Ford Mustang GTD Will Have 815 HP and a 202-MPH Top Speed

[twintornados]

16 hours ago, Captainp4 said:

The 5.4 and 6.8 were called Triton.

 

As was the 4.6L

[Rick73]

On 9/17/2024 at 12:13 AM, SoonerLS said:

As I understand it, “modular” isn’t really about the engines themselves as much as it is the manufacturing process for the engines. Any engines made using Ford’s modular engine building system could be considered a modular engine. The 4.6 was just the first engine made using that process, so it and the 5.4 got the Mod Motor tag. 

What’s interesting about the Ford modular engine family to me is that as far as I know Ford did not extend design to 4, 5, and 6 cylinder engines like other manufacturers have often done with their own versions of “modular” engine designs.  Germans have been doing it for a long time, and even GM had the 4-, 5-, and 6-cylinder Atlas engine family.

 

Ford has found a way to increase bore to 94 mm and still take incredible abuse as demonstrated by this Mustang, so I could easily see the modular family V8 increased to nearly 6 liters for future HD hybrids by using 5.4/5.8 taller deck.  I’d like to see Ford build what would essentially be a super-sized long-stroke Coyote for hybrid trucks.

[Sherminator98]

8 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

What’s interesting about the Ford modular engine family to me is that as far as I know Ford did not extend design to 4, 5, and 6 cylinder engines like other manufacturers have often done with their own versions of “modular” engine designs.  Germans have been doing it for a long time, and even GM had the 4-, 5-, and 6-cylinder Atlas engine family.

 

The Duratec and Sigma engines are what your looking for. 

 

[Rick73]

Thinking larger displacement per cylinder, as typically seen in pickups and heavier vehicles.

[Captainp4]

17 hours ago, akirby said:

 

Only in the trucks.

Did the 5.4 come in anything other than a truck? Besides the cobra R

[DeluxeStang]

I think we're getting off topic here guys. Anyways, on the topic of the GTD, and the mustang in general, I'm excited to see the official 'ring time for this thing. I believe Ford said October, but don't quote me on that. 

 

It is a little depressing to see the zr1 take the wind out of the GTD's sails a bit, but I'm sure Ford will find a way to respond. Either by carrying over a lot of this tech into a cheaper Gt500, bumping up the power output on the gtd in later model years, or by offering a mid-engine mustang alongside the s650. Any of those strategies would help ford take the fight to the c8 more directly. 

[Captainp4]

55 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

I think we're getting off topic here guys. Anyways, on the topic of the GTD, and the mustang in general, I'm excited to see the official 'ring time for this thing. I believe Ford said October, but don't quote me on that. 

 

It is a little depressing to see the zr1 take the wind out of the GTD's sails a bit, but I'm sure Ford will find a way to respond. Either by carrying over a lot of this tech into a cheaper Gt500, bumping up the power output on the gtd in later model years, or by offering a mid-engine mustang alongside the s650. Any of those strategies would help ford take the fight to the c8 more directly. 

Maybe they'll drop a surprise GT wrapped around this engine 😃

[DeluxeStang]

4 minutes ago, Captainp4 said:

Maybe they'll drop a surprise GT wrapped around this engine 😃

Ford was testing a V8 Ford gt mule a few years ago. Some thought it was the 7.3, but all we know for sure is it was a V8 based on how it sounded. This was close to when Ford was spied benchmarking a c8. 

 

https://www.thedrive.com/news/41971/v8-ford-gt-this-test-mule-could-pack-a-twin-turbo-7-3l-engine

Edited September 18, 2024 by DeluxeStang

[jpd80]

3 hours ago, Captainp4 said:

Did the 5.4 come in anything other than a truck? Besides the cobra R

Aussie Falcon got the 5.4 3V and a DOHC 5.4 that was hand built

[SoonerLS]

7 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Aussie Falcon got the 5.4 3V and a DOHC 5.4 that was hand built

The DOHC 5.4 was a different animal than the Triton 5.4 in the trucks (and, apparently, Falcon). The DOHC 5.4s, whether they went into GTs or Falcons, were all hand-built at the Romeo engine plant, if memory serves. 

[SoonerLS]

14 hours ago, Rick73 said:

What’s interesting about the Ford modular engine family to me is that as far as I know Ford did not extend design to 4, 5, and 6 cylinder engines like other manufacturers have often done with their own versions of “modular” engine designs.

That’s largely because Ford’s “modular” referred to the engine assembly line being modular, not the engines themselves being modular. 
 

I suppose you could say that Ford did the modular thing when they married two Duratec 3.0 V6 blocks to make the V12 for Aston-Martin back in the day…

[Rick73]

6 hours ago, SoonerLS said:

That’s largely because Ford’s “modular” referred to the engine assembly line being modular, not the engines themselves being modular. 
 

I suppose you could say that Ford did the modular thing when they married two Duratec 3.0 V6 blocks to make the V12 for Aston-Martin back in the day…

The 5.4L V8 and 6.8L V10 were also extremely similar except to extra two cylinders, making them essentially modular IMO.  However, I was thinking more in terms of why Ford didn’t make a 5-cylinder, for example, by using half of V10?  Would have been similar to GM 3.5L Atlas.   If I recall correctly, Transit and Ranger offered 3.2L in-line 5-cylinder diesel for years, so why not a similar-size 3.4L gas I-5 option for some budget-minded buyers?  It would seem such an engine would have been much cheaper to manufacture than a DOHC V6.  Obviously it wouldn’t have been as powerful, but with V10-like durability and long-stroke low-end torque, I believe I would have preferred that over V6.  Pretty sure emissions would have killed that concept though.  Besides, if designing an I-5, might as well make it an I-6 and do it right.

[Sherminator98]

3 hours ago, Rick73 said:

The 5.4L V8 and 6.8L V10 were also extremely similar except to extra two cylinders, making them essentially modular IMO.  However, I was thinking more in terms of why Ford didn’t make a 5-cylinder, for example, by using half of V10?  Would have been similar to GM 3.5L Atlas.   If I recall correctly, Transit and Ranger offered 3.2L in-line 5-cylinder diesel for years, so why not a similar-size 3.4L gas I-5 option for some budget-minded buyers?  It would seem such an engine would have been much cheaper to manufacture than a DOHC V6.  Obviously it wouldn’t have been as powerful, but with V10-like durability and long-stroke low-end torque, I believe I would have preferred that over V6.  Pretty sure emissions would have killed that concept though.  Besides, if designing an I-5, might as well make it an I-6 and do it right.

 

You have some really weird ideas about things...

[jpd80]

12 hours ago, SoonerLS said:

The DOHC 5.4 was a different animal than the Triton 5.4 in the trucks (and, apparently, Falcon). The DOHC 5.4s, whether they went into GTs or Falcons, were all hand-built at the Romeo engine plant, if memory serves. 

No, they were built locally in Melbourne at Ford Performance Vehicles, changing to the S/C 5.0 Miami from 2010 until 2014.

In the final years, engine assembly was moved to th Ford Broadmeadows plant.

 

Whether 5.4 or the later 5.0 Coyote based, all engines were fitted with steel cranks, aftermarket rods and forged pistons.

[jpd80]

9 hours ago, Rick73 said:

The 5.4L V8 and 6.8L V10 were also extremely similar except to extra two cylinders, making them essentially modular IMO.  However, I was thinking more in terms of why Ford didn’t make a 5-cylinder, for example, by using half of V10?  Would have been similar to GM 3.5L Atlas.   If I recall correctly, Transit and Ranger offered 3.2L in-line 5-cylinder diesel for years, so why not a similar-size 3.4L gas I-5 option for some budget-minded buyers?  It would seem such an engine would have been much cheaper to manufacture than a DOHC V6.  Obviously it wouldn’t have been as powerful, but with V10-like durability and long-stroke low-end torque, I believe I would have preferred that over V6.  Pretty sure emissions would have killed that concept though.  Besides, if designing an I-5, might as well make it an I-6 and do it right.

At the time, the brief was to develop a new cyclone V6 engine that could be used in RWD and FWD applications.

The Cyclone V6 was justified because it allowed Mulally to kill off loads of other V6 designs from previous decades.

 

As we’ve discussed before, the cost of replacing the existing V6 with an I-5/I-6 design is either not justified or not

 a priority for Ford otherwise it would be copying Stellantis right? So maybe it’s better to watch them brag about

their I-6 engine while they slowly go bankrupt.

 

Edited September 19, 2024 by jpd80

[ehaase]

10 hours ago, Rick73 said:

The 5.4L V8 and 6.8L V10 were also extremely similar except to extra two cylinders, making them essentially modular IMO.  However, I was thinking more in terms of why Ford didn’t make a 5-cylinder, for example, by using half of V10?  Would have been similar to GM 3.5L Atlas.   If I recall correctly, Transit and Ranger offered 3.2L in-line 5-cylinder diesel for years, so why not a similar-size 3.4L gas I-5 option for some budget-minded buyers?  It would seem such an engine would have been much cheaper to manufacture than a DOHC V6.  Obviously it wouldn’t have been as powerful, but with V10-like durability and long-stroke low-end torque, I believe I would have preferred that over V6.  Pretty sure emissions would have killed that concept though.  Besides, if designing an I-5, might as well make it an I-6 and do it right.

I remember the car magazines in the late 80's reporting that the 4.6L modular V8 would have 2.3L 4 and 3.5L V6 derivatives, but that didn't happen. 

[Rick73]

3 hours ago, jpd80 said:

At the time, the brief was to develop a new cyclone V6 engine that could be used in RWD and FWD applications.

The Cyclone V6 was justified because it allowed Mulally to kill off loads of other V6 designs from previous decades.

 

As we’ve discussed before, the cost of replacing the existing V6 with an I-5/I-6 design is either not justified or not

 a priority for Ford otherwise it would be copying Stellantis right? So maybe it’s better to watch them brag about

their I-6 engine while they slowly go bankrupt.

 

Agree.  When manufacturers were recently moving towards EVs as fast as possible, I can see how new engine development would have been halted.  Maybe they will reconsider somewhat, particularly with hybrid-optimized engines.  I read both GM and Ford were working on new inline-6 turbo engines that were canceled.  Not implying these were necessarily for hybrids.

 

As far as Stellantis goes, I can’t relate at all wanting to buy any large vehicle with a 3L twin-turbo six making 500 HP.  You’d have to almost give it to me.  I know and accept that auto enthusiasts want or feel they need 500 HP, but I wonder how many actual buyers in the general public view vehicles that way.  I’m more of the very opposite mindset wanting my cars follow the KISS principle.  I prefer (liked) inline engines, naturally aspirated, and installed longitudinally.  I say “liked” because I’m not sure that combination even exists today.  I can’t recall any off the top of my head, at least no vehicle I’d be interested in buying.

 

Only thing I would add is that if Stellantis continues to have problems replacing Hemi V8 with Hurricane, it’s not because it’s a straight six.  Hurricane happens to be a straight six, but that’s not the primary cause of their problems AFAIK.

[Rick73]

2 hours ago, ehaase said:

I remember the car magazines in the late 80's reporting that the 4.6L modular V8 would have 2.3L 4 and 3.5L V6 derivatives, but that didn't happen. 

Exactly the kind of modular I was thinking as example.  I had a car once with half a V8, and some manufacturers have essentially taken two inline-six designs to make a V-12.  Anyway, my Ford V-10 was rated up to 22,000 pounds GCWR in E-450 applications.  My thought was that a 5-cylinder truck gas engine around 3.4 to 3.7 Liters would have been more economical all around; and still have plenty of power for the job. 

[SoonerLS]

On 9/19/2024 at 4:16 PM, ehaase said:

I remember the car magazines in the late 80's reporting that the 4.6L modular V8 would have 2.3L 4 and 3.5L V6 derivatives, but that didn't happen. 

The car magazines reported a lot of things that were never going to happen. 

[Tico]

It's nice having something to compare to the ZR1 and all but...I wish they would spend the effort on innovations for the lower trim levels instead. Super expensive halo cars are nice, but they will only sell a couple hundred a month at best and most of us will never see one on the road. I know these things will never happen but why not a Mustang LX again as a low cost V8 with a stick option under the GT? How about bringing the power train from the Nautilus hybrid to the EcoBoost trim Mustangs? 300+ HP and 30 MPG in the city would be nice. (I know biggest problem is its front drive and CV vs rear drive and 10 speed.) Maybe the market for $35,000 coups is so small it's just not worth it. But then how is all the money poured into GTD? Corvette people will still buy a Corvette. Same for other competitors in this price range.

[akirby]

5 minutes ago, Tico said:

It's nice having something to compare to the ZR1 and all but...I wish they would spend the effort on innovations for the lower trim levels instead. Super expensive halo cars are nice, but they will only sell a couple hundred a month at best and most of us will never see one on the road. I know these things will never happen but why not a Mustang LX again as a low cost V8 with a stick option under the GT? How about bringing the power train from the Nautilus hybrid to the EcoBoost trim Mustangs? 300+ HP and 30 MPG in the city would be nice. (I know biggest problem is its front drive and CV vs rear drive and 10 speed.) Maybe the market for $35,000 coups is so small it's just not worth it. But then how is all the money poured into GTD? Corvette people will still buy a Corvette. Same for other competitors in this price range.

That 5.0 LX had 175 hp.  The ecoboost mustang would run circles around it.

And the number of regular models and special edition mustangs the last 20 years is staggering.

[Tico]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

That 5.0 LX had 175 hp.  The ecoboost mustang would run circles around it.

And the number of regular models and special edition mustangs the last 20 years is staggering.

The 93 LX was available with 205 HP vs 235 for the GT. Any 2024 Mustang would run circles around a '93. You conveniently miss the point and sound condescending and ignorant. Make an '26 LX with slightly less HP than

Edited September 24, 2024 by Tico

[akirby]

4 minutes ago, Tico said:

The 93 LX was available with 205 HP vs 235 for the GT. Any 2024 Mustang would run circles around a '93. You conveniently miss the point and sound condescending and ignorant. Make an '26 LX with slightly less HP than the GT. So proportionally around 400 vs 460 and discontent it so its more affordable.

 

Special editions are often mostly appearance packages and push the cost of the EcoBoost close to the base GT anyway. Give 300 HP and and stick for $35k and you have the perfect fun daily driver. I believe jalopnik said something similar a few years ago. Anyway...

 

I get it people on here only care about gobs of HP when in reality most New Mustangs sold are daily drivers, but those people aren't on this forum. 

There is no point to a detuned cheaper GT when the ecoboost exists.  And most of the special editions like bullit, Mach 1, Shelby, etc did offer more performance.

 

You just seem to be pissed they don’t offer one very specific version that you want.

[Tico]

I only suggested an LX type trim level and hybrid would be interesting to me yes. I have had some form of Mustang in my garage for over 20 years. I am not pissed. I was thinking out loud that I would like something more value or efficency oriented besides 6 figure super car versions. Nevermind.

[akirby]

2 hours ago, Tico said:

I only suggested an LX type trim level and hybrid would be interesting to me yes. I have had some form of Mustang in my garage for over 20 years. I am not pissed. I was thinking out loud that I would like something more value or efficency oriented besides 6 figure super car versions. Nevermind.

I guess I just don’t understand what you want.  Ecoboost starts at $32k with 350 lb ft..  GT starts at $42k with 415 lb ft.  Are you asking for a 375 lb ft detuned GT for $37k?