Would you like a more powerful GT? Would you sacrfice the V8 engine for it?

Discussion in '2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-' started by 300bhp/ton, Jun 21, 2005.


Prefferred engine:

  1. 300bhp 4.6 V8

    155 vote(s)
  2. 350bhp 2.0 Turbo 4 cylinder

    16 vote(s)
  1. With lots of talk that Ford didn't offer enough power with the new GT, here's an option that could well have been a reality (similar options where once considered in the early 1990's).

    Would you rather have a:

    1. 300bhp/320lb ft 4.6 V8 as per the current lineup


    2. 2.0 litre 16v Turbo 4 cylinder with 350bhp/360lb ft

    Such an engine already exists in the form of the 2.0 Ford ZeeTec which in mild turbo form produced 220bhp for the Focus RS, however this engine also appears destined for the forthcoming Cosworth Focus with 330-350bhp.
  2. 4 cylinders are not cars, they are lawn mowers.
  3. Low end Torque. Nothing better.

    The V8 has FAR more potential. Add a KB twinscrew.
  4. I 've owned two SVO's and they are fun as hell, but I believe the Mustang should have a V8 and keep it. A speciality car however would not bother me, but I think a 6 cylinder(w/turbo) would be a better choice because of the cars weight.

    Thanks Mike
  5. V8 or nothing. The sound alone is worth it even if it sacrifices horsepower.
  6. I would easily give up 50HP to get 4 more cylinders... Heck I would EASILY take a 250HP V12!! Sign me up... :)
  7. Nothing like the rumble of a V8. Nough said.
  8. V8, no rice burners
  9. I'd love to see a RWD 4banger come out of ford, similar to Nissan's older 240SX. But don't do it to the Mustang.
  10. V8 = Muscle

    So i will go with the V8 mucle anytime its not just hp numbers its the felling of the V8 rumbling.
  11. not in the mustang, but as a focus owner i have to say the idea of a ford turbo 4 making that much HP gives me wood.

    they should bring it over either in a SE focus or in some other model like the Aussie Falcon. God that car is sexy!

    oh, and 4 cyl does not equal rice. fartcans, bodykits installed bot not painted, excessive neon (or any neon for that matter), or mods that make for no performance but look like they should equal rice. please get it right.

  12. V8, mang. Otherwise, it may as well be front-wheel driive.

  13. I agree, but what about these 3/4 scoops for the stang? Is this ricing it out? Scoops there generally cool the rear brakes when functional, but all you're doing with a stang is taping on some shaped urethane. Just curious what you guys think.
  14. Go big or go home. V8
  15. :D Horsepower is one thing but what really moves the car is torque, and that 4 banger has none to speak of. Sure it'll move a 1500-2000 lb car smartly, :nice: but stick it in a 3000 lb car, and you ain't going nowhere fast. :bang:
  16. if I had my druthers, I'd much rather prefer my 331-sixpack under the hood of my new Stang.
  17. Didn't they already try a Turbo I-4 for Stangs, weren't they more pricey and didn't sell that much back then, why would they now? The modular V8s are much cheaper to produce and use in Mustangs (the whole point of the Modular engine family line) then building a limited highly tuned high HP turbo 4 banger. If they're gonna stop making a high horsepower Mustang that is not a V8 they should just build something else which they tried with the Ford Probe back in the late 80's to mid 90's, which was supposed to be the Mustang replacement, everyone cried out and we all know what eventually happened with that car. Afterall the Mustangs main selling point is not power, it's only part of the equation. Mustangs are cars for everyone. :flag:
  18. i have a svt focus right now (06 GT on order) and a 350hp turbo motor would be awesome in the foci. One of the main reasons i am switching back to the stang though is cause i miss my V8. There is nothing like the growl of a nice V8. I ..miss...*sniffle*...it. But will have it again soon.
  19. Trying to go up a hill in a 4cyl.....Priceless.

    A turbo 4cyl seems more like a ricer engine than an American muscle car engine.