2010 Mustang 5.0 Specs

So what do you think?... Let's hope this thing weight as much as the Camaro :(:|

The word out on the street regarding the next Ford Mustang engine lineup is that the 5.0 liter is set to return very soon.

Dubbed the "Coyote", this speculated engine is a TiVCT 32v motor, producing 400 hp / 375 tq, is an aluminum block, has a 11:1 compression ratio, and the top end is capped at 7,000 RPM. Some sources say that this new powerplant will replace the current 3v 4.6 liter found in the 2005 - 2009 Mustang.

Rumblings also indicate that this motor will be crafted at Ford’s Essex Engine Plant in Windsor, Ontario. The only jagged edge on this dreamy cloud is the strong compression ratio: many Mustang fans of contemporary times love to run boost on their stock components. If the Coyote comes to fruition, we could expect to see more bottles of giggle gas at the track and less whining...from the Mustang at least.

Rumor Mill Rundown on the "Coyote"

TiVCT 32 valve

Aluminum block

400 horsepower

375 ft-lb of torque

11:1 compression ratio

7,000 redline

How much will it cost?

They finally caught up to the LS2.....

I wonder if this motor will end up in the next gen, smaller, lighter Mustang?

It is about 3650lbs and Ford has stated that they are trying to trim 100lbs from it. 5.0, 6 speed wont show up until 2011 model year, unless someone (Mulally or Billy jr) decides to come out with a 2010 model midyear special edition (early calender year 2010) and stick the new drivetrain in it.

I am curious about the height, width, weight, length, and bore stroke dimensions of this engine.

I am curious about the height, width, weight, length, and bore stroke dimensions of this engine.

Probably gonna be another square engine, and if I had to guess look for something midway between the 4.6 and 5.4 in dimensions (but closer to the 4.6)

How much will it cost?

They finally caught up to the LS2.....

Caught up? Funny I didn't hear anything about GM's kick ass 450hp 5.3 yet?

Caught up? Funny I didn't hear anything about GM's kick ass 450hp 5.3 yet?


HP per liter is ricer math.

Vaporware till I see it.
Ford has promised a lot of magical powertrains, and has yet to show it.
400hp out of a 5.0 engine, 11:1 compression (byebye regular octane) aint gunna happen without some serious increase in the price of the car.
And even if this is true, the engine lacks the torque that the Camaro and Challenger will have plenty of.

Vaporware till I see it.
And even if this is true, the engine lacks the torque that the Camaro and Challenger will have plenty of.

Exactly.

And even if this is true, the engine lacks the torque that the Camaro and Challenger will have plenty of.

I think proper gearing and it weighing less will more than make up for whatever difference. And 375lb-ft isn't exactly lacking. That's within 20lb-ft of the L99 and 25lb-ft of the Ls3.

HP per liter is ricer math.

:lol:

Caught up? Funny I didn't hear anything about GM's kick ass 450hp 5.3 yet?This is a joke. Right?

Haven't we covered this stuff many times over? Considering the fact that the 4.6L is physically as large / larger (and no more fuel efficient, if not less efficient) than the mighty 436 hp 6.2L LS3, the HP/L argument is pretty much worthless...

It would be wonderful if Ford could pull this off. The engineers have been wanting to put sweet powertrains in the GT's for a while but the damn accountants keep killing them.

I'd like to see that.

Ask anyone who has a 99+ GT what is the best mod for these cars is and it should be a unanimous answer of GEARS!!!! With a 7k redline a steep gear will be in short order.

doesn't matter when the challenger and camaro are 3900++
Challenger: yes
Camaro: no
:p

HP per liter is ricer math.

Yes, trot out that tired line, but I dont remeber saying "if Ford made a 6.3 with 80hp/L it would make 506hp"

I suppose they could have gone the GM/DC route with a 6+ liter 400hp engine for the base V8, but I'm glad they didn't. At least if the engine materializes in the '11 GT it will be nice to hear people switch gears from "Ford needs to use FI to get 400hp to Ford needs .4 extra displacment and 32 valves to get 400hp".

400hp out of a 5.0 engine, 11:1 compression (byebye regular octane) aint gunna happen without some serious increase in the price of the car..

Probably will be a pricey little engine (still cheaper proably than the FI 5.4) but its going in a 5 year old chassis that exceeded Fords own sales estimates so I'm sure they can use that to thier advantage in the price game.

doesn't matter when the challenger and camaro are 3900++

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Some people were very vocal about Camaro having to get IRS, but that's part of the reason why the Camaro is heavier. I'll be curious to see which way the market goes vis-a-vis simpler, lighter solid axle versus heavier, more sophisticated IRS.

Of course, there's a lot more to the equation, so we won't really know.

If Ford manages to bring this puppy in at 3550 pounds and 400hp, I'll be surprised (and very happy for Ford).

I just hope they realize that if they keep reducing weight by cheaping out on interior (which it looks like they're gonna) and no IRS (which it looks like they're gonna) that they will continue to be thought of as outclassed by cars like the Camaro, even if they are lighter and slightly quicker. I just doubt GM will let them have a speed advantage for long if it happens.

How much will it cost?

They finally caught up to the LS2.....

Being that we're talking about a 5.0 liter engine versus a 6.2 liter engine both putting out the same horsepower, I'd say Ford did alot more than simply catch up to the LS2.... or LS3 for that matter. :lol:



I wonder if this motor will end up in the next gen, smaller, lighter Mustang?

At the moment there is no smaller lighter Mustang being developed at Ford.


HP per liter is ricer math.

No, it's the math that people who can actually count and understand as well as comprehend displacement (or at least understand that 5 is less than 6.2) use.


This is a joke. Right?

Haven't we covered this stuff many times over? Considering the fact that the 4.6L is physically as large / larger (and no more fuel efficient, if not less efficient) than the mighty 436 hp 6.2L LS3, the HP/L argument is pretty much worthless...

But that Hemi sized 4.6 IS actually lighter than an LS2..... and by association, most probably the LS3 as well.



doesn't matter when the challenger and camaro are 3900++

Exactly. :bow:


I just hope they realize that if they keep reducing weight by cheaping out on interior (which it looks like they're gonna) and no IRS (which it looks like they're gonna) that they will continue to be thought of as outclassed by cars like the Camaro, even if they are lighter and slightly quicker. I just doubt GM will let them have a speed advantage for long if it happens.

The Mustang GT will run about $26K. The Camaro SS will run at $30K.
The Mustang GT will weigh about 3500 pounds, the Camaro SS 3900.
The Mustang GT will have 400 horsepower in 2011. The SS, 422.

You say GM won't let them have that speed advantage for long.
What? Do you actually think Ford is going to sit still?

I've said this at least a dozen times here in the past 6 months. Ford in general, and Team Mustang in particular isn't running the same program they ran 10 years ago. These guys are playing serious... and Ford's behind them this time!

Meh, I'll believe it when when Ford actually publishes the specs for the engine and car. Regardless, for two similar cars with similar price tags (I highly doubt GM will be so stupid as to charge $4k more for the V8 :think:), I'll go for the one that looks better: the Camaro.

All that said, I sincerely hope that Ford is able to produce a kick ass 400hp, 3600 lbs. Mustang. Competition improves the breed, and that will only mean an even better Camaro down the road. :D

Meh, I'll believe it when when Ford actually publishes the specs for the engine and car.

I agree completely. Rumors of this 5.0 have been circulating for years now, and I believe the latest gossip before this thread was concerning Ford being content with the 4.6 until the EcoBoost motors arrive. It's all hearsay until something substantial is released.

Well fine if its such a shining achievment to get 400 hp with less liters than the LSX motors, than how about making MORE than 400 hp with only 16 valves, 1 cam and worthless pushrods? Can you count and comprehend that guy?

But it takes GM 6.2L to make 400+hp ...pfffff... :lol:
I kid, the LSx's are nice engines.

Ford is serious about the 5.0L.
Guy hit the nail on the head.
It has the weight card on its side, as well as 5.0L engine when it comes out.
It's also on the lighter side of what we'll see this engine capable of in its various configurations in the future (F150 torquey engine not withstanding)

ford always tries to talk a big game, and when the game starts they always have their weiner between their legs, hence the so called "hurricane motor":yes::yes::lol:;):bs::bs::shrug::shrug::no::Owned: :Owned:

Being that we're talking about a 5.0 liter engine versus a 6.2 liter engine both putting out the same horsepower, I'd say Ford did alot more than simply catch up to the LS2.... or LS3 for that matter. :lol:No, they'll have caught up when their engine offers 422 or 436 hp. 400 hp = LS2, hence the "caught up" statement. And it is still down on torque. Size, weight, packaging, cost, and efficiency are what matter. Not piston displacement. I think we've covered this, haven't we? No, it's the math that people who can actually count and understand as well as comprehend displacement (or at least understand that 5 is less than 6.2) use.Fine. Still basically pointless beyond some theoretical / academic exercise. But that Hemi sized 4.6 IS actually lighter than an LS2..... and by association, most probably the LS3 as well. We've seen numbers both ways on this, IIRC. But regardless, if the 4.6L is lighter (and it should be), it isn't lighter by much.The Mustang GT will run about $26K. The Camaro SS will run at $30K.Sources? Well equipped GTs are already well past $26k, at least the last time I looked. And I doubt the price will come down in the coming year or two.The Mustang GT will weigh about 3500 pounds, the Camaro SS 3900.Hard to argue here. Though some have said 3600-3650 for the revised Mustang. As you know, I'm a fan of the Mustang. I love the styling (in and out) and the way the car drives. And I am one who is disappointed in the Camaro's weight (but cautiously optimistic after talking to those who have driven the new one).
The Mustang GT will have 400 horsepower in 2011. The SS, 422.We are talking 2011 now? Who's to say the SS will still only have 422 by then? However, my entry into this thread was specifically about engine output, not necessarily the performance of the overall car (since the lighter Mustang obviously shouldn't need as much power to run with the heavier Camaro). Can't argue with that until they come out and we see tests. I'm just taking issue with the boasting about this 5.0L somehow being the equal or superior of the GM small block. On the other hand, if it really spins to 7K and makes that power, it sounds like an engine I'd love to operate. :yes:

One thing of note, though, despite the seeming hp/mass advantage of the Stang (in 2011!). It seems that whenever I see Saleen, Roush, or other tuner Mustangs, they never seem to be as quick as their claimed HP numbers would indicate. So we'll see how a 400 hp (from the factory, instead of a tuner's claim) Mustang does. I personally like both cars, so a fast Mustang is fine by me. As I've said many times, I personally don't view Ford as the enemy anymore. Toyota is the enemy. :)
You say GM won't let them have that speed advantage for long.
What? Do you actually think Ford is going to sit still?They did for quite some time in the '90s. It took the '03 Cobra to finally have a car that was reliably quicker than the Camaro/Firebird. Then they came out with a new gen Mustang (one that has admittedly sold like gangbusters, and one whose styling I love) that is still a bit behind the LS1 F-cars. Kinda moot, since the F-car died, but Ford has been the slower of the pony cars for a while now, with the exception of the '03/'04 Cobra and the Corvette-priced GT500. :)I've said this at least a dozen times here in the past 6 months. Ford in general, and Team Mustang in particular isn't running the same program they ran 10 years ago. These guys are playing serious... and Ford's behind them this time!Good!

:)

Being that we're talking about a 5.0 liter engine versus a 6.2 liter engine both putting out the same horsepower, I'd say Ford did alot more than simply catch up to the LS2.... or LS3 for that matter. :lol:

LS motors have more torque, better gas mileage, are physically way smaller....

:rolleyes:

I know someone working on the 5.0 Ford engine. It does exist and it is comming. 400hp, 32 valves, 7000 redline. My Bullitt has 3.73 gears with 315hp and a 5 speed. It handles great but makes me think its underpowered and could use another gear. I have a feeling the 2011 Mustang GT is going to be incredible.

Vaporware till I see it.
Ford has promised a lot of magical powertrains, and has yet to show it.
400hp out of a 5.0 engine, 11:1 compression (byebye regular octane) aint gunna happen without some serious increase in the price of the car.
And even if this is true, the engine lacks the torque that the Camaro and Challenger will have plenty of.

Is it SIDI? If so, can't you run 87 octane on an 11:1 cr SIDI engine when you would have to use premium for a non-DI 11:1 cr engine?

I have a feeling the 2011 Mustang GT is going to be incredible.

I have that feeling too.

I know someone working on the 5.0 Ford engine. It does exist and it is comming. 400hp, 32 valves, 7000 redline. My Bullitt has 3.73 gears with 315hp and a 5 speed. It handles great but makes me think its underpowered and could use another gear. I have a feeling the 2011 Mustang GT is going to be incredible.

i still cant believe ford is using 5 speed trannys... if anything thats something they are behind the times on... camaro had a m6 15 years ago... I dont believe this will be the "god" motor that every mustang owner is hoping for either. Sure, we might se a honest 400hp, but i dont see mustang being as light as people are saying in the next gen, and i suspect the awful gearing that plagues mustangs will carry over into this car. I am thinking this new mustang is going to hide its horsepower as much as we have heard the camaro hides its weight, and hp is one thing that is bad when hidden... The mustang guys may be getting "serious", but its taken the svt guys to make the mustang any kind of real serious car ever since the mustang came out of the mustang 2 days...

Speaking of engine weight and Ford mod motors vs. LS2 / LS3, this new engine is a 32V version, so it will now be even bigger, and will likely no longer be lighter than the LSx engines (like the 4.6L SOHC supposedly is). :)

Still, I could handle a 3600 lb, 400 hp Mustang convertible. :)

Meh, I'll believe it when when Ford actually publishes the specs for the engine and car. Regardless, for two similar cars with similar price tags (I highly doubt GM will be so stupid as to charge $4k more for the V8 :think:), I'll go for the one that looks better: the Camaro.


Why do you think charging 4 grand more for the V8 is stupid?

Base V6 4th gens listed for about $18K. 4th gen Z28s started at $22K.
That's a $4,000 more than the V8.
In the Mustang, the V8 is roughly $5K over the V6.
A V8 in the Impala runs $7K over the base model.
In the Charger, it's nearly $10K.

Unless you're buying a Corvette or a Crown Victoria, we've been paying high premiums for V8s for years.

I agree completely. Rumors of this 5.0 have been circulating for years now, and I believe the latest gossip before this thread was concerning Ford being content with the 4.6 until the EcoBoost motors arrive. It's all hearsay until something substantial is released.

How many years ago did you "hear" a rumor about the the 5.0? I've only heard it from ACTUAL Ford people only for about a few months, meaning they've probably been working on it for only about a year or so. There has been a 5.0 racing crate engine out for the past 4 years.

The latest gossip (that was actually grounded in fact) has the Ecoboost V6 coming up in a version of the Mustang, and not as a replacement of the V8.


Well fine if its such a shining achievment to get 400 hp with less liters than the LSX motors, than how about making MORE than 400 hp with only 16 valves, 1 cam and worthless pushrods? Can you count and comprehend that guy?

Lets see...

A 5.3 pushrod engine that gets 303 horsepower.
A 5.0 overhead cam engine that gets 400 horsepower.

400 is more than 300.

A 6.2 liter engine that gets either 395 or 422 horsepower.
A 5.0 liter engine that gets around 400 horsepower.

The number 5 is smaller than the number 6.2. :think:

Yes... I think I comprehend the concept of counting.

Why, do you need some help with that??? :p

At the moment there is no smaller lighter Mustang being developed at Ford.


Yeah, I know. I was referring to the next gen around '13/'14.

Lets see...

A 5.3 pushrod engine that gets 303 horsepower.
A 5.0 overhead cam engine that gets 400 horsepower.

400 is more than 300.

A 6.2 liter engine that gets either 395 or 422 horsepower.
A 5.0 liter engine that gets around 400 horsepower.

The number 5 is smaller than the number 6.2. :think:

Yes... I think I comprehend the concept of counting.

Why, do you need some help with that??? :p422 (and 436) > 400

Cam-in-block LS3 is smaller, lighter, and likely more fuel efficient than a 32V DOHC 5.0L mod V8.

7000 rpm > 6600 rpm, which is cool, but otherwise, LSx still reigns. :)

At the moment there is no smaller lighter Mustang being developed at Ford.
Well now I wouldn't say that... ;) (with exclusive rights to this winky-club via 2 different sources)

Rest of the post is exceptional - as usual.

I wonder if this motor will end up in the next gen, smaller, lighter Mustang?
Mr Farley made a request at the recent National MCA show for folks to start sending him letters on what they want to see in the next Mustang. He is specifically interested in detailed info about chassis, powertrain, body and interior. Not the "I want a sunscreen windveil aquamarine blue teal color-changing paintjob" kind of stuff. He has vowed to answer any questions he can regarding improvements, and has invited an unprecedented "conversation" between the people in the MCA and Team Mustang... so much so that the letters - both to and from - are being published in the Mustang Times Magazine. Mary-Jean Wesche is personally taking-on the task of publishing all the letters sent to her. I can tell you from what got published in this months mailing that weight and size are at least 40% of the inputs so far.:yes:

Other folks inside Ford's walls are on-record at public events as saying that the effort to lighten the future cars is under way. Horbury's comments about tryint to make the 2010 look smaller even though it isn't getting smaller, certainly indicates that he is atuned to the issue as well.


Now back to this 5.0 thing... someone mentioned it has been rumored for years and never shown up. Well, that's kinda true, but kinda not true. There's been a 5.0 variant here for several years, and there are many of them out in the world already - in various FR-series racers and as crate engines bought from Ford Racing. I can assure you they run quote well, displace 5.0, and won't have a problem making the HP numbers quoted.

Put yourself in Ford's shoes... if you had it done, would you simply throw it in the next car available and start selling it to the public, or would you make a pile of dough selling it to racers first, testing it under the most abusive conditions, refining it, and preparing it for mass production roll-out a few years later? I think Ford has done the best thing they could do with the engine program given the existing conditions in the market. I'll be willing to bet you that the mass-produced variant of the 5.0 that we end up with in the future GT will be a bulletproof piece that will deliver all they say it will (and likely a bit more based on their recent track record).

Why show your hand before the final round of bets has been placed on the table by everyone else? :shrug:

Displacement has no value except in bench racing. It pays no dividend on its own in any performance category. If I have an 8 Liter V8 that makes 400 hp and you have a 4 Liter V8 that makes 400 hp and the two engines are the same size, weight and have the same fuel consumption then the only real difference is on paper. If anyone can show me a real world benefit between the two engines I have described then they get a cookie. Ford has been playing catch up and with this engine they have done that and more. GM will be playing catch up but not because of DOHC, or higher hp/L. They will be playing catch up because the Mustang flat out performs the Camaro (if these rumors turn out to be true).

ford always tries to talk a big game, and when the game starts they always have their weiner between their legs, hence the so called "hurricane motor":yes::yes::lol:;):bs::bs::shrug::shrug::no::Owned: :Owned:

Owned, huh?

Do you even know what you're talking about?

If you do and have examples, then post them please, so I don't think I'm talking to a chest beating, self congratulating cheerleader.

Try a few more smileys next time... you don't have enough.

No, they'll have caught up when their engine offers 422 or 436 hp. 400 hp = LS2, hence the "caught up" statement. And it is still down on torque. Size, weight, packaging, cost, and efficiency are what matter. Not piston displacement. I think we've covered this, haven't we?

I agree with everything you said except the "catch up" part. I'm a fan of the LS engines, and personally I have never owned anything with a Ford modular engine. But that doesn't stop me from being impressed with it, and be honest about areas where it does well as well as point out where it doesn't. I also am honest enough to point to the pros and cons to the LS engine as well.

That said, idea that the Ford engine caught up to anything is ludicrous. Every time someone brings that up, they point to the horsepower of a bigger engine. Whenever the supercharged Cobra or Lightning engines let alone the Ford GT or GT500 are brought up, then someone backpedals and says something to the tune of "well, they can't do it without a supercharger". By that logic, the Chrysler SRT V10 is a superior engine than the LSA engine because it has more pistons and produces more horsepower without a supercharger.

Everyone will agree that the DI 3.6 V6 producing 300 horsepower is a top powered engine. From a power standpoint, we marvel that a engine that size is producing the same power of a 325ci V8 "mini LS2". We don't say "Oh.. they finally caught up".


Well equipped GTs are already well past $26k, at least the last time I looked. And I doubt the price will come down in the coming year or two.

Correct, but with that same yardstick, one can also say well equipped SSs will go well past $30K.


However, my Can't argue with that until they come out and we see tests. I'm just taking issue with the boasting about this 5.0L somehow being the equal or superior of the GM small block. On the other hand, if it really spins to 7K and makes that power, it sounds like an engine I'd love to operate.

We don't disagree much, but when we do we have intellegent debates. You also have that rare ability to take an honest look at a car's merits and appriciate what the other guys have to offer and I can'ty remember you ever posting anything that was ill thought out.

In my case, I have the opposite issue. it's not the boasting about the new 5.0 but the feeling of some that the LS engines are the posterchild of high tech futuristic engineering and that somehow Ford's engines simply can't keep up with GM's wunderengine.

The LS engine is a very good engine. It's purpose for existing is to create the a V8 that puts out the most power in the smallest package possible. It was almost purpose built to fit into the nose of the low beltline Corvette. GM did an awesome job, and I have praised GM powertrain often for what they managed to do.

On the flip side, the Ford modular engine is also a very good engine. Compact size wasn't as vital since the smallest space it has to fit in is the Mustang. It also is (despite every logic that you'd expect considering it's size) lighter and creates alot of power in a relatively small combustion area. In the modular engine, Ford also took engineering that was only on expensive cars from Europe and managed to put it in low priced, work-a-day Mustangs, pickup trucks, and police sedans. Perhaps a more difficult feat than externally shrinking a big displacement V8.

If GM managed to get 6.2 liter LS3 power out of the 5.3 LS4 engine in the Impala SS and Buick Lacrosse Super (regardless as to how it was done) we'd be celebrating all over the web. If GM managed to get LSA like 550 horsepower out of that engine, we'd all be worshiping GM as engineering marvels (including me). Ford got roughly 500 horsepower out of 5.4 liters (GT500) not to mention 550 (Ford GT).

They did for quite some time in the '90s. It took the '03 Cobra to finally have a car that was reliably quicker than the Camaro/Firebird. Then they came out with a new gen Mustang (one that has admittedly sold like gangbusters, and one whose styling I love) that is still a bit behind the LS1 F-cars. Kinda moot, since the F-car died, but Ford has been the slower of the pony cars for a while now, with the exception of the '03/'04 Cobra and the Corvette-priced GT500.

You don't need to tell me about Ford of the 90s. That's how I ended up with 3 4th gen Camaros in a row.

I wouldn't say the new Mustangs are behind the LS1 F-cars. The Mustangs feel too much like the 4th gen cars IMHO. The post 2000 LS1 cars are notably quicker than the earlier versions... post 2000 the engines were essentially LS1 engines with LS6 induction systems... GTs ran to 60 and the quarter on par with early LS1s (yes, I still have the flame suit on ). I too like the design of the new Mustang, but because it feels too much like the car I already have I don't see a need to go into debt for 4 or 5 years to have something I already have.... but I'll be all over a '03-'04 Cobra if I find a good one at a good price.

Mr Farley made a request at the recent National MCA show for folks to start sending him letters on what they want to see in the next Mustang. He is specifically interested in detailed info about chassis, powertrain, body and interior. Not the "I want a sunscreen windveil aquamarine blue teal color-changing paintjob" kind of stuff. He has vowed to answer any questions he can regarding improvements, and has invited an unprecedented "conversation" between the people in the MCA and Team Mustang... so much so that the letters - both to and from - are being published in the Mustang Times Magazine. Mary-Jean Wesche is personally taking-on the task of publishing all the letters sent to her. I can tell you from what got published in this months mailing that weight and size are at least 40% of the inputs so far.:yes:

Other folks inside Ford's walls are on-record at public events as saying that the effort to lighten the future cars is under way. Horbury's comments about tryint to make the 2010 look smaller even though it isn't getting smaller, certainly indicates that he is atuned to the issue as well.




Now that there is very exciting to me.

Yeah, I know. I was referring to the next gen around '13/'14.

It'd be nice if you're right. Although there is probably no way the current Mustang design would look right on an SN 95 body, I do prefer the size of the previous Mustang.

If Ford's "Hail Mary" move works and Ford makes quite a bit of money again, then I think we can look forward to it. If it doesn't or is only mediocore in success, then, like the Fox chassis and then the SN95, we'll likely be looking at the current Mustang architecture for many years to come.

I still dont see Ford making a 400hp 5.0 motor without some additional technology.
A N/A, SFI 5.0 making 400hp? I heard that the number was "revised" and that a direct injected 5.0 "could" make 400hp, but a regular SFI that will show up inthe GT will be 370-370-380hp/360ftlbs range.
Again...Ill belive it when I see it.
People also say it will be lighter, but considering how flimsy the platform is compared to the Camaro, a lighter car is going tobe a drawback. Drag racer? Sure, the Mustang could put up some real threat to the Camaro SS.
Overall, Camaro SS will still top the Mustang and Challenger by a good deal.
If Ford sets the GT to handle the additional power, that means more structure as well as improving what else they have.

IMO, 2011 Mustang GT, 3750lbs, 375hp 5.0, 5spd auto 6spd manual, better ABS modulation they learned from the KR, revised body pannels, be faster then an Challenger RT, come near the Camaro SS.

As for the price, the price tag on Fordvehicles.com for a Ford Mustang GT Premium package, which is probably the closest you will get to a Camaro SS's trim package, starts just over 28k.
Expect the 2011 Mustang GT to start around there, and the premium to be just under 30k.

Ford Mustang GT will once again return to the also-ran sports coupe. Ford fans nation wide felt that cold shivver Jan 6th, 2006, and now that cold front is only a few weeks away...

Mr Farley made a request at the recent National MCA show for folks to start sending him letters on what they want to see in the next Mustang. He is specifically interested in detailed info about chassis, powertrain, body and interior. Not the "I want a sunscreen windveil aquamarine blue teal color-changing paintjob" kind of stuff. He has vowed to answer any questions he can regarding improvements, and has invited an unprecedented "conversation" between the people in the MCA and Team Mustang... so much so that the letters - both to and from - are being published in the Mustang Times Magazine. Mary-Jean Wesche is personally taking-on the task of publishing all the letters sent to her. I can tell you from what got published in this months mailing that weight and size are at least 40% of the inputs so far.:yes:

Now THAT'S what I remember about Ford back when I was piloting Mustangs and going to events and in contact with a few people from the company! :bow:

That's also what annoyed me about GM and Camaro. Ford actually had people from the company going out to events and getting feedback on the company payroll. At GM, they had Scott who did most all of his Camaro appearences and gathering feedback on his own almost in his spare time.Think about all those post Auto Show gathering of Camaro guys talking. That was on his own time.All the info and feedback he gathered up till the project restarted (even while Camaro was still around), that was his own inititive. Ford has guys on the clock whose job it is to do this sort of stuff.

its a PFI 4v 5.0L v8 with some other 'tricks' up its sleeve.
Mustang fans will get a great car in 2010, they'll get an even better one in 2011.

The F150 engine will be around the 360hp mark, the GT in the 400hp territory.

Believe what you want, it's coming.

And it won't weigh 3750lbs.... unless you stuff a dead moose in the trunk.

Is it SIDI? If so, can't you run 87 octane on an 11:1 cr SIDI engine when you would have to use premium for a non-DI 11:1 cr engine?

:think::|

guion i have respected u for years and agreed with u but u r totally wrong on this one, u r simply speculating!!! btw u dont everything!!!:Owned::Owned::Owned::Owned::Owned::O wned::Owned::Owned::Owned::Owned::Owned::Owned

put that in your pipe and smoke it!!!!!

Guy i'm surprised you are going with/defending the HP/Liter arguement...

that has no bearing on a car's performance whatsoever...

Horsepower/engine exterior size, horsepower/engine weight, those are all that counts

But that Hemi sized 4.6 IS actually lighter than an LS2..... and by association, most probably the LS3 as well.

Proof?

Well I guess I will be waiting for the Z. Expecially if it comes with lightweight material, 2500+ weight chop off, and have 450+ hp/tq.

Proof?


I am curious about this as well. Last number I heard was that a LS1 was in the 430 lb range.

I am curious about this as well. Last number I heard was that a LS1 was in the 430 lb range.

http://www.mustangandfords.com/techarticles/mufp_0510_ford_modular_v8_engine_part_2/fitment_issues.html

425lbs for an all aluminum 4.6 DOHC.

Best article i could find on LS3

415lbs for crate motor

its a PDF file

http://www.gmperformanceparts.com/_res/pdf/CrateEngineQRC2008.pdf

and personally I have never owned anything with a Ford modular engine.



This shows because those motors are just sh*t. Forget about Mustang vs Camaro or Corvette or whatever. My friend has a 02 F-250 with a 5.4. Its a sled, it feels weak and doesn't feel like a truck motor at all(lazy low end). My 04 6.0 eats it up, gets better mileage, and doesn't shoot the spark plugs out of the heads(A very common problem with the mod motors). The same friend has a 02 E-250 van with a 5.4 in it. Another friend with a 05 GMC 2500 van has the same comparison as the trucks: better mileage, power and the spark plugs stay in the heads. Its another slow POS I know that these aren't race cars but the difference from the chevy/GMC vans is rediculous.

And I know your dying to type that 5.4 is less than 6.0 and show us how smart you are but fight the urge! I guess while my bud with the Ford is getting passed by Kia's, getting gas more often and trying to find his spark plugs on the side of the road he can at least proudly say that 5.4 is in fact less than 6.

When an LSX motor gets a supercharger it goes over 600hp which is more than 550. The LS9 I believe makes more power than the lightning ever didid

Ford has a history of overpromising and underdelivering...
This reminds me of 94 SOOOO much. Cant wait till Ford makes all these claims about how the new Mustang will dust the Camaro...CANT EFING WAIT!!
6 years...6 years I had to hear every ford fanboy wrap about how Mustang is the only game in town.

It'd be nice if you're right. Although there is probably no way the current Mustang design would look right on an SN 95 body, I do prefer the size of the previous Mustang.



Me too. An SN95 sized car with the wheels pushed all the way out to the corners - let's say with a 110" wheelbase, would be hard to resist. Add a 400 hp V8 and I'd say Ford nails the ponycar formula where the 5th gen failed to.

I predict a 12.5@112 mph stang GT vs a 12.9@108 Camaro SS

the aerodynamic efficiencies in this design alone are worth some speed increases. And the interior is 10x better feeling as well as fit...this new mustang is going to be awesome

I'd suggest that GT & SS will be very close - closer than 12.5 to 12.9. Probably both around 12.8 or so. Pure speculation, of course....as is most of the stuff in this thread (most certainly the negatives from the fan boys).

And if the GT gets a power bump, do you think the premium packages will get power bumps? :devil:

When an LSX motor gets a supercharger it goes over 600hp which is more than 550. The LS9 I believe makes more power than the lightning ever didid

You don't honestly think the 5.4 4v S/C is tapped out do you?
Cause that would just be crazy talk.
(I'm talking 'Ford Certified' here too, not some change a pulley BS)
That's not to say that the LS9/LSA aren't capable of some crazy numbers, because they all are.

i still cant believe ford is using 5 speed trannys... if anything thats something they are behind the times on... camaro had a m6 15 years ago... I dont believe this will be the "god" motor that every mustang owner is hoping for either. Sure, we might se a honest 400hp, but i dont see mustang being as light as people are saying in the next gen, and i suspect the awful gearing that plagues mustangs will carry over into this car. I am thinking this new mustang is going to hide its horsepower as much as we have heard the camaro hides its weight, and hp is one thing that is bad when hidden... The mustang guys may be getting "serious", but its taken the svt guys to make the mustang any kind of real serious car ever since the mustang came out of the mustang 2 days...

Speaking of God motor, if the '11 GT comes in with 400hp @ 3600 lbs, the GT500 will need a big kick in the ass, I wonder if they will make the TVS blower standard? its pricey in kit form right now, but the the TVS equipped GT500s produce 605hp and 540 ft/lbs.

You don't honestly think the 5.4 4v S/C is tapped out do you?
Cause that would just be crazy talk.
(I'm talking 'Ford Certified' here too, not some change a pulley BS)
That's not to say that the LS9/LSA aren't capable of some crazy numbers, because they all are.

Did I say it was tapped out? Its painfully obvious I was comparing stock numbers.

doesn't shoot the spark plugs out of the heads(A very common problem with the mod motors).

2 valve heads, the 3 and 4 valvers dont have this problem (although that 2 piece extended reach plug in the 3v is kinda looney, IIRC mid-late 08 and up 3v mods now have a 1 piece plug).

Guy i'm surprised you are going with/defending the HP/Liter arguement...

that has no bearing on a car's performance whatsoever...

Horsepower/engine exterior size, horsepower/engine weight, those are all that counts

That's all that matters using the yardstick I think you are using: bottom line, end-of-the-day, how-fast-is-it performance. However, the yardstick I am using is how much horsepower are you getting from the volume of combustion being used. Ricers use this measurement to compare their mini engines against V8s. Those engines will never produce the power of a high powered V8 (with out risking granading the engine), so they resort to that measurement to justify their engine's existence.

Although the way they use it is ridiculous, the basis of what they say (more power output within a small volume) is relevent for the point I'm making.

We have 2 engines making roughly the same horsepower. One is a large displacement V8 the other is a smaller displacement V8. The large displacement V8 is engineered to be as compact as possible. The small V8 is engineered to have the power output of bigger displacement engines. Both accomplish what they set out to do.

Is the 4.6 and the LS4 both put out roughly the same horsepower and torque despite a 45 cubic inche difference. The 5.0 will evidently have similar power output to a 6.0 liter. That's impressive.

It's that "ricer" guy bragging that his 1.4 or 1.8 liter engine making 250 horsepower is superior to a Dodge SRT-8 Hemi making 425 that poisons the hp-per-displacement point. But as you might have read on other threads some time ago, everyone here marveled that Pontiac Solstice GXP's 4 banger made more horsepower (260) than most every V6 and almost made as much as V8s did not too long ago.

That's the point.

Proof?

Pull up the weights of the engines on the internet. Be sure to use the alumunum block 4.6 used in the Mustang, not the iron block version or the version used in pickup trucks.

For S & G, pull up the weight of the Mach 1 quad cam engine... it's actually no heavier (although physically it looks bigger) than the regular Stang 4.6.

This shows because those motors are just sh*t. Forget about Mustang vs Camaro or Corvette or whatever. My friend has a 02 F-250 with a 5.4. Its a sled, it feels weak and doesn't feel like a truck motor at all(lazy low end). My 04 6.0 eats it up, gets better mileage, and doesn't shoot the spark plugs out of the heads(A very common problem with the mod motors). ...(yada, yada, yada)

And I know your dying to type that 5.4 is less than 6.0 and show us how smart you are but fight the urge! I guess while my bud with the Ford is getting passed by Kia's, getting gas more often and trying to find his spark plugs on the side of the road he can at least proudly say that 5.4 is in fact less than 6.

When an LSX motor gets a supercharger it goes over 600hp which is more than 550. The LS9 I believe makes more power than the lightning ever didid

You are comparing a 5.4 to a 6.0. You are comparing an F250 (the heavier heavy duty version of the Ford F series pickup) to what? You didn't say.

I feel that I should also point out that Ford's F series trucks are heavier than a Silverado or Sierra. In short, it's the weight of the trucks more than the engine. If your friend is getting passed by Kias, I have to ask what he's hauling or what Kias he's running against. I also doubt he's had to find his sparkplug more than once.

I would resist that urge to point out the truth and it doesn't take a smart person to point out the things left out in those stories, but it's too easy to pass up. ;)

When an LSX motor gets a supercharger it goes over 600hp which is more than 550. The LS9 I believe makes more power than the lightning ever didid

Lightning has been out of production for about 5 years.

However, there is a very nice Super Snake that puts out over 600 horsepower under warranty with barely more than a larger supercharger and slightly smaller pulley on the same indestructable block. ;)

Wasn't the Ford GT always rumored to be a bit underrated at 550 horses?

I think some folks on both sides are taking this news a little to personally. Almost as if it does or does not happen, depending on respective camp of course, there will be mass suicides. I'd think the Camaro faithful would definately want a powerful LIGHT Mustang running around. It'd mean GM would be forced to drop the poundage off their pony car or up the power if they wanted to keep pace.

:lol: at hp/L, regardless of context. Small nitro engines in R/C cars and such are absolute wonders in this regard though.

Guy is a ricer Ford fanboy :p

Congrats to Ford for just barely catching up to the 1993 LT5 and 2003 LS6 with a naturally aspirated engine. ;)

first off, comparing 2 motors to each other that are different sizes making similar hp is insane... Ford cant just increase the 5liter motor to 6 liters and magically make 480hp... and chevrolets motor isnt going to make only 350hp if they decrease it to 5 liters :think: you have to compare apples to apples... FWIW the lotus esprit used a 3.5l v8 that produced 355hp. OMFGWTF!!1!1!1!one one!!! they should have made it a 6 liter!!! It could have made over 600hp!!!!! again... apples to apples, not apples to pancakes.

But as you might have read on other threads some time ago, everyone here marveled that Pontiac Solstice GXP's 4 banger made more horsepower (260) than most every V6 and almost made as much as V8s did not too long ago.

That's the point.

It wasnt the fact that the 2.0l was 2 liters, it was the fact that it was a four cylinder... I know chevrolet said something about it being their highest hp/L motor produced or something, but that is irrelevant... a 2 liter v8 that made 260 hp wouldnt be impressive to me besides the fact that it would be one tiny v8... a four cylinder that makes v8 power, thats more impressive... its not the size, its the number of cylinders. Besides if your going to go by the size of the motor, wouldnt it be better to go off the physical size instead of internal displacement? I would rather have something like a ls7 which is 7 liters, but could fit under the hood of almost anything, than a 5 liter motor that is bigger than some old fat blocks... idk if you have seen the motors, but they are monstrous... I dont care what the internal size is, the 5l displacement/hp advantage is worthless if its physically bigger than a 7 liter...

I'd think the Camaro faithful would definately want a powerful LIGHT Mustang running around. It'd mean GM would be forced to drop the poundage off their pony car or up the power if they wanted to keep pace.

We don't need them to do it to want it. It's what we ALL WANTED from the beginning, but didn't get. I just have my doubts on them actually delivering for a change and catching up with the times. If I was Chevy, just incase, I'd be preparing more powerful engines in the meantime, because their tank is probably not getting any lighter.....

We don't need them to do it to want it. It's what we ALL WANTED from the beginning, but didn't get. I just have my doubts on them actually delivering for a change and catching up with the times. If I was Chevy, just incase, I'd be preparing more powerful engines in the meantime, because their tank is probably not getting any lighter.....

As I heard afew times in Indy last weekend, it is what it is.

I have a feeling the 2011 Mustang GT is going to be incredible.

I have that feeling too.

In spite of the lack of IRS? Three years ago you were insisting on that, equating not having it to square wheels (jokingly I'm sure).

So I'm curious as to why you'd agree with the adjective "incredible"?

I still dont see Ford making a 400hp 5.0 motor without some additional technology.
A N/A, SFI 5.0 making 400hp? I heard that the number was "revised" and that a direct injected 5.0 "could" make 400hp, but a regular SFI that will show up inthe GT will be 370-370-380hp/360ftlbs range.
Again...Ill belive it when I see it.


If Hyundai can get 375hp from a 4.6SFI in a luxury sedan, I would think Ford could get 400 from a 5.0 in a sporty car where freer flowing intake and exhaust could be deployed.

But the rumors have this engine coming in the '11 model year, not '10, so it may be a good 18 months or so before we have any real info on it. In fact, we may have to wait for August or September 2010 for official info.

I don't mind a solid axle, so if this comes in at 3600 pounds, it's going to be awfully appealing.

My friend has a 02 F-250 with a 5.4. Its a sled, it feels weak and doesn't feel like a truck motor at all(lazy low end). My 04 6.0 eats it up, gets better mileage, and doesn't shoot the spark plugs out of the heads(A very common problem with the mod motors).

:lol: Yeah I was shocked when my Supervisor told me about his F250 having Spark plug issues like this. Something about the threads not being deep or something? I dont know, but this is the kind of reputation thing that puts Ford at the bottom of the list for me. Some people swear by them, and to that I say God bless, its not for me... Noone wants to spend time figuring out if they got the good ford or the bad ford. This is the reason, if it isnt good or doesnt fit the image you want you dont sour your reputation by putting your brand name on it. Cough Cough, Pontiac G3

Yeah, on the 2v engines the hole for the spark plugs doesn't have a whole lot to thread into. When you change plugs in the engine, you just can throw them in there and run them down with a ratchet until you feel like they are tight enough. A torque wrench is needed to make sure they have been tightened properly.

I cant see where its a big problem though when you look at the number of 2v 4.6/5.4 PI engines out there (every Mustang and V8 Truck from 99 up). The cracking plastic intake manifold was probably bigger deal.

Pull up the weights of the engines on the internet. Be sure to use the alumunum block 4.6 used in the Mustang, not the iron block version or the version used in pickup trucks.

For S & G, pull up the weight of the Mach 1 quad cam engine... it's actually no heavier (although physically it looks bigger) than the regular Stang 4.6.



You are comparing a 5.4 to a 6.0. You are comparing an F250 (the heavier heavy duty version of the Ford F series pickup) to what? You didn't say.

I feel that I should also point out that Ford's F series trucks are heavier than a Silverado or Sierra. In short, it's the weight of the trucks more than the engine. If your friend is getting passed by Kias, I have to ask what he's hauling or what Kias he's running against. I also doubt he's had to find his sparkplug more than once.

I would resist that urge to point out the truth and it doesn't take a smart person to point out the things left out in those stories, but it's too easy to pass up. ;)



Lightning has been out of production for about 5 years.

However, there is a very nice Super Snake that puts out over 600 horsepower under warranty with barely more than a larger supercharger and slightly smaller pulley on the same indestructable block. ;)

Since you want the comparison his is a F-250 ECSB with a practically empty toolbox in it nothing in the bed. Mine is a 04 SCLB 2500 HD with a utility bed on it full of tools, and extra crap in the bed. I definately weigh more than him. Yes we race our work trucks.

Everyone I know with a mod motor has had at least ONE spark plug shoot out. That taps out at about 5 people, that being said at least TWO of them had it happen twice.

Why shouldn't I compare the 5.4 to the 6.0? Its not my fault the Ford engineers didn't have the brains to figure out "hey we might want to go bigger someday". You make it sound like I'm comparing a 305 to a 454. Its what Ford offered so they obviously felt that it compared. Years back Ford was looking into going back to pushrods then all their financial problems came along and then started slapping blowers on the mod motors to make them fast.

The mod motor to me is just an overcomplicated under achieveing POS. Ford should have improved on the original SBF like Chevy did. The old 5.0 was a great motor and lots of Ford guys I know don't touch anything ford after 93. I know your going to tell me that 5.0 is less than 6.0 but regardless they just caught up to the power level of the LS2 from 2005. The LSx motors are way more amazing in stock to slightly modified trim than the mods. The LS1 cars dating back as far as 97-98 with just bolt-ons and a cam are making 400 RWHP find a mod car that can do that.

Why do you think charging 4 grand more for the V8 is stupid?

Base V6 4th gens listed for about $18K. 4th gen Z28s started at $22K.
That's a $4,000 more than the V8.
In the Mustang, the V8 is roughly $5K over the V6.
A V8 in the Impala runs $7K over the base model.
In the Charger, it's nearly $10K.

Unless you're buying a Corvette or a Crown Victoria, we've been paying high premiums for V8s for years.
I was referring to GM not being stupid enough to place a $4k premium over the Mustang's V8. If the Mustang's base GT is around $26k, then GM would be killing the Camaro by starting $4k above that for the same thing. Same goes with the V6 model. Mr. Lutz and Scott have kept saying how close the Camaro will be in pricing to the Mustang, with a "small" premium. That to me means $1500 at the very most. I hope that helps.

I could care less about factory ratings, they are stupid anyhow (unless you just stay stock). I care about potential of the motor.

LS1 only needed a cam to be pushing 415rwhp (~480fwhp).

LS3 should be able to hit 550fwhp CAM ONLY.

What can this 5.0L do with some minor mods (i consider cam minor) is the question to me...

All other arguements aside, I tend to prefer more displacement; which allows you to use a smaller cam to reach equal horspower; which also corresponds to more low end torque which makes the car feel more fun to your average person.

3rd gen L98 motors had a ****ty 245hp, but it felt like it had a lot more then that with those long runners/TPI. Made it a blast to drive. (Although mid 14s, maybe low if you where lucky in the 1/4)

In spite of the lack of IRS? Three years ago you were insisting on that, equating not having it to square wheels (jokingly I'm sure).

So I'm curious as to why you'd agree with the adjective "incredible"?

Oh yes, I still prefer and see the benefits of IRS.

But I'm comparing this total package relative what we're getting with the Camaro.

One will be more ponycar like, the other will nearly pack the mass of the 2009 DTS I've recently been driving.
http://www.camaroz28.com/forums/showthread.php?t=637793

Oh yes, I still prefer and see the benefits of IRS.

But I'm comparing this total package relative what we're getting with the Camaro.

One will be more ponycar like, the other will nearly pack the mass of the 2009 DTS I've recently been driving.
http://www.camaroz28.com/forums/showthread.php?t=637793

I drove a 1998 DeVille when my '98 was in getting some after sale service. I wasn't a fan. Of course, they've made some changes in the last 11 years....

So does that mean you'd give up IRS if 250 pounds or so went away with it? I had the impression that a solid axle was a non-starter for you, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

[Note that I'm not saying that IRS weighs 250 pounds]

LS3 should be able to hit 550fwhp CAM ONLY.
Cam, Intake, Tune & Header's only (http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/ccrp_0705_chevrolet_ls2_l92_cylinder_heads/index.html) - if your refering to the CC article


What can this 5.0L do with some minor mods (i consider cam minor) is the question to me...)
The current 5.0 has eclipsed the 500hp mark, but I couldn't tell you whats invovled (although admittedly it was no cam swap) excpet perhaps more RPM

We'll just have to see when people start getting there hands on the motor.

The LSx motors are way more amazing in stock to slightly modified trim than the mods. The LS1 cars dating back as far as 97-98 with just bolt-ons and a cam are making 400 RWHP find a mod car that can do that.

Due to my leet interweb hacker skillz I was able to divulge the LSx's secret to success :p
http://rpg-sandiego.org/images/hypnotoad.gif

I drove a 1998 DeVille when my '98 was in getting some after sale service. I wasn't a fan. Of course, they've made some changes in the last 11 years....

So does that mean you'd give up IRS if 250 pounds or so went away with it? I had the impression that a solid axle was a non-starter for you, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

[Note that I'm not saying that IRS weighs 250 pounds]

What I'm saying, without getting myself in trouble on this site, is.....

Now I've seen the production intent Camaro. I've sat in it, touched it, know all of it's specs, seen in it motion, have been eyelevel with it's door handles while sitting in my '83 Z/28, (as I was getting on the racetrack and the IVER car and yellow car were getting off). And YES, I do appreciate the effort which the Camaro Team put forth on it. I think they did their best.

I also know all the specs of the current Mustang, have driven it and examined it, and have seen the spy photos of the freshened Mustang and the appeal to me of another 100 hp for it. The 2011 Mustang seems like a very compelling package to me.


So, while I am a big proponent of IRS, IRS alone cannot make me overlook ALL other shortcomings.

That's all I've got to say about that.

Charlie, not trying to blast you at all here (thirdgen guys stick together). I'm curious as to how you appeared upset with the GTOs weight at 3750, but a 3600 lbs Mustang is appealing -- assuming it ends up with 400 hp in 2011 (we're all forgetting about the white elephant in the room: CAFE).

Or are you happier about where the weight is on the Mustang?

Charlie, not trying to blast you at all here (thirdgen guys stick together). I'm curious as to how you appeared upset with the GTOs weight at 3750, but a 3600 lbs Mustang is appealing -- assuming it ends up with 400 hp in 2011 (we're all forgetting about the white elephant in the room: CAFE).

Or are you happier about where the weight is on the Mustang?

While I thought that 3750 was abit porky in 2004, that was never my biggest issue with purchasing one. I also never considered the GTO a 'ponycar" either nor held it to that standard.

Of course, we've got a whole new reference point now.

have been eyelevel with it's door handles while sitting in my '83 Z/28, (as I was getting on the racetrack and the IVER car and yellow car were getting off)

Is your car lowered?

What I'm saying, without getting myself in trouble on this site, is.....

Now I've seen the production intent Camaro. I've sat in it, touched it, know all of it's specs, seen in it motion, have been eyelevel with it's door handles while sitting in my '83 Z/28, (as I was getting on the racetrack and the IVER car and yellow car were getting off). And YES, I do appreciate the effort which the Camaro Team put forth on it. I think they did their best.

I also know all the specs of the current Mustang, have driven it and examined it, and have seen the spy photos of the freshened Mustang and the appeal to me of another 100 hp for it. The 2011 Mustang seems like a very compelling package to me.


So, while I am a big proponent of IRS, IRS alone cannot make me overlook ALL other shortcomings.

That's all I've got to say about that.

Well youre certainly entitled to do what you want with your money. Im sure the Mustang will be a great car for you. I kinda wonder if ford brought down the size of the Mustang to a 3 series. If they did its to their credit, however Charlie, I think if Ford adds IRS then they will also add weight. I perfer the IRS. It will be interesting. The competition is benefiting everyone!

Always kind of seen the Mod motors as Definite under achievers.They can make power, but Physically larger packaging, low displacement, really not a large aftermarket following for the mod motors either. If anyone really doubts what the better motor is, LSx or Mod motor; Lets just say you don't see mod motors getting put in F bodies...

Well youre certainly entitled to do what you want with your money. Im sure the Mustang will be a great car for you. I kinda wonder if ford brought down the size of the Mustang to a 3 series. If they did its to their credit, however Charlie, I think if Ford adds IRS then they will also add weight. I perfer the IRS. It will be interesting. The competition is benefiting everyone!

Oh, I'm not saying I'm buying a Mustang either, but 400 hp in a 3500-3600 lbs package is appealing.

Is your car lowered?

Maybe by less than an inch if that really matters.

Always kind of seen the Mod motors as Definite under achievers.They can make power, but Physically larger packaging, low displacement, really not a large aftermarket following for the mod motors either. If anyone really doubts what the better motor is, LSx or Mod motor; Lets just say you don't see mod motors getting put in F bodies...

there is a very good aftermarket for each engine

Your last sentence explains things VERY WELL.

The mod motor to me is just an overcomplicated under achieveing POS. Ford should have improved on the original SBF like Chevy did. The old 5.0 was a great motor and lots of Ford guys I know don't touch anything ford after 93. I know your going to tell me that 5.0 is less than 6.0 but regardless they just caught up to the power level of the LS2 from 2005. The LSx motors are way more amazing in stock to slightly modified trim than the mods. The LS1 cars dating back as far as 97-98 with just bolt-ons and a cam are making 400 RWHP find a mod car that can do that.

This whole notion that Ford is just NOW catching up to GM in hp/tq is ridiculous. I'm pretty sure Ford was making Ls2/s3 power with a mod motor before the Ls2/Ls3's even came out...that motor was the S/c'd 4.6's back in late 02 and early 03. I don't know why some of you pretend or talk as if that motor never existed. And you're talking about motors that were amazing in stock to slightly modified:lol:...now the boosted mod motors are some of the easiest, strongest, and most potent factory v8's to mod.

I already know what's coming..."but but it's s/c'd, no fair". So what? Who said a motor had to be N/A?

The N/A mod motors aren't all that impressive but fulfill their purpose as base engines and base entry-level performance engines. I know it's easy to latch on to Ford's base v8 offering and use that in a comparo as if its the only mod motor in existence, but the reality is that Ford offers other mod motors in the Mustang and they've not only surpassed Ls3 levels, but have approached Ls7/LSA levels (GT500's 500hp, and GT500KR's 540hp).

Anyways, the next couple of years should be interesting. Looking forward to cross-shopping both camaro and mustang come 2011 :).

|
|
|
V Stock long block and minor bolt-ons. I say that is pretty impressive for about 250rwhp at most and full weight. The early PI heads had the thread issue with the spark plug holes due to only having 2 threads instead of 4. 01+ is when all other vehicles received the PI versions of the sohc 4.6l. Mustang was the first in 99.

I already know what's coming..."but but it's s/c'd, no fair". So what? Who said a motor had to be N/A?
It kinda does....anybody can supercharge an engine and get 400hp. :shrug:

Lets just say you don't see mod motors getting put in F bodies...

Well there are always people who are going to take the path of least resistance, but the same has held true even when it was only the SBF, I went to a Super Chevy show some years back and there was a significant contingent of 1st gen SBC powered foxbodies which struck me as funny since the SBF aftermarket was in full rage.

For old Pushrodders there is no greater aftermarket than that for the SBC. That is why most Fox owners who switch do so. The cars a few years back were already cheap. Why not go with a engine combo that is able to be retrieved from basically every junk yard in the country?

Also look at how much power a Modular block can handle. Without additional strength or "massaging" the block alone can handle north of 1500hp! Find me one LSx engine that would take that.

I've said it before and I will say it again. Believe it or not all things being equal the Modular engine will always make more Hp than its pushrod counterpart.

But for cheap performance the pushrod engines are lightyears ahead of the modulars.

This whole notion that Ford is just NOW catching up to GM in hp/tq is ridiculous. I'm pretty sure Ford was making Ls2/s3 power with a mod motor before the Ls2/Ls3's even came out...that motor was the S/c'd 4.6's back in late 02 and early 03. I don't know why some of you pretend or talk as if that motor never existed. And you're talking about motors that were amazing in stock to slightly modified:lol:...now the boosted mod motors are some of the easiest, strongest, and most potent factory v8's to mod.

I already know what's coming..."but but it's s/c'd, no fair". So what? Who said a motor had to be N/A?

The N/A mod motors aren't all that impressive but fulfill their purpose as base engines and base entry-level performance engines. I know it's easy to latch on to Ford's base v8 offering and use that in a comparo as if its the only mod motor in existence, but the reality is that Ford offers other mod motors in the Mustang and they've not only surpassed Ls3 levels, but have approached Ls7/LSA levels (GT500's 500hp, and GT500KR's 540hp).

Anyways, the next couple of years should be interesting. Looking forward to cross-shopping both camaro and mustang come 2011 :).

Why does every Ford defender always stop at the LS7/LSA? And completely ignore the LS9's exsistence. Since its fair to compare S/C to N/A why not S/C to S/C?

I've said it before and I will say it again. Believe it or not all things being equal the Modular engine will always make more Hp than its pushrod counterpart.



You're kidding, right?

You're kidding, right?

Using stock components compared to a pushrod SBF - Hell yeah, The last major update for a production SBF was in about 199? or so with the GT40P cylinderhead - at best these engines are good for maybe the upper 400 hp range without porting where a DOHC mod motor can eclipse the 500hp mark with stock heads. The mod motor's only real downfall is the very small bore size (3.550") relative to its displacement. All the current 5.0 engines in Ford's inventory use a 3.70" bore and that alone increases cylinder head flow by 30 or 40 cfm (and enough to allow the engine to reach the 600hp mark).

Using stock components compared to a pushrod SBF - Hell yeah, The last major update for a production SBF was in about 199? or so with the GT40P cylinderhead - at best these engines are good for maybe the upper 400 hp range without porting where a DOHC mod motor can eclipse the 500hp mark with stock heads. The mod motor's only real downfall is the very small bore size (3.550") relative to its displacement. All the current 5.0 engines in Ford's inventory use a 3.70" bore and that alone increases cylinder head flow by 30 or 40 cfm (and enough to allow the engine to reach the 600hp mark).

People are getting over 500hp from naturally aspirated DOHC Mod motors?

At what displacement?

Maybe by less than an inch if that really matters.

It helps to visualize how tall the car is (which may have been your point). I hadn't paid much attention to the height number. Well, people have complained about the F4 being too low to the ground. I guess it's safe to say that F5 will not get such complaints.

When Dodge publicized the picture of the two Challengers nose to nose (how could they leave off the early 80s model with the 2.6:D), the most notable difference was height.

Why does every Ford defender always stop at the LS7/LSA? And completely ignore the LS9's exsistence. Since its fair to compare S/C to N/A why not S/C to S/C?

Maybe when it's offered in the camaro or anything resembling a factory camaro, the comparison can be made:shrug:. I would love to see either the Ls7, LSA, or even Ls9 in the camaro, but neither's offered at the time and probably won't be for some time.

The fact you're even comparing the mustangs S/c'd mod motor that's been out for a while now to that of a 2009 105k supercorvette is saying something. So now we've gone from saying the mod motor is just catching up to Ls2/Ls3 levels to elevating them to Ls9 levels? :think:

The only reason i'm even defending the mod motor is because some of the comments posted about them have gotten ridiculous. I don't think they're better than the LsX motors, but they're still great motors and the S/c'd variants have been VERY impressive.

Maybe when it's offered in the camaro or anything resembling a factory camaro, the comparison can be made:shrug:. I would love to see either the Ls7, LSA, or even Ls9 in the camaro, but neither's offered at the time and probably won't be for some time.

The fact you're even comparing the mustangs S/c'd mod motor that's been out for a while now to that of a 2009 105k supercorvette is saying something. So now we've gone from saying the mod motor is just catching up to Ls2/Ls3 levels to elevating them to Ls9 levels? :think:

The only reason i'm even defending the mod motor is because some of the comments posted about them have gotten ridiculous. I don't think they're better than the LsX motors, but they're still great motors and the S/c'd variants have been VERY impressive.

I said nothing about the 390hp cobra motor. I was referring to the 550hp GT motor that YOU mentioned. Go back and read your post I was quoting since you seem confused.

HP per liter is ricer math.

Awesome! :lol:

If we're only comparing engines that have actually been offered by the factories in the Mustang & Camaro, then the Mustang wins, period. G.M. has so far to date NEVER offered a 500 hp engine in the Camaro. Something that Ford has had for the Mustang for 3 years now. Now the question is, will they? Other than bragging rights I can't see a reason why they should. The car would be so expensive that few could afford it, & those that could would more likely buy a Corvette!

I said nothing about the 390hp cobra motor. I was referring to the 550hp GT motor that YOU mentioned. Go back and read your post I was quoting since you seem confused.

I think you're the confused one:D. You still aren't getting my point & I made no mention of the 550hp Ford GT. I mentioned the 500hp GT500 and the 540hp GT500KR which are both mustangs.

My main point here isn't who has the biggest and baddest engine, i'm just trying to dispel this notion that the mustang and mod-motors are lacking, unimpressive, and behind in hp just because of one model (the 300hp GT which happens to be the base performance model/v8). Now if the Mustang GT was the only mustang around and the 3valve 4.6 Sohc the only v8 engine offered in the mustang, your statement would have been true, but it isn't. To say the modmotors are just now catching up to Ls2/Ls3 levels is far from true given that versions of the modmotor and mustangs have been making upwards of 400+ as far back as 6 or 7 model years.

People are getting over 500hp from naturally aspirated DOHC Mod motors?

At what displacement?

Ford - 550hp with the DOHC 5.0, I've seen a 2 valver within spitting distance. The 4v heads can flow well past 300 cfm (in a big bore block) which is enough to get in the 600hp area (just like the LS3) you just have to spin the **** out of it to make up for the lack of cubes.

IIRC Bob Cosby's friend (BOSS 330) has a 5.4 that is well past 500hp N/A.

So its do-able with typical hot rodding tricks, but I suppose the question is why would you want to go to the trouble of building a high horsepower N/A mod motor (other than because you can or want to) when its so easy to slap a blower on and call it a day?

You're kidding, right?

:think: No. Look it up. The modular engine will make more power all other things being equal, GM, Chrysler or Ford. If you take a pushrod engine and a modular engine of the exact same displacement then the Mod engine will win the HP war.

Ford - 550hp with the DOHC 5.0, I've seen a 2 valver within spitting distance. The 4v heads can flow well past 300 cfm (in a big bore block) which is enough to get in the 600hp area (just like the LS3) you just have to spin the **** out of it to make up for the lack of cubes.

IIRC Bob Cosby's friend (BOSS 330) has a 5.4 that is well past 500hp N/A.

So its do-able with typical hot rodding tricks, but I suppose the question is why would you want to go to the trouble of building a high horsepower N/A mod motor (other than because you can or want to) when its so easy to slap a blower on and call it a day?

Glad to hear that, and it is about time. The Mod motors have been around since what 1996? And the GT heads were flowing over 320cfm back in 2003.

Why do people want to build high power NA LSx engines, or any other kind of engines, when they can easily slap a blower on there?

:think: No. Look it up. The modular engine will make more power all other things being equal, GM, Chrysler or Ford. If you take a pushrod engine and a modular engine of the exact same displacement then the Mod engine will win the HP war.

you keep saying "all other things being equal" but unfortunately, there are a lot of inequalities. Ford engineers were the ones who decided to use such small bore spacing. They shot themselves in the foot by doing that. That has been their biggest downfall over the years.

so basically.... GM has finally caught up with ford when it comes to supercharged motors....???

LMAO.

Good one bro. And right on the head.

Glad to hear that, and it is about time. The Mod motors have been around since what 1996? And the GT heads were flowing over 320cfm back in 2003.

Why do people want to build high power NA LSx engines, or any other kind of engines, when they can easily slap a blower on there?


This post by JRod from LS1Tech...

http://ls1tech.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-449210.html

Valve curtain area is the key to flow in the cylinder. More curtain area (Ala 4 V/cyl vs 2 V) always has the potential to make more power. Yes, ported mod motor heads flow 330-335. Guess what, so do ported ls6 heads....

http://www.fordracingparts.com/parts/part_details.asp?PartKeyField=8612

that's the 330cfm 32valve Ford GT head, right?

37mm *2 intake valves
Intake valve lift: 11.14 mm

Total curtain area = 23,955.6mm squared

Compared to the LS7
56mm intake valves
15mm intake valve lift

Total curtain area = 36,945mm squared

THat's if my math is right...

volume = (pi) * r^2 * h

I get 23,955 mm^3 (1.46182379 in^3) for the ford GT and 36,945 mm^3 (2.25452223 in^3) for the LS7. in comparison an LS6 head has a 2" intake valve with .551" lift. that is a 1.73" valve curtain area, still greater than the ford's heads.

you are correct, that is the volume. I was wrong though, the volume is not the same as the curtain area. What do you expect from a 4am post?

The curtain area is the area between the edge of the valve and the seat all the way around. To get it, you find the circumference of the head of the valve then multiply that times the valve lift. Then of course multiply that times the number of valves.

The Curtain Area of an LS7 intake valve is 2638.9cm^2, compared to 2589.8cm^2 for the GT.

Advantage still goes to the LS7.

Completely shifting gears- think of all the 30-somethings that will want to buy a brand new 5.0.

It worked on the baby boomers with the Hemi....

Eh oh well, this is the reason I never buy new cars and just bought a 2002 Z28 instead of the new Camaro.

I hate stock displacements. D1SC + 408 FTW. ;) Need a couple grand more yet though for that setup. ...Saving... :lol:

you are correct, that is the volume. I was wrong though, the volume is not the same as the curtain area. What do you expect from a 4am post?

The curtain area is the area between the edge of the valve and the seat all the way around. To get it, you find the circumference of the head of the valve then multiply that times the valve lift. Then of course multiply that times the number of valves.

The Curtain Area of an LS7 intake valve is 2638.9cm^2, compared to 2589.8cm^2 for the GT.

Advantage still goes to the LS7.

That damn small bore on the mod motor is the problem (also the reason my they had to go multi-valve) Thats my only real problem with the mod motor - the rest doesn't bother me. I'd dearly love for Ford to do a 4'+ bore version but that probably wont happen any time in the foreseable future. The regular production 5.0 will have less than a 3.70" bore when it comes around.

Is this still a modular-based engine? Or did they finally realize that the mod family was a waste of developmental energy, and that they could have made the same power:

A: Five years earlier.
B: For a lot less money.
C: Without putting superchargers on everything in sight.

Not that the late mod motors are bad engines. They're not. (The early ones are junk, though, imo) I just think Ford wasted the energy polishing the proverbial turd, that could have been used whipping GMs ass into pudding.

Thus encouraging GM to stop being six-years-concept-to-showroom douchebags. :)

Competition always works.

No the 5.0 is related to the MOD motor, from what I understand its slightly stretched to accomodate the bigger cylinder bores (the big bore mod motors Ford manufactures currently doesnt meet thier durablity standards).

Y'know it probably wouldn't have been so bad if Ford hadn't wanted to put a DOHC 4v 4.6 in an FWD application (FWD Continental) and instead engineered specific platforms for RWD and FWD applications. The only nice thing to come out of it was the short longitudal dimension - If only they would have done that V10 Boss Mustang :drool:

No the 5.0 is related to the MOD motor, from what I understand its slightly stretched to accomodate the bigger cylinder bores (the big bore mod motors Ford manufactures currently doesnt meet thier durablity standards).

Y'know it probably wouldn't have been so bad if Ford hadn't wanted to put a DOHC 4v 4.6 in an FWD application (FWD Continental) and instead engineered specific platforms for RWD and FWD applications. The only nice thing to come out of it was the short longitudal dimension - If only they would have done that V10 Boss Mustang :drool:

FWD and a V8 is a waste of effort in my opinion. The best execution I've seen is the Grand Prix GXP, but even that is a car I'd never think of buying. Even that strangled 5.3 had way too much power for the front tires.

And in Ford's case, it resulted in compromises to all of their RWD V8 applications, which just makes everything worse. All for a few years of Lincoln Continental -- long dead now.

Then there was the idiotic decision to put an even smaller 3.9 V8 into the LS. If that car had had a proper 5.0 4V V8, it would have sold 3x as many, but when you needed a V8 LS to equal the performance of the V6 competition, it's no wonder it failed.

So I think I'll wait to see the production intro of the Mustang 5.0 or at least some really solid pre-release info before getting excited. Ford seems to be very adept at shooting itself in the foot. Hopefully that's changed.

I don't know if I agree with you guys.

GM's DOHC 4.6L V8 and its many derivatives have done a VERY GOOD JOB in the FWD AND RWD cars they have been put in.

I don't know if I agree with you guys.

GM's DOHC 4.6L V8 and its many derivatives have done a VERY GOOD JOB in the FWD AND RWD cars they have been put in.

But they're hardly high performance engines these days, and they have the same displacement limitation as the modular engines. Even GM can't afford two different V8s anymore, as evidenced by the cancellation of the replacement.


I should amend my previous post. The FWD V8s made sense in the 90s, when power levels of the V6s were lower. Though I think that exclusive FWD cost Cadillac dearly (Catera doesn't count) in the prestige market of the era.

...Then there was the idiotic decision to put an even smaller 3.9 V8 into the LS. If that car had had a proper 5.0 4V V8, it would have sold 3x as many, but when you needed a V8 LS to equal the performance of the V6 competition, it's no wonder it failed.

So I think I'll wait to see the production intro of the Mustang 5.0 or at least some really solid pre-release info before getting excited. Ford seems to be very adept at shooting itself in the foot. Hopefully that's changed.

Ya made a common error here. ;)

The Lincoln LS's 3.9 is NOT a small displacement version of Ford's Modular engine....it's actually a Jaguar's AJ series V8 engine! It's basically the same V8 engine from the Jaguar XJ & XK8. Some of the engineering shares common ideas since Ford owned Jaguar, but the Jaguar V8 is NOT a Ford modular engine.

The Lincoln LS is essentially a Jaguar S-type under the sheetmetal, and was engineered around Jaguar engines. Ford's Modualar engine is physically wider (I believe because the Jag engine uses a narrower angle "V" than the traditional 90 degree Ford) and the fact that the DOHC Ford's with clearence was barely more than fractions of an inch. Besides, Ford saved engineering costs in simply using the Jag engine since the entire package was alread engineered for it..... yes, the 400 horse supercharged version in the Jaguar S Type R should bolt right in.

The Jag V8s have proven to be bulletproof, and considering we're talking V8s with the displacement of V6s in standard Camaros of the day, 280 normally aspirated horsepower is pretty impressive by early decade standards.

During the early days of Ford's self destruction, McLauren was developing a performance version of the LS for Lincoln. It was to have a supercharger and a hot handling upgrade. It encouraged GM to include a hot version of the CTS in their plans, which initially called for a turbo V6. If Ford had stuck with the supercharged LS, it would have not only gotten to market before the CTSv (by roughly 2 years), given the LS's similar curb weight to the CTS, it would have made a very intresting matchup.

I can't argue with you on the perception that Ford can't avoid shooting itself in the foot. Most of the past 10 years, Ford hasn't exactly been confidence inspiring.

Ya made a common error here. ;)

The Lincoln LS's 3.9 is NOT a small displacement version of Ford's Modular engine....it's actually a Jaguar's AJ series V8 engine! It's basically the same V8 engine from the Jaguar XJ & XK8. Some of the engineering shares common ideas since Ford owned Jaguar, but the Jaguar V8 is NOT a Ford modular engine.

I know all that. Note that I wrote only that it was smaller, not a smaller Modular engine.


The Lincoln LS is essentially a Jaguar S-type under the sheetmetal, and was engineered around Jaguar engines. Ford's Modualar engine is physically wider (I believe because the Jag engine uses a narrower angle "V" than the traditional 90 degree Ford) and the fact that the DOHC Ford's with clearence was barely more than fractions of an inch. Besides, Ford saved engineering costs in simply using the Jag engine since the entire package was alread engineered for it..... yes, the 400 horse supercharged version in the Jaguar S Type R should bolt right in.

The Jag V8s have proven to be bulletproof, and considering we're talking V8s with the displacement of V6s in standard Camaros of the day, 280 normally aspirated horsepower is pretty impressive by early decade standards.

The Jag V8 is a 90 degree just like the Mod. Maybe it has a shorter stroke and that's why it's smaller?

It may be a fine engine, but it's worst in class in HP and TQ, except when it had the Lincoln version around to be better than.

And I don't buy HP/liter, I buy HP. For the 2003 model year (the first year of the 280hp LS), you could get a 260hp G35 or a 280hp LS. The LS was quite a bit pricier, but no faster. The V6 LS may have had 232 (?) or so hp, but it was way up in the rev range, and the car was still slow.

I really liked the styling of the LS, but I didn't like the HP. So I bought a Camaro. :D