Next SVT Mustang may axe Shelby name and go naturally aspirated

[Edstock]

And here's the major European competition. IMHO, BMW has jumped the shark with this one.

 

http://www.autoblog.com/2013/06/14/2014-bmw-4-series-coupe-officially-debuts-priced-from-41-425/

[Hugh]

And here's the major European competition. IMHO, BMW has jumped the shark with this one.

 

http://www.autoblog.com/2013/06/14/2014-bmw-4-series-coupe-officially-debuts-priced-from-41-425/

What is in a name? A 3-Series Coupe gets a +1 for some separation from it's sedan and wagon brethern. Nice car but all that? I find it ironic the last 3-series road test I read had preference of the 2.0L GTDI I4 over the I6. Edmunds prefers the EB20 over the D37 because of light weight, better FE and power is just as good? 5 years ago, that was blasphemy!

[TopCat501]

Nice list. I hope there's room somewhere for the 5.8 in Fords line up. I have a soft spot for that beast.

 

there are others that agree with you. Named one of the 10 best engines in 2013

http://wardsauto.com/vehicles-amp-technology/ford-58l-supercharged-dohc-v-8

 

For me, a 5.8 is a little more aspirational than a 5.0. There is more headroom to add HP to the 5.8 (at the cost of mpg of course and the dreaded gas guzzler tax). Outside of it not physically fitting in the redesign. the problem for the 5.8/5.4 is its lack of utilization in other models unlike the 5.0. Then again, I'm not sure if Ford sources the 5.8 block inhouse or externally. I hope Ford keeps it around another couple of years until CAFE contraints make it go away

[Hugh]

there are others that agree with you. Named one of the 10 best engines in 2013

http://wardsauto.com/vehicles-amp-technology/ford-58l-supercharged-dohc-v-8

 

For me, a 5.8 is a little more aspirational than a 5.0. There is more headroom to add HP to the 5.8 (at the cost of mpg of course and the dreaded gas guzzler tax). Outside of it not physically fitting in the redesign. the problem for the 5.8/5.4 is its lack of utilization in other models unlike the 5.0. Then again, I'm not sure if Ford sources the 5.8 block inhouse or externally. I hope Ford keeps it around another couple of years until CAFE contraints make it go away

 

 

there are others that agree with you. Named one of the 10 best engines in 2013

http://wardsauto.com/vehicles-amp-technology/ford-58l-supercharged-dohc-v-8

 

For me, a 5.8 is a little more aspirational than a 5.0. There is more headroom to add HP to the 5.8 (at the cost of mpg of course and the dreaded gas guzzler tax). Outside of it not physically fitting in the redesign. the problem for the 5.8/5.4 is its lack of utilization in other models unlike the 5.0. Then again, I'm not sure if Ford sources the 5.8 block inhouse or externally. I hope Ford keeps it around another couple of years until CAFE contraints make it go away

AFAIK, the 5.8L has the block of the MOD 5.4L as the 5.0L is from the 4.6L. There has been a lot of debate regarding if the MOD family is limited in its applications however, based upon what has come out, a lot of grumbling has been laid to rest. My question is what will happen to the 6.2L BOSS?

[calypsocoral]

Mustang ECO? WTF... Mustang SVO - 2.3 Ecoboost much better...

 

I like Boss 5.0 and I think the 3.5 turbo can be the new MACH 1

 

3.7 V6 - Mustang

2.3 turbo - Mustang SVO

5.0 V8 "normal" version - Mustang GT

3.5 turbo - Mustang MACH 1

5.0 V8 special edition/high output version - Bullit, Boss 5.0

5.0 turbo - GT500 Cobra

 

Yeah, I have to admit that I'm not exactly well-studied in the nomenclature of the Fox-bodied Mustangs-- that's an era I tend to ignore, although I know many folks on this forum owned and loved them. So, sure, SVO it is.

 

I've always considered the Mach 1 to be a torque monster, like the original GT-500 and the BOSS 429. If I were to do a Mach 1 today, I'd probably go with the 6.2L V8, re-tuned for 420+hp and 450+ lb-ft.

 

Carrol Shelby himself expressed a great deal of interest in the 3.5L EB before he passed-on, so I think doing a Shelby-labeled Mustang with that powertrain would be appropriate, hence my "GT-350."

 

And, this time, since this will likely be the last generation of Mustangs to carry on the "Shelby" name, I think Ford should be obligated to do a GT-500 "KR" (King of the Road).

[calypsocoral]

For me, a 5.8 is a little more aspirational than a 5.0. There is more headroom to add HP to the 5.8 (at the cost of mpg of course and the dreaded gas guzzler tax). Outside of it not physically fitting in the redesign. the problem for the 5.8/5.4 is its lack of utilization in other models unlike the 5.0. Then again, I'm not sure if Ford sources the 5.8 block inhouse or externally. I hope Ford keeps it around another couple of years until CAFE contraints make it go away

 

Imagine this-- a final run of 5.8's in...

 

 

 

 

 

 

...wait for it...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A RAPTOR!

[Hugh]

Imagine this-- a final run of 5.8's in...

 

 

 

 

 

 

...wait for it...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A RAPTOR!

NA 5.8L with the same power as the BOSS but better FE is a win in my books. A S/C 5.8 is just the right amount of insanity in a Raptor.

[jpd80]

I'm the opposite, think "5.0 Cammer" with the later Coyote crank and 7.500-8,000 rpm potential

Large port MOD 4V heads actually work better in a screaming Boss than the Coyote variants..

7.0 liter engine or not, combination like that would be more than a match for Z28...

 

RPM can also be considered as a form variable displacement.

Edited June 16, 2013 by jpd80

[30 OTT 6]

AFAIK, the 5.8L has the block of the MOD 5.4L as the 5.0L is from the 4.6L. There has been a lot of debate regarding if the MOD family is limited in its applications however, based upon what has come out, a lot of grumbling has been laid to rest. My question is what will happen to the 6.2L BOSS?

The 5.0L Coyote block is significantly different from the older generation 4.6L and 5.4L blocks. The 5.8L still uses the the old tall deck modular block shared with the 5.4L. As of right now there is no tall deck version of the Coyote block.

Edited June 16, 2013 by 30 OTT 6

[Hugh]

The 5.0L Coyote block is significantly different from the older generation 4.6L and 5.4L blocks. The 5.8L still uses the the old tall deck modular block shared with the 5.4L. As of right now there is no tall deck version of the Coyote block.

I thought the 5.0L used the 4.6L bell housing. No matter, thanks for the info.

[Edstock]

RPM can also be considered as a form variable displacement.

 

Never thought of it that way, but that's what you get.

[30 OTT 6]

I thought the 5.0L used the 4.6L bell housing. No matter, thanks for the info.

Here's somegood articles to read about the 5.0L, 5.8L and 6.2L engines:

 

http://www.mustang50magazine.com/techarticles/m5lp_1003_2011_ford_mustang_gt_50_coyote_engine/

 

http://www.mustang50magazine.com/techarticles/m5lp_1203_2013_ford_shelby_gt500_trinity_5_8l_v8/

 

http://www.mustang50magazine.com/techarticles/m5lp_1009_ford_motor_company_62_liter_v8_engine/viewall.html

 

Take a look at the pictures of each block, especially the deck surfaces. And your right, all of the mod engines and the 6.2L share the same bellhousing pattern.

Edited June 17, 2013 by 30 OTT 6

[bzcat]

I've always considered the Mach 1 to be a torque monster, like the original GT-500 and the BOSS 429. If I were to do a Mach 1 today, I'd probably go with the 6.2L V8, re-tuned for 420+hp and 450+ lb-ft.

 

I agree... that's why I suggested MACH 1 should use 3.5 turbo... it is the king of torques!

[OHV 16V]

Car & Driver is now running this on their main page in their news ticker.

 

http://blog.caranddriver.com/report-next-svt-shelby-mustang-to-be-called-gt350-lose-supercharger/

[silvrsvt]

I've always liked the GT-350 more so then the GT500 (the '66 GT-350 is one of my favorite Mustangs of all time)...so maybe we'll see a Ecoboost 3.5L with 450HP or more in it?

[NickF1011]

Car & Driver is now running this on their main page in their news ticker.

 

http://blog.caranddriver.com/report-next-svt-shelby-mustang-to-be-called-gt350-lose-supercharger/

They are running with the same rumors that autoblog had. :shrug:

[OHV 16V]

They are running with the same rumors that autoblog had. :shrug:

Yea, I was just more or less showing that this story is now going to stay true to every time we've gotten changes to the Mustang and it's spreading like the plague, regardless of how true or not all of the info is.

[OHV 16V]

I've always liked the GT-350 more so then the GT500 (the '66 GT-350 is one of my favorite Mustangs of all time)...so maybe we'll see a Ecoboost 3.5L with 450HP or more in it?

The Ecoboost's displacement would lend itself rather well to that model designation. One also must wonder if, as you suggest, we'll finally get to see the Ecoboost "uncorked" more now that it's not constrained by transmission limitations...

[jpd80]

The Ecoboost's displacement would lend itself rather well to that model designation. One also must wonder if, as you suggest, we'll finally get to see the Ecoboost "uncorked" more now that it's not constrained by transmission limitations...

Thinking parallel to GM's new TT V6 with 430 hp (?)...

Perhaps a stronger Ecoboost V6 in the Mustang developes an entirely new genre of buyers..

[LDB415]

Ford probably paid for the Shelby name because the Shelby name has value and sells Mustangs just as Boss 302 and Mach 1 do. Boss 5.0 instead of Boss 302? EXCELLENT idea if they want to build them and keep them. Not so much if they actually want to sell them.

[V8-X]

I don't know how long the BOSS 6.2 is going to be around.

 

My question is what will happen to the 6.2L BOSS?

The 6.2L isn't going anywhere, at least at Ford. Still need it for the top end F150 motor or at the very least, as the gas burner alternative to the 6.7L.

[NickF1011]

The 6.2L isn't going anywhere, at least at Ford. Still need it for the top end F150 motor or at the very least, as the gas burner alternative to the 6.7L.

EB 5.0 anyone?

[fordmantpw]

The 6.2L isn't going anywhere, at least at Ford. Still need it for the top end F150 motor or at the very least, as the gas burner alternative to the 6.7L.

 

I don't think the 6.2L will make the cut in the next gen F150. I do see it sticking around in the Super Duty though.

 

EB 5.0 anyone?

 

While I hope to see the EB 5.0 as an alternative to the 6.7L in the Super Duties, I think the 6.2L will stick around as the base engine.

[jpvbs]

and maybe this is old news, but Ram will be using a 6.4l Hemi in their HD trucks in 2014 models. Will Ford respond with upgrades to the 6.2?

[Hugh]

All that said, the 6.2 might have more life in the Super Duty and Commercial to eventually replace the V10. That makes sense to me. The way forward for Light Duty is either an upgrade to the 6.2 which IMHO should be done anyway or a EB 50.