Next Generation Mustang

[one2gamble]

shed about 400-500lbs

IRS

6spd

More Modern

 

270hp V6

400hp GT

480hp GT350 - (detuned eco boost 5.0L v8)

600hp GT500

[bravestar]

You guys keep missing the point. The EB3.5L in a RWD vehicle with a RWD tranny will put out at least 380 hp - possibly closer to 400 hp. It has to be torque limited for the 6F55 tranny in the D3s. In the mustang there would be no torque limitation. I also don't think the production 5.0L will be quite 400 hp but I could be wrong.

 

I don't see a need for 2 380-390 hp engines, especially when the EB3.5L could be used in other applications where the 5.0L could not.

 

 

Thats been done before and the V-8 will always win the buyers if the hp is relatively the same (especially if the turbo 6 costs more). I thought the 5.0 was going in the F-150 too. What other rear wheel drive application would the turbo 6 be in?

[Deanh]

Thats been done before and the V-8 will always win the buyers if the hp is relatively the same (especially if the turbo 6 costs more). I thought the 5.0 was going in the F-150 too. What other rear wheel drive application would the turbo 6 be in?

ask yourself...how many RWD platforms does Ford have?

[Deanh]

Thats been done before and the V-8 will always win the buyers if the hp is relatively the same (especially if the turbo 6 costs more). I thought the 5.0 was going in the F-150 too. What other rear wheel drive application would the turbo 6 be in?

not necessarily...........same HP, possibly superior torque curve, better mileage, better weight distribution...interesting alternative that would appeal to a less traditional buyer....a BMW owner perhaps.....

[bravestar]

not necessarily...........same HP, possibly superior torque curve, better mileage, better weight distribution...interesting alternative that would appeal to a less traditional buyer....a BMW owner perhaps.....

[/quote

 

Remember the SVO? Mustang owner here...not a wannabe. And besides that, how many BMW owners are going to be cross shopping a Mustang anything? Not the traditional Mustang buyer, they are the v-6 group and the V-8 performance clan. I am all for choice, as I said in the past, but do not replace the V-8 with a boat motor sounding v-6.

Edited August 14, 2009 by bravestar

[bravestar]

ask yourself...how many RWD platforms does Ford have?

 

and I ask you, since your soo into the Flex. What is the price premium for the ecoboost Flex and how do you think that would fit into the Mustang demographics? Only as a premium in my estimation and the same thing is true with the F-150. GM will laugh its ass off at Ford for an expensive ecoboosted v-6 verses there LS engine Silverado. Unless Ford has at least a 2 or 3 mile per gallon better fuel economy. I would think that Ford would be concerned about their cost in this setup especially with cost conscious buyer such as fleets.

[Deanh]

and I ask you, since your soo into the Flex. What is the price premium for the ecoboost Flex and how do you think that would fit into the Mustang demographics? Only as a premium in my estimation and the same thing is true with the F-150. GM will laugh its ass off at Ford for an expensive ecoboosted v-6 verses there LS engine Silverado. Unless Ford has at least a 2 or 3 mile per gallon better fuel economy. I would think that Ford would be concerned about their cost in this setup especially with cost conscious buyer such as fleets.

there is NO way of gauging just the cost of eco in the Flex because it is packaged and BURDENED with AWD...right there is approx 2k from the get go, now add suspension tweeks, steering and mandatory 20 inch wheels and it adds up to about 3 grand...and ALL of thos options are not necessary with a RWD ( ala Mustang ) chassis....I would say MSRP about $1200. Trust me Ford has their finger on the pulse in this one...there is NOT a manufacturer out there right now making as well a educated moves...NONE. Yep, maybe GM will laugh its ass off, but probably at lack of Volt sales and the loss on each unit...great way to dig one way out of a hole...oh wait, theres the Camaro..........

[fordmantpw]

and I ask you, since your soo into the Flex. What is the price premium for the ecoboost Flex and how do you think that would fit into the Mustang demographics? Only as a premium in my estimation and the same thing is true with the F-150. GM will laugh its ass off at Ford for an expensive ecoboosted v-6 verses there LS engine Silverado. Unless Ford has at least a 2 or 3 mile per gallon better fuel economy. I would think that Ford would be concerned about their cost in this setup especially with cost conscious buyer such as fleets.

 

I seriously doubt GM will be laughing at Ford. I mean, have you seen the torque curve of the 3.5 EB in the SHO? Even with the lower max torque rating than the 5.4, I'm sure that engine would keep up with the 5.4 (and maybe walk away from it) given the torque curve (and I think the 5.4 is a great engine). Don't even bring up the 5.3 in the Chevies. Now, once that engine is no longer limited by the FWD tranny, look out! I drool just thinking about how that thing would tow my travel trailer.

 

If the 3.5 EB and the 4.4 diesel were both available in an F150 now, and I was looking for a new F150, it would be a hard choice. I would love to have a diesel, but the expected cost premium (if it were available) would be tough to swallow over the 3.5 EB with a similar (if not better) torque curve. I'm sure the 4.4 would be better on fuel while towing, and maybe slightly better empty, but with 90% of my driving being empty and small trips, I think I'd probably go 3.5 EB (and I've been a big proponent of the 4.4 diesel for the F150 all along!). In the F150, I don't look for a big premium to step up to the 3.5 EB. I'm thinking $795 MSRP over the 5.4.

[bravestar]

I seriously doubt GM will be laughing at Ford. I mean, have you seen the torque curve of the 3.5 EB in the SHO? Even with the lower max torque rating than the 5.4, I'm sure that engine would keep up with the 5.4 (and maybe walk away from it) given the torque curve (and I think the 5.4 is a great engine). Don't even bring up the 5.3 in the Chevies. Now, once that engine is no longer limited by the FWD tranny, look out! I drool just thinking about how that thing would tow my travel trailer.

 

If the 3.5 EB and the 4.4 diesel were both available in an F150 now, and I was looking for a new F150, it would be a hard choice. I would love to have a diesel, but the expected cost premium (if it were available) would be tough to swallow over the 3.5 EB with a similar (if not better) torque curve. I'm sure the 4.4 would be better on fuel while towing, and maybe slightly better empty, but with 90% of my driving being empty and small trips, I think I'd probably go 3.5 EB (and I've been a big proponent of the 4.4 diesel for the F150 all along!). In the F150, I don't look for a big premium to step up to the 3.5 EB. I'm thinking $795 MSRP over the 5.4.

 

Maybe I need to explain my position better. I have no doubt that the EB 3.5 will be one of the best engines available in any vehicle. My concern is the cost of such a powerplant to Ford against others with simple design engines. I also agree about the delayed diesel. I cannot understand why that engine would not be feasible in the Super Duty and, geared differently for the F-150. Must be a great cost issue there as well.

[Deanh]

Maybe I need to explain my position better. I have no doubt that the EB 3.5 will be one of the best engines available in any vehicle. My concern is the cost of such a powerplant to Ford against others with simple design engines. I also agree about the delayed diesel. I cannot understand why that engine would not be feasible in the Super Duty and, geared differently for the F-150. Must be a great cost issue there as well.

I think you are wrong on the eco 3.5 cost....hell a regular GT coupe runs just a few grand cheaper to an SHO base.....and the taurus is EXTREMELY well equipped in comaparison with a mustang, has 4 doors, as a newer model has IRS and AWD to boot......

[jpd80]

Maybe I need to explain my position better. I have no doubt that the EB 3.5 will be one of the best engines available in any vehicle. My concern is the cost of such a powerplant to Ford against others with simple design engines. I also agree about the delayed diesel. I cannot understand why that engine would not be feasible in the Super Duty and, geared differently for the F-150. Must be a great cost issue there as well.

The rumor was (from theoldwizard) that the 4.4 exceeded power outputs and was closer to the

6.7's power and torque, I think overpowering the intended transmission was also mentioned...

 

Sounds like Ford built a 4.4 when the original 3.6 may have done the trick admirably....

[syrtran]

not necessarily...........same HP, possibly superior torque curve, better mileage, better weight distribution...interesting alternative that would appeal to a less traditional buyer....a BMW owner perhaps.....

 

Remember the SVO? Mustang owner here...not a wannabe. And besides that, how many BMW owners are going to be cross shopping a Mustang anything? Not the traditional Mustang buyer, they are the v-6 group and the V-8 performance clan. I am all for choice, as I said in the past, but do not replace the V-8 with a boat motor sounding v-6.

Here's the take from someone that was one of less than 9900 original purchasers of the SVO:

If the EB V6 gets about the same HP as the V8, and doesn't get a lot better mileage (SVOs were about 15-20% better), then - even if the price is the same - there won't be any EB V6 sales to speak of. Go take a look at all the comments about the mule mentioned in the C&D blog. People are either adamant that it's a coyote (even though the single exhaust is pretty telling), or are dissing it completely.

 

An EB V6 Mustang will need to slot between the base and GT models for both price and performance if they want to get any sales.

[2b2]

3. FOCUS ON THE SHEET METAL DIMENSIONS AND POSSIBLE PLATFORMS. I think this is the area that is hardest to predict. If they change platforms what options does for have? Someone mentioned Falcon? If the car gets smaller what platform will it be on? If it looks more modern what will it look like?

 

FOCUS ON THE SHEET METAL, DIMENSIONS AND POSSIBLE PLATFORMS!!! Photo shops would be cool.

 

Ideas?

 

not exactly a "serving suggestion", more of a What-If I'd been meaning to try

 

click for bigger

 

dimensions: same wheelbase, a bit shorter ovl, as much as possible lighter, & a better rear seat thanks to some Falcon-ized packaging

 

platform: DUH, the GloriousGlobalRwdPlatform...

...that's 90%+ ready (incldg LHD!) and sitting on a shelf in Broadmeadows

Edited August 15, 2009 by 2b2

[rmc523]

not exactly a "serving suggestion", more of a What-If I'd been meaning to try

 

click for bigger

 

dimensions: same wheelbase, a bit shorter ovl, as much as possible lighter, & a better rear seat thanks to some Falcon-ized packaging

 

platform: DUH, the GloriousGlobalRwdPlatform...

...that's 90%+ ready (incldg LHD!) and sitting on a shelf in Broadmeadows

 

Great work, although I think it looks a bit bulky in the rear end...

[rmc523]

I don't know if I've posted this before, but here was my rough idea of a new/next gen Mustang. The front needs to be changed, but here it is anyway, along with 3 pictures to show the turn signal.

 

[bravestar]

Remember the SVO? Mustang owner here...not a wannabe. And besides that, how many BMW owners are going to be cross shopping a Mustang anything? Not the traditional Mustang buyer, they are the v-6 group and the V-8 performance clan. I am all for choice, as I said in the past, but do not replace the V-8 with a boat motor sounding v-6.

 

Here's the take from someone that was one of less than 9900 original purchasers of the SVO:

If the EB V6 gets about the same HP as the V8, and doesn't get a lot better mileage (SVOs were about 15-20% better), then - even if the price is the same - there won't be any EB V6 sales to speak of. Go take a look at all the comments about the mule mentioned in the C&D blog. People are either adamant that it's a coyote (even though the single exhaust is pretty telling), or are dissing it completely.

 

An EB V6 Mustang will need to slot between the base and GT models for both price and performance if they want to get any sales.

 

I was offered a great deal on a 84 SVO when I ordered my 84 1/2 GT Mustang. I was waiting for the mid model year v-8 horsepower increase that never materialized until the 85 model year. I loved the looks of the SVO especially the seats but could not justify less for more. Later the SVO was intercooled but still...more money for a car that was not a v-8 did not seem, to me, what a Mustang performance car is.

 

If I had the opportunity to afford a Shelby Cobra GT500 (what a mouthful) I would rather have a 7.0 Boss engine with the same or maybe even less power than a blown 5.4. Just seems like that you aren't playing fair with a power adder from the factory.

[donzuchowski]

i4 echooboost and v6 echoboost and supercharged as well.... i would go to the future not the past, i would not keep one cue from the past, even the backward horse. I would make it like a small 2 seater and a 4 seater and a wagon model like a whole range of mustangs even a division named mustang to replace mercury...

[fordmantpw]

i4 echooboost and v6 echoboost and supercharged as well.... i would go to the future not the past, i would not keep one cue from the past, even the backward horse. I would make it like a small 2 seater and a 4 seater and a wagon model like a whole range of mustangs even a division named mustang to replace mercury...

 

Put down the mouse and step away from the keyboard!

[rmc523]

Put down the mouse and step away from the keyboard!

 

AGREED!!

[Ralph Greene]

I would expect the shape of the next Mustang to "evolve" from the current model. Get more aero.

 

RE engines. 3.5 base and V 8 stays as GT engine in about 365 HP form. Who knows what GT 500 will Have....or if they continue with it?

The Mustang may need the V 8 in it's line up for that V 8 sound, etc....For performance I would choose a EB 3.5 over a NA 5.0 V8 any day if both were rated around same HP.

 

I remember the days when Pontiac put the under rated Buick 3.8 Turbo in the Firebird. The chicken hooded 400 V8's got the attention, but the Turbo V6 was the faster car....by a lot.

Edited August 24, 2009 by Ralph Greene

[one2gamble]

I would expect the shape of the next Mustang to "evolve" from the current model. Get more aero.

 

RE engines. 3.5 base and V 8 stays as GT engine in about 365 HP form. Who knows what GT 500 will Have....or if they continue with it?

The Mustang may need the V 8 in it's line up for that V 8 sound, etc....For performance I would choose a EB 3.5 over a NA 5.0 V8 any day if both were rated around same HP.

 

I remember the days when Pontiac put the under rated Buick 3.8 Turbo in the Firebird. The chicken hooded 400 V8's got the attention, but the Turbo V6 was the faster car....by a lot.

 

 

if the EB goes int eh mustang I expect it to keep its 350-365 rating and have the V8 come in around 400hp.

 

You could do something like this

 

3.5 265

EB 3.5 360

5.0l 400

EB 5.0l 500hp

[Deanh]

if the EB goes int eh mustang I expect it to keep its 350-365 rating and have the V8 come in around 400hp.

 

You could do something like this

 

3.5 265

EB 3.5 360

5.0l 400

EB 5.0l 500hp

ARRRRRRG!...everyone need to look at themselves in the mirror and ask a perfectly legit question...when the 3.5 eco gets put into a REAR wheel drive platform that can handle SUBSTAMNTIALLY mor ehorsepower than the FWD SHO...WHY, oh WHY would they feel inclined to dial it DOWN ( it has seen close to 500 on the bench but dialed down to the 365 so as not to obliterate FWD transmissions ) thats an INSULT to the Mustang mentality....IMO it will be 400 plus and in a limited edition..........

[bravestar]

ARRRRRRG!...everyone need to look at themselves in the mirror and ask a perfectly legit question...when the 3.5 eco gets put into a REAR wheel drive platform that can handle SUBSTAMNTIALLY mor ehorsepower than the FWD SHO...WHY, oh WHY would they feel inclined to dial it DOWN ( it has seen close to 500 on the bench but dialed down to the 365 so as not to obliterate FWD transmissions ) thats an INSULT to the Mustang mentality....IMO it will be 400 plus and in a limited edition..........

 

Dean, I know that you are excited about this setup, but I think that it will not meet its sales goals for such a package. This is only me, I think that Mustangs are V-8 performance and v-6 or 4cyl more economical models. The Mustang does not have a great history of high performance packages other than V-8's. Betcha a Coca-Cola Classic on it.

[Ralph Greene]

When the 5.0 shows up....I don't expect it to make over 350-360 HP advertised. I know a 5.0 new generation can make 400 HP easily, I just don't expect to see it advertised at that level first year out. You'll probably get the truck version, or a car version with a soft tune, maybe with dual exhausts etc.

 

Just like the current GT 500 engine. It always could easily make the 540 (and a lot more) of the 2010 model, but Ford doesn't give it all away the first year. So it started low, that gave Ford the ability to raise HP along the way. I expect the same from the 5.0.

 

I know the Mustang probably needs the sound of a V 8, but in a couple years, a 400 HP EB 3.5 engine would make the car faster than a 400 HP 5.0. For the tuner crowd....you can usually add about 10% HP from simple bolt ons to a NA V 8 engine. But it would be so simple to add about 100-200 HP to that EB 3.5 with simple bolt ons. 500 HP would be so easy (if you don't mind destroying your warranty).

 

There are plenty of 700-800 HP old Turbo Buicks running around the cruises. Though I admit some have the old NASCAR V6 blocks. And plenty of similar power old Turbo Toyota Supra's. I've seen several of the 3.0 TT Supra's making over 900 at the wheels on the dyno's, with great street drivability. Try that with a NA V 8.

Edited August 24, 2009 by Ralph Greene

[Deanh]

Dean, I know that you are excited about this setup, but I think that it will not meet its sales goals for such a package. This is only me, I think that Mustangs are V-8 performance and v-6 or 4cyl more economical models. The Mustang does not have a great history of high performance packages other than V-8's. Betcha a Coca-Cola Classic on it.

initially the car will get the regular 3.5 V6, no doubt in my mind that will eventually get replaced with and eco 4, and agreed V8's are the backbone of the lineup when it comes to performance, however, we have Machs, Bullits etc etc....and eco 6 would probably be just another special edition, but one that MAY broaden the lineup by piquing interest from a different type of buyer...and thats one they havent attacked for a while, seems all they have been appealing too are the loyalists...this way more than one area is adressed...win win in my book....