by nearly 100 with the 3V top ends and over to over 170hp with the 4V top ends? All without increasing displacement!

Kind of ironic don’t you think that since scrapping the LT5, that the only way GM has substantially increased power levels with any of their LSX series engines since, has been by increasing displacement.

As mentioned before, the numbers are nothing magical. There are plenty of OHV crate engines in the Ford Racing Catalog that can put out those kind of numbers. Considering all the tech and R&D that went into the development of the new 5.0, I would expect more.

What engines would those be? Those destined for off road use because they haven’t passed emissions standards, or those that have substantially increased their displacement in order to make the numbers?

You’re really having an issue grasping the concept of “efficiency” here aren’t you? From what I gather....making power to you can only involve sacrifice. Whether it’s emissions, drivability or fuel economy, you seem to believe that one or more must take a hit in order to accomplish the end goal.

Guess what....not only did Ford not have to forfeit any of those accomplishments with the TiVCT engine, but they’ve actually improved them....all while still accomplishing the end result of great power figures. How can you continue to argue your point knowing this?


It's kind of funny. LS1's were created by the hand of God. They made 300hp with 346ci had a tough bottom end, got great mileage and appears to be seemingly in your eyes, the best thing since sliced bread.

....now Ford buids and engine that makes vastly more horsepower, with 44ci less displacement, that also has a tough as nails bottome end (but a far superior top end) and gets great mileage as well....but its unimpressive to you, simply because you're afraid of camshafts?!?....did I get that right?

Well, you mentioned how great the design the new 5.0 is so I'm willing to bet that the new 5.0 will peak much sooner in terms of performance than anticipated.

Maybe....maybe not. There’s said to only be an 8% loss in the top end of the engine in stock trim, yet power levels in excess of 400RWHP are being made with just basic bolt ons. As stated previously, once more aggressive cam profiles and CNC programs become available for these engines, I imagine the sky is the limit. Sooooo much more can be accomplished with variable cam timing that with your standard mechanical OHV design, that the normal rules really don’t apply.

In addition to this The parts are also going to cost a ****load more than fox parts and much harder to install by the average person.

You must be pretty young. I can remember a time with Fox parts were anything but cheap when buying them new either. Just like anything....once the market saturates with them, they’ll come down in price, the same as the Fox stuff has. And really....how much are you going to spend on a stock 5.0L OHV in order to match the stock performance of the new TiVCT engine anyway? You’re looking at H/C/I and full bolt ons minimum....and that that’s only if you’re willing to live with a temperamental, gas eating nightmare for a daily driver.

If Ford would have stuck with the OHV and further developed it, the price would without a doubt have been more reasonable and people would not have to drop 35-40g's on a Mustang in the first place.

It sounds to me like you’re under the impression that the 5.0L TiVCT has tripled the price of the car?
The price difference between the 2010GT and 2011 GT is all of about $2,000 . For that you get 100hp and an ultra tough 6-speed trans in comparison. Wanna sit down and figure out how much that would cost you to to duplicate with your Fox?

This isn’t 1987 anymore. The Mustang has jumped in price not because it got some exotic new power plant between the towers, but because of 20+ years worth of inflation and the fact its 10X the car it used to be. You’re not jumping into a glorified Ford Fairmont anymore that’s chassis was used in two dozen different models over the years. Money was spent making the Mustang the best car it could be since those days and it has been a huge success. It’s why GM had to **** can their F-Body line up back in 2002 and why Ford continues to kick their (and Dodges) ass today. You get more for your money.

Again, Evolution Performance is the only one. It was not in street trim, was stripped to the bone, and was running a tune that could never be driven on the street. More like mid to low 11's with bolt ons, and low to high 10's with nitrous. Nothing a fox cant do with the same amount of effort.

Who cares who did it, or how it was tuned. The bottom line, is that it was done...and done without digging into the engine, or employing the use of a power adder.

Argue the semantics all you wish, it's not going to change the numbers on the time slips.

As for "nothing a fox can't do with the same amount of effort"......I guess I'll just keep waiting, cause it ain't happened yet.

nd keep your "die hard fox owner" comments to yourself this time.

So touchy....I guess if the shoe fits. Is it my fault you're close minded?

The reason Chevy went down the tank is cause they are a ****ty company, not cause they make bad cars.

I think was a little of both. Ever ride in a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th Generation Camaro....they're a real piece of ****.

To be fair though....so were most North American built cars during that era. I guess the Mustang was just a little bit less a piece of ****.

 

[Georgia Snake]

1 FAST 6

I get the same sort of thing with my 1965 Mustang. First off its not supercharged, Tuboed, or sprayed, all old technology. Second thing its not a V-8, its an I-6. Third thing its not set up for drag racing, although I have had it on the drag strip. Its set up for SCCA Solo 2 auto cross racing. Fourth thing it makes just shy of 400 hp. Cant really drive it much on the street anymore because of its compression but it is street legal.
250 I-6
Offy Intake Adapter with 3 Autolite Single Barrel Carbs
Hooker Duel Exaust header
Mallory YC Duel point Distributor
High lift long duration solid lifter cam
Larger valves
double dampened valve springs
hight strength connecting rods
13.75:1 Compression Pistons
Alluminum and brass flywheel with 11" clutch
Close Ratio 4 speed
9" rear with 4.11:1 Detroit Locker

 

[Georgia Snake]

250 I-6

Also remind the Duster guy that MOPAR = My Ole Plymouth Aint Runnin. LOL Was going to put a photo of the engine here but guess you will have to go to the Garages section.

 

[Shaolin Crane]

Who cares who did it, or how it was tuned. The bottom line, is that it was done...and done without digging into the engine, or employing the use of a power adder.

Argue the semantics all you wish, it's not going to change the numbers on the time slips.

As for "nothing a fox can't do with the same amount of effort"......I guess I'll just keep waiting, cause it ain't happened yet.


So touchy....I guess if the shoe fits. Is it my fault you're close minded?


I think was a little of both. Ever ride in a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th Generation Camaro....they're a real piece of ****.

To be fair though....so were most North American built cars during that era. I guess the Mustang was just a little bit less a piece of ****.

I care when you start spewing facts that arent true, like saying words like "full street trim" and "bolts ons" when we both know they were 100hp+ shots of nitrous and stripping the car to the bone. Same has been done with the camaro, so again, nothing new. Reason it happened so soon was ford stuck the 5.0 in a chassis thats already been around for 6 years, so there has been plenty of R&D as far as suspension goes to achieve that feat.

And your As for "nothing a fox can't do with the same amount of effort"......I guess I'll just keep waiting, cause it ain't happened yet. " comment well, if i stripped my fox to the bone, launched on slicks with full suspension they easily dip into the 12's, add some long tubes, dump it with no cats or mufflers and run the most agressive timing ever im sure it could happen with a 100 shot. In fact i know it can cause ive seen it first hand.

And where have you seen 2010 GT's going for 28k? around here this is the normal asking price Cars for Sale: 2010 Ford Mustang GT Coupe in San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675: Coupe Details - 271199910 - AutoTrader.com
When '11 GT's are in the 30-35k range
And i'll use this to validate your last 2 comments

Not only have i ridden in them but i owned one as well, it had no more issues with the interior than other car ive ever owned before, yet handled so much better and had far more comfort than any other mustang up until my 07, And even that had problems that would make me think twice about getting one again. I'm not closed minded, i just dont believe when every homeless guy claims he's Jebus. I have no issue to the new 5.0 if it performs, but so far an engine like that has only been out for 6 months, sure it may be a performer now, but just like the 6.0 powerstroke which wow'ed people when it was first released with 450rwhp out of a tune and bolt ons alone, turned out to be a huge pile of **** in the long run. So again, your "die hard fox owner" comments are horridly placed again.

 

[89stang1]

LOL....this is turning into a Bash the Foxbody forum anymore!!!!! Wheres the Love yeah that new 5.0 is Great!!!!!! I love Foxbodys when u go to the track and see how many Foxbodys are running Great ETs with affordable mods why bash them for god sake the last one was built in 93 well its 2010 and they are still turning heads at the track and at car shows!!!!. I get great comments and looks almost every time i take my car out. Real American Muscle nothing sounds or runs like them (especially not a whiny sounding Eaton supercharger) Foxbodys Love em or leave em

 

[CDQICKGT]

LOL... I love you guys!!! I personaly like the new 5.0, But Even if I had the money right now(paying off wifes king ranch still) i cant say that i would buy one. 35+k for a GT is a little absurd IMHO. When I bought my 04 new i gave 25k.... I just wonder who ford is trying to market these cars to? A good portion of the loyal pony fans cant afford the payments on that. Im and NCO of a certain rank in the army and I make lower mid class money and would never dream of dropping that kinda $$$ on a GT. Like I said I like them but, no thank you... I will keep saving for a termi cobra.

 

[Gearbanger 101]

I care when you start spewing facts that arent true, like saying words like "full street trim" and "bolts ons" when we both know they were 100hp+ shots of nitrous and stripping the car to the bone.

We have very different ideas what "stripping the car to the bone" means. After looking into it some more I do see there was a little weight reduction done to it. The car got light weight race seats and an aluminum driveshaft (although I consider that a bolt on). The slicks and skinnies obviously cut some weight as well, as did the suspension components, but those are always counted as bolt ons and were a necessary evil in order to plant the power. Neither of which is ever left out of the equation when any record breaking FBody or Fox Body make record breaking runs either.

In any case, the car still has the rest of its interior, emmions and A/C equipment, lights, body panels, etc.

And I'm not sure where this magical "100-shot of nitrous" accustaion came from? That pass was 100% N/A my friend....no power adders. When the nitrous was added (which was 125 hit BTW) they ran 10.58@128mph. Even more impressive still.

Same has been done with the camaro, so again, nothing new.

Cool, got any vids....pics....specs....timeslips? No huh.....guess we'll just have to take your word for it.

Reason it happened so soon was ford stuck the 5.0 in a chassis thats already been around for 6 years, so there has been plenty of R&D as far as suspension goes to achieve that feat.

And I argued this point how? Would you rather they kept going with that same, tired old Fox chassis they were using since the 70’s?

And your As for "nothing a fox can't do with the same amount of effort"......I guess I'll just keep waiting, cause it ain't happened yet. " comment well, if i stripped my fox to the bone, launched on slicks with full suspension they easily dip into the 12's.

12's ain't 10's!

add some long tubes, dump it with no cats or mufflers and run the most agressive timing ever im sure it could happen with a 100 shot. In fact i know it can cause ive seen it first hand.

Suuuuure you did. Mothers, brothers, uncles, friend of a friend kinda thing, right? Yeah, I know a guy who made a time machine out of a DeLorean. It's local though, so you probably have never heard about it, but I swear I saw it happen.

And where have you seen 2010 GT's going for 28k? around here this is the normal asking price Cars for Sale: 2010 Ford Mustang GT Coupe in San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675: Coupe Details - 271199910 - AutoTrader.com

Errr....thanks for again proving my point again? This is of course assuming I actually made one since I don’t recall anywhere where I stated the MSRP on the 2010 GT was $28k? Are you putting words in my mouth now? In any case, you just posted a link of a 2010 GT going for $28 and change....so I guess if that's what I said, you just confirmed it?

When '11 GT's are in the 30-35k range

Starting MSRP on a 2011 GT $29,645 Ford - Cars, SUVs, Trucks & Crossovers | Ford Vehicles | The Official Site of Ford Vehicles | FordVehicles.com
In any case.....the difference between the ’10 GT’s $28,845 and the ’11 GT’s $29,645 is actually even less than the $2,000 I quoted above. You’re starting to lose it man.

Not only have i ridden in them but i owned one as well, it had no more issues with the interior than other car ive ever owned before, yet handled so much better and had far more comfort than any other mustang up until my 07, And even that had problems that would make me think twice about getting one again. I'm not closed minded, i just dont believe when every homeless guy claims he's Jebus.

Hey....personal opinions, are personal opinions. Many, myself included agree that FBodies (and even Mustangs) from those era’s have been mostly a compromise. They were all built during a time when quality and fit & finish gave way to mass production and emissions compliance. So did pretty much all North American vehicles of that time, which is why the Euro’s up until now have been famous for building a better car and why the Japanese kicked our asses for nearly two decades.

Yeah, they made the power, they had character, the RWD layout, arguably better looks and most importantly for some, the “Made in America” seal of approval, but they were still a sub standard built car none the less.

I have no issue to the new 5.0 if it performs, but so far an engine like that has only been out for 6 months, sure it may be a performer now, but just like the 6.0 powerstroke which wow'ed people when it was first released with 450rwhp out of a tune and bolt ons alone, turned out to be a huge pile of **** in the long run. So again, your "die hard fox owner" comments are horridly placed again.

Maybe it will be another 6.0L Diesel, or maybe it’ll pick up where the success of the last 5.0L left off. Only time will tell for certain, but for the time being it’s a huge success. The fact that it’s being criticised from every angle by the haters that have since been left in it’s dust, proves a much. In any case, it’s nice to see some of you are already choosing to shun it and deeming it a failure before its first year of production has even finished. What true Mustang enthusiasts you guys are.

LOL....this is turning into a Bash the Foxbody forum anymore!!!!! Wheres the Love yeah that new 5.0 is Great!!!!!! I love Foxbodys when u go to the track and see how many Foxbodys are running Great ETs with affordable mods why bash them for god sake the last one was built in 93 well its 2010 and they are still turning heads at the track and at car shows!!!!. I get great comments and looks almost every time i take my car out. Real American Muscle nothing sounds or runs like them (especially not a whiny sounding Eaton supercharger) Foxbodys Love em or leave em

Who's bashing the Fox body? I like the foxbody, I just recognize its limitations. Don't confuse defending and admiring the 2011 with hating its predecessor. I know full well if it wasn't for the success of cars like the Fox Mustang, we would have superior cars like the S197 powered by great engines like the TiVCT here for the haters to bitch about and downplay today.