30 OTT 6

I've read that you gain the equivalent of 1 hp per every 10 lbs lost. And losing 100 lbs. will gain 0.1 s in the 1/4 mile. I wonder if any racers ever got caught with helium storage devices on their car?

My contract law instructor once told the class that for the purpose of proving a design, patent, etc. is yours and created on a certain date you should mail a copy of it to yourself and keep it sealed in the envelope. The post office processing marks on the sealed envelope makes for very good evidence.

Bet Patriots, no matter what. Sincerely, Future You

The people's Mustang.

That's quite disappointing for such a light car with that aerodynamic body. EPA testing doesn't exactly include performance driving runs either. Shoulda had a V8. A de-bored Coyote (4.5L to 4.8L) with a flat-plane crankshaft supplying even exhaust pulses to a hot vee twin-turbo setup.

Bore: 92.5 mm to 95.5 mm. When the Cyclone V6 first came out it was reported the block could handle up to 4.0L of displacement.

The real MVPs for modern trucks are the new 6-10 spd. transmissions.

I think these Ward's 10 best engine lists blur the lines between best engine and best car. So the 2.3L Ecoboost is a "best engine" in a Focus but not in a Mustang?

The 3.5L and 3.7L are basically the same engine except for bores and pistons. I'm surprised FoMoCo didn't just install the 3.5L into the S550 V6 Mustang... since they were intent on castrating it anyways.

All 5.0L Coyote engine blocks are aluminum. There are no cast iron versions.

I was going to post something on the Off Topic section about how unlike previous US elections there is absolutely no discussion about it on BON. Then I decided not to post and continue the status quo.

Ford is bring back the Bronco and it will be built in Michigan. The UAW also seems to hint that Ranger is coming too. http://www.autoblog.com/2016/10/03/ford-bronco-coming-back-michigan-america-official/

The effective displacement is way more than 3.5L when the turbos are at full boost.

The Butlerian Jihad is coming. I can feel it.

Turbo's in the vee, maybe? https://www.google.com/patents/US8459026

A twin-turbo 5.0L V8 in the Mustang will be a packaging marvel to behold in a Ford. I doubt it will happen. And the Cobra Jet SEMA car from a few years back that had the turbos behind the front clip will never pass emissions and therefore never see production. I seem to recall reading, somewhere, that the Ford was reworking the 6.2L V8 to fix the cooling problems (which seems to be the reason why it has not fully replaced the 6.8L V10). When I put my fantasy fanboy cap on I see a GT500 (or Mach 1?) with a Gen II 6.2L V8 with 3 or 4 valve VCT heads.

Ssssip... all right.

Forget the espresso, get out the grappa.

CVT's sound like they're ready to fly apart at moments notice.

54 mpg is attainable, it's just not sell-able. Same goes with 50 mpg.

From what I've read, the regulations are very tough on start-up emissions from a cold engine. So the cats need to be as closed as possible to the exhaust manifold in order to heat up (and catalyze) quickly. Adding more metal, like a turbine, between the manifold and the cats slows this process down.

The turbos have to be packed close to the exhaust manifold to meet emission regulations. The arrangement in the Cobra Jet concept will never make production.

DI was planned and incorporated into the 5.0L V8's design, as well as supercharging. Mention of both starts in paragraph 15 of this link. I think turbocharging would be a packaging nightmare for the Mustang. A DI supercharged 5.0L could be made very powerful and fit right in.

What's in it for the dealer? If: they order the vehicle is the profit the same as selling directly off their lot? they have to bring a vehicle in from another dealer do they have to share a cut of the profit with the other dealer and is the shipping expense covered by the selling dealer or both?

I think that S550 is to S197 as SN95 was to FOX.