GT-Keith

Question is, will we see some of these make it to the production Coyote?

300lbs is 8% of the Mustang's mass, close to the 11% that the F150 lost. That's pretty significant and I agree that Ford won't incorporate aluminum with the MCE. With the 2020 'stang however, I can see that along with a new 4.0L TT V8 and maybe a lighter chassis overall. I think we'll also see the 2.7L or the 3.0L Ecoboost in a midlevel model.

Does he expect Ford to just invest and be competitive with Tesla's batteries in the near term? Li is a commodity and Tesla isn't the only name in the game and the other players aren't masquerading as a car company thats gushing red. I don't see them going from ~2,000 vehicles a month to ~40,000 a month in five years with just a handful of models, half of which are not "mass market" friendly. Tesla is a nice civil engineering project, though.

Gen 2 Ecoboost is amazing. Every review has fallen in love with it... Even those negatards Motor Trend. This engine has to be underrated because it almost matches the Gen 1 3.5L Ecoboost numbers in performance.

HOW COME I ALWAYS GET THE FEELS WHEN I COME TO THIS FORUM We all know what happened last year and now another coveted member had cancer. Think of how many members we have that haven't logged in because they have passed on or are too sick to do so and we have no way of knowing. I'm leaving for a little while now.

Image this with the F-150 tune or actually with the MKX tune(335hp & 370tq). And the upcoming 9-speed should knock a few tens off both their times. This does 0-60 in 5.6s and with a slightly higher tune the 4900lb F-150 XLT they tested did the deed in 5.7s I believe.

Akirby, what about net gen/CD5(?) I hear Ford is switching to FWD/RWD longitudinal platform like Audi for the next generation.

This thread turned out funnier than I intended

So everyone wants names. I do too, but what could they be? Please don't call the MKZ the Zephyr again..Please. Sounds like a seasoning. MKZ = Zenith MKS = Sentinel MKR = Continental Navigator = Navigator Aviator = Aviator MKX = Xenon? MKC = Centurion? The naming convention gives me 1950's nuclear family, retrofuturism vibes. Was this intentional by the early or late designers?

wait does Ford even own "sentinel"?

It can't be worse than having your entire lineup start with the letter "F" for some inane symbiosis with the "F" in Ford.(or maybe it can be :-)) Letters are more confusing than numbers because they have no intrinsic value like numbers. When you see a Mark 6 and a Mark 4, you can easily figure out the hierarchy and place them in order accordingly. At least make it easy for the consumer to decipher your lineup, so that you don't struggle to differentiate them yourself.(BMW, Merc) The Germans got carried away, but I think it could work out. Leave the names for the flagships...Navigator, Aviator, Continental, & Sentinel are great nameplates IMO.

Don't make any tweeners then. BMW seems to be the worst offender at creating redundancy in their lineup. Leave the mutant vehicles to Ford(Ford Flex, which was well received unlike the that Town Car thing its based on..)

Instead of the current alphabet soup naming scheme, what about an alphanumerical scheme: SUV/CUV take even numbers: MK2, MK4, MK6, etc...Cars take odd numbers: MK1, MK3, MK5, etc...With flagship cars keeping their names such as the Continental, Navigator, and a Lincoln Sentinel.

Yes and thankfully Ford has higher margins than GM with just half the brands.

@JPD That's true, however, the 2015 Mustang has almost erased Camaro's sales lead since going on sale a year ago. Another 2-3 months of strong sales and the Mustang will be in the lead for marketshare from gen 5 to gen 6. Deliveries since 2009: Camaro....524,864 Mustang...512,038 Over the past year, the Mustang has been averaging 4500 more sales every month. In three months, the Mustang would have erased Camaro's marketshare.

I didn't know you could do PFI and DI all at once, but looking at a few schematics, it doesn't look overly convoluted. It just looks redundant. I wonder what the benefit is of having both? To add to this. Why not a bored out 6.2L to about 7.0L and adopt VCT, DOHC from the 5L and maybe add DI. 400hp/500tq and 30%+ better fuel than the V10. The Ecoboost V8 sounds nice as I've suggested one before, just not for medium duty applications.

My question is, will we see a cross-plane crank version of this engine coupled with DI. I think that would make a great power plant for the F150 and Mustang GT. With an oversquare engine block and bore spacing [perhaps] at it's limits, maybe there is room to increase stroke and get even more displacement out of it? Say 5.4-5.6L...?

What about an aluminum 6.2L DOHC, TiVCT, Direct Injection engine? That's an easy 500hp and 500lb-ft of torque. Bore and stroke it out to 7.0L and you have a GT500 engine making north of 650hp and it'll be lighter than the old 5.8L Supercharged V8.

@silverst No official numbers, so it's just an assumption on my part based around all the hype. Honestly, I don't think the 6.2L will be any lighter the MGT since the ATSV is already ~3750lbs with a TTV6, about 45lbs heavier than a MGT w/PP, and they will be sharing chassis. Indeed, the 2015's are selling more than the Camaro and Challenger combined and have been for almost a year now.

Would a cross-plane crank version of the 5.2L FPC V8 be possible? Coupled with direct injection I think it could be a nice upgrade to exceed the output of GM's 6.2L in the Camaro, after all the Camaro will be 50-75lbs lighter and make more power than the MGT. The 5.0 name has equity but they can simply lie like they did with the 4.9L.

The Idea that the 2.7L exist in "base" trim below the 2.3L gives me cancer. I don't see it ever happening. Too much inferences is being placed on tradition when Ford has true global aspirations for the Mustang and it's future. Having said that, I do see the lineup shifting to become more "Ecoboost centric" as follows: 2.3L - 320hp (Base)($25) 2.7L - 380hp (Mid-level)($28k) 5.2L CPC & DI - 470hp (High)($33k) The V6 can still fit in the lineup, but I don't think it needs to anymore.

The 5.2L sounds amazing. It just might be the best sounding V8 I've ever heard and the second best engine I've ever heard(Lexus LFA's V10 as the best). I would put the 5.2L FPC a notch above the 2005 Ford GT's note. However, the 2nd gen 3.5L Ecoboost sounds atypical for a six, though, at least in the GT. I would rate it above a stock 5.0L in the sound department.

With a 10 speed and a gear that short, It could work. I would love to see it in a 4500lb regular cab. I feel like the choice boils down to perception and performance; Anything other than a V8 is heresy but the "8" is not longer the top performer.

I don't think the FPC V8 has enough low-end torque for Lightening-duty. In the GT350, it'll make no more than 420lb-ft @ 4500 RPMs which is a far cry from the last trucks 450lb-ft at a much lower RPM. The FPC is a race engine favored by high RPMs that's demanded by circuit racing... Lightening needs low-end torque from the street where it will spend the mass majority of it's life and where the Ecoboost can be most appreciated. My guess is an Ecoboost 3.5L that bridges the gap between the GT and the Raptor. 500hp/500lb-ft torque.

During the GT's unveiling, the Ford executive or was it the lead engineer stated that they needed to amortize the cost of the 7-speed DCT in the GT as well. I wonder if we'll see that in something like a GT500, GT350R or whatever.