2011 Mustang GT 5.0

[Onslaught]

Hardly--the GT500, and all Mustangs, are constructed much more solidly and out of much better materials than any of the Camaro models, and offer much better options too (SYNC > OnStar, for instance).  Camaros do offer nice stripes-&-emblems packages, though!

As someone who has worked on Fords for over 16 years I can tell you that this ^^^^ statement is full of shit.

[GoCougs]

As someone who has worked on Fords for over 16 years I can tell you that this ^^^^ statement is full of shit.

Nethead there knows that, especially for the current generation; the Zeta chassis is literally a generation newer/better than the older DEW98 derivative the Mustang rides on (which hearkens back to the Linclon LS of the '90s).

Plus it's kinda funny the fanboyism has stooped so low so as to be talking of solidity and quality of materials in trying to justify the teeny incremental gain in performance of the GT500 in light of its ~50% cost premium over the base Camaro SS.

[SVT666]

Nethead there knows that, especially for the current generation; the Zeta chassis is literally a generation newer/better than the older DEW98 derivative the Mustang rides on (which hearkens back to the Linclon LS of the '90s).

If it's so good it wouldn't be so heavy and would handle better.

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

Plus it's kinda funny the fanboyism has stooped so low so as to be talking of solidity and quality of materials in trying to justify the teeny incremental gain in performance of the GT500 in light of its ~50% cost premium over the base Camaro SS.

I've been saying the same thing all year.

So basically minor differences for thousands more. 

Tens of thousands more! 

[ChrisV]

Nethead there knows that, especially for the current generation; the Zeta chassis is literally a generation newer/better than the older DEW98 derivative the Mustang rides on (which hearkens back to the Linclon LS of the '90s).

Plus it's kinda funny the fanboyism has stooped so low so as to be talking of solidity and quality of materials in trying to justify the teeny incremental gain in performance of the GT500 in light of its ~50% cost premium over the base Camaro SS.

Two things..

One, this is a thread about the 3600 lb GT with 412 hp, which will still cost less than the SS, and two, saying the new Mustang is a Lincoln LS is about as accurate as saying the chassis dates back to the '60 Falcon.

[Onslaught]

Onslaught:  OK, dude, explain this:

http://jalopnik.com/5437915/chevy-camaro-drops-ghetto-brake-weights

Smirk!    Only GM...

Gm makes fuck ups. They all make some big fuck ups.
Would you like me to list some of the Ford fuck ups I've had to fix over the years as warranty jobs?
Even the ones on you're beloved Mustang?

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

Gm makes fuck ups. They all make some big fuck ups.
Would you like me to list some of the Ford fuck ups I've had to fix over the years as warranty jobs?
Even the ones on you're beloved Mustang?

List the ones about the cruise control units that catch fire. And I garuntee that you don't have enuff space to post all of the problems the Focus had!

[CALL_911]

Wow, I really would like one of these.

[Catman]

Jesus, this thread is exhausting.   

[S204STi]

[the Teuton]

[ChrisV]

Was talking with a guy that does engine software development with the majors, and he was relating that Ford's already seen 440-450 crank hp reliably with just a tune on the 5.0 running 93 octane. The stock headers, while excellent, are still restrictive. he says this motor needs 1 3/4" primaries and aftermarket 300cpi high flow cats or off-road mids vs an OEM 500-600cpi met. cat. to see major gains. The potential is there for 500 N/A crank hp without getting inside the engine...

[SVT666]

Was talking with a guy that does engine software development with the majors, and he was relating that Ford's already seen 440-450 crank hp reliably with just a tune on the 5.0 running 93 octane. The stock headers, while excellent, are still restrictive. he says this motor needs 1 3/4" primaries and aftermarket 300cpi high flow cats or off-road mids vs an OEM 500-600cpi met. cat. to see major gains. The potential is there for 500 N/A crank hp without getting inside the engine...

TOWELS...I NEED TOWELS!!!

[omicron]

As for Ford Australia, the local arm has confirmed that the 'Coyote' will power the Falcon's V8 variants after July of this year, at which time those variants must comply with the upcoming Euro IV-based emissions standard. Ford President Marin Burela had previously hinted that the V8 sporty sedan variant would remain in the lineup until such time as customers stopped buying it.

The Carsales Network asked Sinead McAlary for an update on Coyote for the XR8 this morning. McAlary, Ford Australia's Communications Manager, responded that she was limited in what she could say at this time, but did confirm that the XR8 models would continue with an engine from the Coyote family.

"You will see engines from that family of engines in our local line-up," she said, but further advised that she was not in a position to provide any additional information. She did however insinuate that the engine(s) for the Australian-built cars -- including the FPV models -- would not necessarily match the Mustang engine in all specs. In other words, power and torque delivery could be different for Australia.

Asked whether the new engine is physically smaller than the current Boss engines powering XR8 and FPV models, McAlary advised that she was expecting a full briefing on that during her sojourn to Detroit for the North American International Auto Show next week. With its aluminium block, the Coyote V8 will undoubtedly be lighter than the current Falcon V8 powerplants, and it may also provide a lower centre of gravity, as well as being easier to service from the point of view of accessibility. All of that taken into account, expect suspension calibration and steering geometry changes for the new engine. Given its development for the Mustang -- a passenger car -- the more compact architecture would seem to be a given. But if the engine is physically smaller, will it lend itself to larger-displacement configurations?

'5.8' would be a nice number for the badge at the rear...

http://www.carpoint.com.au/news/2010/large-passenger/ford/falcon/ford-reveals-new-v8-17839

[SVT666]

ChrisV:  It's good to know people!  And it's good to get 440-450 HP at the crank with just a reflash!  While it is splendid that the stock 5.0's shortie headers are welded (stainless?) steel tubes, they aren't stepped long-tube headers and thus place some limits upon the engine's power in stock form.
And full-warranty OEM cataclysmic perverters can't flow like the aftermarket performance cats, but those who want that extra power will hit the aftermarket catalogs as soon as their budgets permit--FRPP could rake in some big bucks offering upgrades to stepped long-tubes, full-flow cats, and a reflash to match!  Especially since they have the dimensional specs of the cylinder heads and the engine compartment clearances right there, right now!  

Shelby's people are considering a G.T. 350 resurrection with the 5.0 that could break out of the gate quickly with such power available from such simple mods, but there's that dilemma of the EcoBoost 3.5L V6 that offers lotsa oomph totally "as is", and could exceed the 5.0's N/A power with some boost-bumping and a reflash--probably on nothing but OEM EcoBoost parts (although every tuner MUST have their own CAI--you probably get your tuner license suspended if you wuss out and use the factory hardware ).  For its part, Ford says a twin-turbo 5.0 GT500 isn't feasible in the current Mustang's engine compartment, so Shelby's folks have the enviable dilemma of:
(A) Offering an EcoBoost V6 version (dropped in "as is" except for mods that might be required by the longitudinal engine position within the engine compartment--exhaust clearance of the steering gear, for one)
(B) Offering a 5.0L with sufficient N/A power mods to perform significantly better than the 5.0 Mustang GT
(C) Offering an EcoBoost V6 version ("as is" or enhanced)  AND  a supercharged or single-turbocharged 5.0 version.  The natural order of things would designate the V6 a "GT350" and the V8 a "GT500", but the possibilities here are such that Shelby may break with the traditional nomenclature and call 'em somethin' else.  I like "Terlingua" for the V6, although a "standard" EcoBoost V6 version could be a "GT350" and a much-enhanced EcoBoost version (Shelby CAI, air-to-water intercooler, aftermarket cats/headers (from Borla, Shelby' exhaust system supplier), reflash, and all the suspension/wheel/tire upgrades) could be a "Terlingua".  

The V8 issue is complex:  There's the new 5.0L, but there's the current 5.4L which is now available with an aluminum block and should up the GT500's ponycar dominance still further in all aspects.  Decisions, decisions.  The Nethead here ain't a Shelby insider so I don't know what brews in the GT500 pot.  I should be a Shelby insider , but I don't know people so there it is.

I've seen plenty of twin turbo V8 Mustangs, so I think they are just making excuses for not having the R&D money to develop it.

[SVT666]

That's one of the most beautiful intake manifolds produced today.

[hotrodalex]

That's one of the most beautiful intake manifolds produced today.

Ha, I thought it looks kinda odd. Same with the headers.

[nickdrinkwater]

I want a Mustang.

[S204STi]

87 octane with an 11.1:1 compression ratio? Nice.

[Cobra93]

87 octane with an 11.1:1 compression ratio? Nice.

I wonder if that's why it appears to have a steel insert for the top ring.

[S204STi]

I wonder if that's why it appears to have a steel insert for the top ring.

That does seem like a very thick ring, but I'm not sure how that would relate to that.  IRDumb.

[SVT666]

The first picture is with the plastic shroud, and the second picture is without it.  Hey nickdrinkwater, how is this "odd"?

[Cobra93]

That does seem like a very thick ring, but I'm not sure how that would relate to that.  IRDumb.

The ring isn't thick. The piston has a steel insert in the top ring land for the top ring. I've seen that before, but only in some heavy duty engines.

[S204STi]

The ring isn't thick. The piston has a steel insert in the top ring land for the top ring. I've seen that before, but only in some heavy duty engines.

Oh, I see. The insert is there to reinforce the ringland then.

[nickdrinkwater]

The first picture is with the plastic shroud, and the second picture is without it.  Hey nickdrinkwater, how is this "odd"?

Because it's a big powerful V8 and I'm used to is sub 1.6l 4-cyl shitboxes?

[SVT666]

Because it's a big powerful V8 and I'm used to is sub 1.6l 4-cyl shitboxes?

[omicron]

omicron:  OmiDude, stuff I've read says the 5.0L "Coyote" (a pre-production nickname, AFAIK--Ford will apparently just call it "the Five-Point-Oh") will likely be limited to five liters--or very close to it. To save costs Ford reportedly went with the bore spacing of the current 5.4 (probably so that cylinder boring equipment could be used "as is") instead of a larger bore spacing that would have allowed larger bore diameters later on. Stroking may still be an option, but the nearly square dimensions of the new 5.0L's cylinders may limit that unless a raised-deck-height block is introduced down the road.

Not unheard of with local Fords, which is why V8 Falcons have the bonnet bulge. Still, it would probably defeat the purpose of an all-new engine to bring back one of the limitations of the current 5.4 - the surprising lack of space in the engine bay. In this era of One Ford, it's probably unlikely that Ford Australia will be allowed to scurry off on a tangent of its own - more likely they'll go down the same route as a GT500 and employ supercharging (or are turbos earmarked for the upper-spec Mustangs?).

[SVT666]

HEMI666:  'Could be.  Development costs might be high for a limited-volume application, especially if the next Mustang does in fact keep the outer surfaces of the tires/wheels/fenders as widely apart as they are now, but the cabin will be narrowed to only one inch wider than that of a Focus--which makes for a very bold stance with the wheels & tires and the fenders that cover them sticking out so far from the body of the car (the early Turbo 911 look?) but cuts the engine compartment room greatly I should think.  'No need to develop the twin-turbo hardware if it'll be obsoleted after just two model years when the width of the wheels/tires/fenders stays the same but the rest of the car shrinks around it to the tune of three hundred pounds in the coupes, although the three-point-something percent setback of the V8/6-speeds may open up some room aft of the inner wheelwells that's not there in the current S197...This sounds to me like Ford intends to go to '65 Mustang GT general dimension and appearance but with really wide fender flares to cover the wide stance (and which supposedly will make it possible to fit gynormous width tires legally within these "Turbo 911ish" fender flares.  Supposedly, the full fastback will have sort of an RX8 roof profile to allow a more upright backseat stance that retains/increases the rear seat length and foot room on the '65 Mustang GT overall dimensions (excepting the width, of course, which matches the S197 or is possibly a half inch wider still at the fender flare lips).  

Photoshoppers, get to work!

Actually, I think I just figured it out.  The new 6.2L will be massaged to over 500 hp for the GT500.  Thereby being lighter then the current car and still get the big power.  I'm still trying to figure out why Ford developed a 6.2L V8 with the same power rating as the 5.0L if more powerful versions aren't in the books.

[the Teuton]

I'm trying to figure out if the next Mustang and Falcon will share a platform. I hope so.

[GoCougs]

The 6.2L was developed to replace the gas 6.8L V10 in Ford's SuperDuty and commercial duty vehicles. Be very surprised if you find it in factory car from Ford anytime soon.