Buried in the middle of this page

http://media.ford.com/article_displa...ticle_id=30593

is a little blurb about the new 6.2l V8.

 

Supposed to be 500hp in Raptor trim, to bad its big and cast iron, it would be nice if Ford would drop an all AL version in the Mustang to go toe to toe with the F5 in terms of big torque.

 

Mustang won't need it as long as it keeps it's weight around where it is.

If the Mustang gains just another 50 lbs/ft or so of torque (375) and horsepower (365), with it's 3.73 axle, it should easily go "toe to toe" if not edge out the F5. If the upcoming 5.0 engines reaches 400 horses, it should be plenty.

 

I don't know. I think that new 5.0 sounds pretty killer. More torque ==> more weight.
If the Mustang folks can keep the weight gain to 100 pounds or less with the new 5.0 while getting MPG parity with the Chevy 6.2, the 2011 Mustang 5.0 will be a formidable competitor to the Camaro SS.

I remember the '71 Mustang, with an engine bay big enough to take the 429. Unfortunately, the rest of the car was big enough to need it. BTW, I like the way autoblog classifies 1964-73 Mustangs as 1st gen. The '71 shared only the name and horse badge with the '64, the '71 being a Pony car in the same vein as the new Challenger.

 

BTW, did anyone notice that the Jag XFR 5.0 added about 150 pounds over the old 4.2, even though the engine weighs the same? More power always seems to bring more weight. I'll be shocked if the 5.0 doesn't gain at least 50 pounds (at least 3625 as tested, I'm expecting).

 

The Coyote will definetly be a good thing for Mustang, but it would just be nice to see what amounts to a modern day "big block" (figuratively speaking) as an option - a 6.2L powered Mustang would definetly have a much different character compared to a 5.0 stablemate.

In any event it would make for a nice SE, especially if Ford were to go the Mach 1 route again and despite its size and construction, I bet the 6.2 is still lighter than the 5.4 S/C in the GT500

 

IMO it will probably fall between the 3v and 4v MOD motor weights. The heads are said to be lighter and more compact (a relative of the duratec design rather than the MOD).

 

I think the engine itself will not be where the car gains weight (not much at least).

 

I cant see the chassis gaining much weight unless crash reqs add some. Otherwise minimal gain (maybe 100 pounds for the engine and trans for '11). Alot of people seem to be thinking that with a 360-400hp engine Ford will need to step up to the plate in terms of heavy duty support hardware when the truth is, the GT just needs to look good in the comparos and that doesn't require trans coolers or brembo brakes (as shown by the track pack cars).

All of that is fine though. Option the GT right and its the cheapest of the three, then crack open the FRPP catalog, Steeda, Summit, Jegs, ect and start changing the things you dont like.

 

100 pounds seems reasonable. That would make as-tested models about 3675, and I wouldn't be surprised if it is a bit less. I think the more powerful engine will make a big difference, unless gasoline is up to $4-$5/gallon again when it comes out, in which case people will be more interested in the 4cyl Ecoboost Mustang.

 

You mean the EcoBoost Mustang SVO

 

Put that way, it doesn't sound so bad...a 230hp turbo 4cyl Mustang is still 25hp more than the old SVO. But I still want a 6 or 8.

 

a modern SVO would be cool, but I think this time out I'd like to see it in V6 form with 50 or more HP over the Coyote GT, but I'm like Teal, I'd rather have a V8 - preferably a AL 6.2L Mach

 

If the Mustang 5.0L delivers the goods (like somewhere near 400 hp), I think I know what I'll be buying used in 2014 or so...

 

It'll be tough for even the Camaro enthusiast to ignore a package like that.