|
IOwnCalculus posted:I admit to being slightly surprised this story isn't gaining more attention: 2010 Taurus Limited AWD 3.5 Duratec V6 = 4224 lbs; 263 bhp 2010 Taurus SHO 3.5 Ecoboost V6 (AT)= 4388 lbs; 365 bhp, ~264 whp (close to 30% driveline loss!) So about 164 pound difference in weight (without taking into account lighter parts for SHO) 2010 Mustang 4.0 Cologne V6 MT = 3421 lbs; 210 bhp, 2011 Mustang 3.7 Duratec V6 AT = 3603 lbs (3453 MT); 305 bhp, ~265 whp (about 15% driveline loss) 2011 Mustang 5.0 V8 AT = 3720 lbs (3605 MT); 412 bhp, high whp So wild guess, assuming similar tune and accessories to its use in the Taurus and that the weight of the naturally aspirated V6 in the taurus is close to that of the Mustang (these are huge assumptions), an Ecoboost Mustang would weight about 3605+165=3770 lbs (so, about the same as the 5.0 V8) and put out 365+ bhp. Assuming generously that it's tuned for 10% higher output than its application in the SHO, that's still only like 400 hp, or the equivalent to about 350 hp at the wheels. I wanted to be excited, but what advantage does this offer over the 5.0 Mustnag? Looks like minimal difference in weight, increased complexity from the TT system. Will it offer better fuel economy? I'm no engineer so this is only my wild speculation here.
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2011 22:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 08:04 |
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Assuming generously that it's tuned for 10% higher output than its application in the SHO, that's still only like 400 hp, or the equivalent to about 350 hp at the wheels. They can put out way more power if they want. It's the same issue with the first SVO -- how to balance against the GT in terms of price/performance. Also, they could probably develop a single turbo EcoBoost V6, right? Dunno if R&D would outcost parts savings.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2011 23:33
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:I wanted to be excited, but what advantage does this offer over the 5.0 Mustnag? Looks like minimal difference in weight, increased complexity from the TT system. Will it offer better fuel economy? I'm no engineer so this is only my wild speculation here. To me the advantage is easy power. A boost controller, tune, and exhaust = V8 stomping.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2011 23:40
|
|
|
Just ecoboost the V8 and the problem is solved.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2011 23:53
|
|
|
I'm considering getting an axle-back exhaust for the Shelby, purely for sound, and my top choices are SLP Loud Mouth and Magnaflow Competition Series. Pros/cons for each? My friend Matt has the SLP on his WS6 Trans Am, and I've heard the Magnaflow on their own website, and I like both. The SLP is like $200 cheaper, but is the quality $200 worse?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2011 23:59
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:They can put out way more power if they want. It's the same issue with the first SVO -- how to balance against the GT in terms of price/performance. Sorry, I'll stop with the benchracing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2011 00:29
|
|
|
frozenphil posted:I'm pretty sure I said this a year or two ago in the old Mustang thread. I've correctly predicted every special edition and every single engine Ford has put in a Mustang since the 2001 Cobra. I'm friggen Kreskin up in here! Well then, let me personally thank you for wishing into existence the best Mustang available since the old Terminator. Now, all that I have to do is, come up with the money and wait...
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2011 01:47
|
|
|
oRenj9 posted:Well then, let me personally thank you for wishing into existence the best Mustang available since the old Terminator. Now, all that I have to do is, come up with the money and wait... The correct thing to do is ask frozenphil to predict a Mustang with a thousand horsepower that costs about a hundred dollars and gets 100 miles to the gallon, and is free to insure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2011 02:00
|
|
|
Elephanthead posted:Just ecoboost the V8 and the problem is solved. Weren't there rumors about the (now current) GT500 doing this to the Coyote, and having the engine named Roadrunner? Maybe they'll implement the idea next refresh.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2011 02:04
|
|
|
Killbot posted:Weren't there rumors about the (now current) GT500 doing this to the Coyote, and having the engine named Roadrunner? Maybe they'll implement the idea next refresh. There were rumors, but (I believe) Roadrunner ended up being the Boss 302 version of the 5.0. I believe the internal codename for the next GT500 mill is 'Trinity'. But there are a ton of rumors on just what the next GT500 engine could be, none I'd place my own money on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2011 02:13
|
|
|
Q_res posted:But there are a ton of rumors on just what the next GT500 engine could be, none I'd place my own money on. I'd put dollars to doughnuts that we see a special edition with the BOSS 429 name and a big block modular soon. If not a special edition, maybe even the GT500 itself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2011 05:15
|
|
|
Imperador do Brasil posted:I'm considering getting an axle-back exhaust for the Shelby, purely for sound, and my top choices are SLP Loud Mouth and Magnaflow Competition Series. Pros/cons for each? My friend Matt has the SLP on his WS6 Trans Am, and I've heard the Magnaflow on their own website, and I like both. The SLP is like $200 cheaper, but is the quality $200 worse? Although I've never heard one on a Shelby, the SLP seems like it would be easy to get sick of.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2011 05:18
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:I wanted to be excited, but what advantage does this offer over the 5.0 Mustnag? Looks like minimal difference in weight, increased complexity from the TT system. Will it offer better fuel economy? I'm no engineer so this is only my wild speculation here. I could guarantee that the EcoBoost Mustang would get better mileage than the Duratec in the 2011. If the EcoBoost was fitted to the base spec car in a low output tune, every Mustang sold will improve the brands MPG figures. That is only going to get more important as time goes on, with the incoming mileage standards.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2011 12:17
|
|
|
frozenphil posted:I'd put dollars to doughnuts that we see a special edition with the BOSS 429 name and a big block modular soon. If not a special edition, maybe even the GT500 itself. This wouldn't surprise me at all, actually. The latest one I've heard though, is a stroked 5.8L Coyote with a TVS blower. Think, literally, 5.0:4.6::5.8:5.4 not sure how much stock I'm willing to put in that. On the other hand, this is the same person that told me the 5.0 would be 400+ hp back when Motor Trend was still predicting HP in the mid 300s.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2011 13:24
|
|
|
Q_res posted:This wouldn't surprise me at all, actually. The latest one I've heard though, is a stroked 5.8L Coyote with a TVS blower. Think, literally, 5.0:4.6::5.8:5.4 not sure how much stock I'm willing to put in that. On the other hand, this is the same person that told me the 5.0 would be 400+ hp back when Motor Trend was still predicting HP in the mid 300s. I'd much rather have a twin turbo DI Coyote in whatever the next GT500 level car is but it's all speculation anyway. When I bought my GT last October the dealer told me something interesting about the marketing situation for the Mustang. He told me, according to ford the 30+ demographic wanted V8s but the under 24 market was completely disinterested in hearing anything about V8's and what was most interesting was that the cutoff was so sharp. Those under 24 year olds are within a few years of becoming Ford's target market for the upmarket Mustangs and they know it. It seems to me that Ford's marketing department has a whiff of an idea that the younger generation won't be looking at V8s at all. I suspect that you won't see the V8 go away for a quite a while but you'll be seeing a lot higher performance V6's coming down the pipe that nip a lot closer to the V8 than anyone is predicting. You'll probably end up with a lineup something like -Mustang value leader, V6 geared for gas millage with standard makeup case and cloth seats -Mustang Pony Pack - What the V6 should've been before it got neutered -Some new designation for a twin turbo V6, 400+ HP. I seriously hope it's something better than SVO -GT with 450+ HP for about the same price -Ludicrous 550+ HP model for the guys willing to spend 55k+ on a Mustang, I'm looking at Imperador 
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2011 15:06
|
|
|
Parabellum posted:I could guarantee that the EcoBoost Mustang would get better mileage than the Duratec in the 2011. If the EcoBoost was fitted to the base spec car in a low output tune, every Mustang sold will improve the brands MPG figures. I have trouble believing Ford would be able to considerably out-perform their current 31 MPG figure, even with a four-pot. The problem is that there are so many wheel/tire packages that will drop MPG considerably when purchased. I'm pretty sure the standard packages is about the best you can get for low rolling resistance. Then again, maybe we will see a four cylinder hybrid Mustang. Though, I'm not sure how feasible it would be for Ford to convert their current setup to RWD. However, they are probably going to undertake the task of a RWD real hybrid system for the future F series lineup, so it would make sense for them to use the Mustang as a test-bed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2011 16:03
|
|
|
Q_res posted:This wouldn't surprise me at all, actually. The latest one I've heard though, is a stroked 5.8L Coyote with a TVS blower. Think, literally, 5.0:4.6::5.8:5.4 not sure how much stock I'm willing to put in that. On the other hand, this is the same person that told me the 5.0 would be 400+ hp back when Motor Trend was still predicting HP in the mid 300s. I can't see Ford using anything other than the 6.2L simply due to how much racing R&D they put into that engine with Don Bowles and others. The drat thing just needs a stroker crank and rods to hit 7+ liters of displacement. Don's car was called 777 because it had 7 liters, made 700hp, and spun to 7k RPMs, all naturally aspirated and on E85. Take a look at the valvetrain in the 6.2. The thing is currently configured to be stable up to 8k RPMs and utilize direct injection.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2011 16:59
|
|
|
kronix posted:You'll probably end up with a lineup something like Thank you folks, I'll be here all week.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2011 20:54
|
|
|
frozenphil posted:I can't see Ford using anything other than the 6.2L simply due to how much racing R&D they put into that engine with Don Bowles and others. The drat thing just needs a stroker crank and rods to hit 7+ liters of displacement. Don's car was called 777 because it had 7 liters, made 700hp, and spun to 7k RPMs, all naturally aspirated and on E85. Take a look at the valvetrain in the 6.2. The thing is currently configured to be stable up to 8k RPMs and utilize direct injection. I thought from the beginning Ford has said the Coyote is build for DI and ecoboost. It'd make sense if they used it at some point right? Obviously you have a better track record than me but I can't believe we're in the era of 7 liter anything anymore outside of exotics and race cars. To me smaller, lighter, and boosted is the way we're hitting big power numbers from now on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2011 21:20
|
|
|
kronix posted:I thought from the beginning Ford has said the Coyote is build for DI and ecoboost. It'd make sense if they used it at some point right? The top tier Mustang, whatever its name is, has always been about ridiculous excess. Ford needs something to differentiate the GT500 from the regular GT and with the 5.4 going away I don't see any other choice outside of the 6.2. I mean, when all is said and done the GT500 is still a $55k Mustang. The people interested in paying for a Mustang at that price point want something that will allow them to smug other drivers to death at the local cruise in. I know for a fact that Ford has a twin turbo 5.0 in a mule car right now; I've seen it with my own two eyes. Last I heard the engineers are trying to find a way to make less than 600hp with it but are having trouble with drivability issues. Apparently they have to use such small turbos to stay efficient with the tiny amount of boost they need to stay under 600hp (4psi or so) that they are getting all 600hp nearly off idle; full boost is hit at something retarded like 2500 RPM. I'm sure they can do tricks like wastegate controllers and such to make it more linear, but at what price point is such an engine viable outside of the top tier? Basically, I just don't see the market for a twin turbo 5.0 at all. Yeah, it would be cool as gently caress, but I just don't see where it would fit in the market.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2011 23:42
|
|
|
frozenphil posted:I know for a fact that Ford has a twin turbo 5.0 in a mule car right now; I've seen it with my own two eyes. Last I heard the engineers are trying to find a way to make less than 600hp with it but are having trouble with drivability issues. Apparently they have to use such small turbos to stay efficient with the tiny amount of boost they need to stay under 600hp (4psi or so) that they are getting all 600hp nearly off idle; full boost is hit at something retarded like 2500 RPM. I'm sure they can do tricks like wastegate controllers and such to make it more linear, but at what price point is such an engine viable outside of the top tier? Have you heard the same rumors I have, that the next Mustang platform was being designed to accept an AWD system?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2011 00:01
|
|
|
Q_res posted:Have you heard the same rumors I have, that the next Mustang platform was being designed to accept an AWD system? Yeah, but I seriously doubt that we'll be seeing an AWD Mustang...ever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2011 00:06
|
|
|
Baby steps, let's get that rear end up to at least 80's technology levels first.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2011 06:59
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:Baby steps, let's get that rear end up to at least 80's technology levels first. You pay a little too much attention to what a trio of British comedians have to say about car technology.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2011 07:00
|
|
|
AWD with a live axle would be pretty weird, you have to admit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2011 08:27
|
|
|
CombatWombat posted:AWD with a live axle would be pretty weird, you have to admit. Just slap a suspension from a full-time 4wd Cherokee under there with limited-slip differentials 
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2011 08:28
|
|
|
You caught me before I added "for a sports car." I know about the Jeeps.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2011 08:29
|
|
|
The live axle works, but it is a bit odd to include it on a car that costs $50k. And the S197 chassis was designed for an IRS to begin with, it's just that it never got one. I hear it was tested and everything, and was even pretty lightweight. A lot of the Mustang's rear suspension shortcomings can be solved with decent dampers. As for ride quality, my Mustang with Koni sports rides better than my coworker's Genesis coupe. But if the Mustang is getting a new platform, they may as well give the Mustang the IRS journos have been griping for for decades.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2011 09:34
|
|
|
Ford decided that IRS was not worth increasing the cost of the car $2000. That is the only reason. Now that Ford is no longer the prison bitch of automobile manufacturers, that might change.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2011 15:33
|
|
|
Why on Earth would Ford put an IRS in the Mustang when 90%+ of potential Mustang buyers do not want an IRS or even know what an IRS is? It's a ridiculous argument to make and is only made by people who would never buy a Mustang anyway who are just looking for something to knock.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2011 15:50
|
|
|
Would it really cost $2000?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2011 15:53
|
|
|
CharlesM posted:Would it really cost $2000? The fancy stereo is a $2500 option so I'm going to say yeah, that's probably about right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2011 15:58
|
|
|
It ended up costing them money to put the solid rear on the chassis anyways. I dunno phil, that's like saying 90%+ of potential Mustang buyers don't care what TiVCT does or how many liters are in the engine. If you're talking about the lowest common denominator Mustang shopper, then perhaps. Are we talking about the car as lowest common denominator enthusiasts?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2011 16:52
|
|
|
It has a few distinct advantages over an independent suspension. It's part of the mustang package, don't know why people would want to cherry pick features from a completely different car.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2011 17:33
|
|
|
Killbot posted:It ended up costing them money to put the solid rear on the chassis anyways. The difference is people clamored for, wanted, and are now buying in droves the car with the "ancient" suspension set up. Yeah some journalists want a nice IRS system...but honestly, if it's not broke, don't fix it. 95% of the people who buy the car, don't care whats under it. Out of the remaining 5%, I'd say 4.5 of it is people who want to go as fast in a straight line as possible. Why add the IRS for such a small percentage of people when it's obvious it's not hurting sales or performance, in the way that the Mustang is generally used?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2011 17:39
|
|
|
Killbot posted:It ended up costing them money to put the solid rear on the chassis anyways. Here's what I'm saying regarding IRS in the Mustang in a nutshell. The average Mustang buyer is buying the v6. They want a sporty looking car that looks cool and is reliable, but above all, is cheap. They are never going to push their car hard enough on the street to find the limits of the solid axle. Adding an IRS to appease people who would never buy a Mustang anyway just raises the price for the majority of people who would buy a Mustang; likely turning them off of the car and toward the competition. It just doesn't make sense. The other group of people who buy Mustangs with a v8 are vastly, vastly more likely to take their car to a drag strip than a road course. There isn't a single reason to use an IRS on the drag strip over a solid axle. None. So tell me again, why in the world would Ford put a more expensive suspension in a car when the majority of potential owners aren't willing to pay the price premium for it, and the rest of the potential owners don't want it? I understand that magazine writers and people who feel the need to caress their dash to feel the supple plastic in their teutonic machines scoff at the idea of a live axle, but these people would never buy a Mustang in the first place. What does Ford have to gain by pandering to them?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2011 17:43
|
|
|
frozenphil posted:Here's what I'm saying regarding IRS in the Mustang in a nutshell. The average Mustang buyer is buying the v6. They want a sporty looking car that looks cool and is reliable, but above all, is cheap. They are never going to push their car hard enough on the street to find the limits of the solid axle. Adding an IRS to appease people who would never buy a Mustang anyway just raises the price for the majority of people who would buy a Mustang; likely turning them off of the car and toward the competition. It just doesn't make sense. I went from a 2002 subaru WRX to a 2005 mustang GT, both manual transmission, and I felt the mustang handled better. I took both cars to their limits and spun them both out a couple different times. I could go much, much faster in the gt and felt it was the better handler. Both were stock. Besides with the stock panhard bar and a watts linkage and the suspension kits from FRPP wouldn't you have a hell of a handler anyways?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2011 20:19
|
|
|
The gt regularly outruns the Sti and evo on car and driver's lightning lap, so it sure better feel faster than a WRX.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2011 20:41
|
|
|
frozenphil posted:What really summed it up for me was an article Motor Trend did on a pre-production 2010 Mustang with the handling package Ford was working on at the time. Motor Trend gushed about how well the car handled, how amazed they were with what Ford managed to squeeze out of the solid-axle. Even that it outhandled the Camaro. They then concluded the article by stating they wished Ford would update to an IRS, and offered literally no reasoning for it other than wanting it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2011 22:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 08:04 |
|
|
Q_res posted:What really summed it up for me was an article Motor Trend did on a pre-production 2010 Mustang with the handling package Ford was working on at the time. Motor Trend gushed about how well the car handled, how amazed they were with what Ford managed to squeeze out of the solid-axle. Even that it outhandled the Camaro. They then concluded the article by stating they wished Ford would update to an IRS, and offered literally no reasoning for it other than wanting it. That's been pretty much every magazines response to it. Ford finally did an amazing thing, and now everyone is just whinging for the sake of doing so. For what the car is, there is NO POINT to sticking an IRS under it. Man, if this car gets much drat better it's gonna be really hard to not make a Bad Life Decision in a couple years....
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2011 22:44
|
|