rmc523 Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Long live the Cortina! :lol: :shades: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigbuck15 Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 (edited) I just watched a video of the MKS from C&D and it ran a 13.9 @ 111mph. Edited May 27, 2009 by Bigbuck15 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 I just watched a video of the MKS from C&D and it ran a 13.9 @ 111mph. 111?? These things are definitely torque-limited off the line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8 Ford Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 So, what happens when you drop this engine into a 3500lb mustang, instead of a 4300lb Lincoln? :burnout: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 So, what happens when you drop this engine into a 3500lb mustang, instead of a 4300lb Lincoln? :burnout: Hope we find out!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Hope we find out!! I'm salivating...for one a RWD chassis may not need to be torque limited..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 So, what happens when you drop this engine into a 3500lb mustang, instead of a 4300lb Lincoln? :burnout: ...and turn up the HP and torque a bit, and don't limit the torque in the lower gears. Sit down, buckle up, and hold on! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 ...and turn up the HP and torque a bit, and don't limit the torque in the lower gears. Sit down, buckle up, and hold on! Have to wonder at what point traction becomes a worse enemy than the transmission though. For comparison, I submit the SVT Lightningbolt concept: a 5.4 Lighting V8 shoved into a Ranger. Sure, it had a ridiculously better power-weight ratio over its bigger Lightning brother, but even with massively wider rear tires (335 section width if I recall), the lighter body couldn't put any of the power to the ground and ended up being no quicker than the SVT Lightning. The same fate could await the Mustang as well. We shall see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Have to wonder at what point traction becomes a worse enemy than the transmission though. For comparison, I submit the SVT Lightningbolt concept: a 5.4 Lighting V8 shoved into a Ranger. Sure, it had a ridiculously better power-weight ratio over its bigger Lightning brother, but even with massively wider rear tires (335 section width if I recall), the lighter body couldn't put any of the power to the ground and ended up being no quicker than the SVT Lightning. The same fate could await the Mustang as well. We shall see. Since it's much lighter, the 3.5 EB Mustang would have the same or better shove off the mark than something like the 6.2 Boss and with 375 hp it would have more top end than the V8 Camaro. 3800 lb Falcon XR6 Turbo makes 360hp/391 lb ft and does a 13.2 quarter mine, an EB Mustang would be EB right there or maybe even in the 12s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Since it's much lighter, the 3.5 EB Mustang would have the same or better shove off the mark thansomething like the 6.2 Boss and with 375 hp it would have more top end than the V8 Camaro. 3800 lb Falcon XR6 Turbo makes 360hp/391 lb ft and does a 13.2 quarter mine, an EB Mustang would be EB right there or maybe even in the 12s. Depends what the torque curves look like. If the EB 3.5 has a ridiculous amount of low-end torque, which it appears to, without some sort of lower RPM torque management, the tires could spin right off the thing in comparison to a slower-winding V8. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Depends what the torque curves look like. If the EB 3.5 has a ridiculous amount of low-end torque, which it appears to, without some sort of lower RPM torque management, the tires could spin right off the thing in comparison to a slower-winding V8. oh I dunno....GT500 does ok..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 oh I dunno....GT500 does ok..... With quite a bit of fine-tuning done to it to get it there. I don't doubt the EB 3.5 could be used effectively as a performance motor, but what would it cost to get it there? If I were in Ford's shoes, I would offer the EB 3.5 as an efficient alternative to the 5.0 Coyote, priced similarly, and let the aftermarket sort out the rest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 With quite a bit of fine-tuning done to it to get it there. I don't doubt the EB 3.5 could be used effectively as a performance motor, but what would it cost to get it there? If I were in Ford's shoes, I would offer the EB 3.5 as an efficient alternative to the 5.0 Coyote, priced similarly, and let the aftermarket sort out the rest. a high winding 400hp paddle shifted twinforced eco 6 ina RWD platform....truley sounds like a hoot... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 a high winding 400hp paddle shifted twinforced eco 6 ina RWD platform....truley sounds like a hoot... +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydro Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Depends what the torque curves look like. If the EB 3.5 has a ridiculous amount of low-end torque, which it appears to, without some sort of lower RPM torque management, the tires could spin right off the thing in comparison to a slower-winding V8. Look, just put the Falcon's IRS and XR6 Turbo engine in the Mustang and watch the friggen Camaros wither and die.... The Camaro is an out of time overweight car, Ford has so much fire power at its disposal it's just embarrasing for GM.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Look, just put the Falcon's IRS and XR6 Turbo engine in the Mustang and watch the friggen Camaros wither and die....The Camaro is an out of time overweight car, Ford has so much fire power at its disposal it's just embarrasing for GM.... Based on the early comparisons, it looks like the Mustang won't even need that to make the Camaro wither and die. :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Based on the early comparisons, it looks like the Mustang won't even need that to make the Camaro wither and die. :lol: And that's with the outgoing engine series. If Ford made a 4.6 Coyote, that would still towel up the V8 Camaro, how embarrassing would that be..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_fairmont_wagon Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 With intelligent traction control, the EB 3.5 would make the mustang launch and drive like a raped ape with its tail on fire. Having simulated the EB 3.5L as best I can on desktop dyno, and looking at the existing published power curves, that engine is capable of crazy performance numbers in a RWD application so long as the transmission can handle it. If the were willing to, they could have the numbers of that engine up in the torqueshift area. The aftermarket is going to LOVE that engine. If it delivers 400+ numbers and v6 like fuel economy, the competition will definitely have their work cut out for them. Of course, I'm still interested in what the N/A 3.7L Duratec does for the stang. With even MkS power numbers, it will keep the lighter mustang right up with the v6 camaro and competitive with the Genisis coupe, 370Z, and yards ahead of the challenger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 I'd love to have a Mustang with the 3.5L EB. You can't beat the sound of a V8 but a twin-turbo V6 with gobs of bottom end torque would be a fantastic ride. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.