I need this car. 475hp GT500 is the greatest Mustang ever made.

With that kind of HP jail would definitely be in my immediate future!

impressive power. however the last gen cobra had individual rear wheel suspension, which i thought was very nice and heading toward the right direction in terms of becoming a complete sports/performance car... now they are doing the single live rear axel agian... they are claiming that it handles just as well as the last gen, and I believe them. its however unfortunate to see that they arnt making more of an effort to improve on the fundation they had built last time to make this new one a much better overall performer than the last gen. eitherway 475hp is extremely impressive for a car that cost roughly 20k less than the Z06.

The lack of IRS...

1. Keep prices down for the V6 model
2. Core Mustang GT buyers like to drag race their cars and live axel is superior in this application. So much so that some SVT Cobra owers changed their rear ends to live axel.
3. The experience Ford has had in racing with the new chassis and revised live axel has been very good. Why fix it if it ain't broken?
4. I remember reading somewhere that IRS would have also added extra weight to the car. And we all know it's not featherweight.

eitherway 475hp is extremely impressive for a car that cost roughly 20k less than the Z06.

First, nice job Ford...but a 50K Mustang???? I say that based on the 20K comment, I thought the GT500 would cost 40K which would make it 30K cheaper or 25K if it's sold for 45K.

With all due respect to the GT500, it still wont be faster than the Z06 considering it makes more power and is significantly lighter. With that said...it will be the bang for your performance buck KING of the automotive world.

Again...nice job Ford, I hope the best!

Note: Bascho...I know I know, it's not completely aimed at the Z06 anyway...I know...

First, nice job Ford...but a 50K Mustang???? I say that based on the 20K comment, I thought the GT500 would cost 40K which would make it 30K cheaper or 25K if it's sold for 45K.

With all due respect to the GT500, it still wont be faster than the Z06 considering it makes more power and is significantly lighter. With that said...it will be the bang for your performance buck KING of the automotive world.

Again...nice job Ford, I hope the best!

Note: Bascho...I know I know, it's not completely aimed at the Z06 anyway...I know...

The Z06 starts at ~$65,000, so the GT500 could still cost in the $40,000-$45,000 range. :dunno:

in the 1999 to 2003 mustang gt, companies such as saleen and rousch supercharged the GT instead of the SVT cobra because they said the IRS didn't always agree with the high hp from their supercharged 4.6's. Maybe thats another reason ford ended the IRS in the shelby, the old SVT supercharged was rated at 390hp(maybe the limit of the ford production IRS) and the 475hp in the new shelby was completely to much to even begin building a stronger IRS.

When the car was first announced, the engineers said they had the chassis dialed in so well that nobody would miss the IRS. Also, Mustang enthusiasts believe in the live axle.

I don't know about the rest of you, but this one's definitely on the shopping list once the RX-8 comes off lease. A forced-induction RX-8 would get my attention too, but I get less and less optimistic as time clicks along.

I can't consider the Z06, or even the awesome C6, for one reason: I have a wife and a young child, and wouldn't get to use a two-seater enough to justify the expense.

Speaking of Mustangs, Saleen has a $15K package that supercharges the V6 Mustang (yes, you read that right) to 350 bhp. That's just weird enough for me to consider. I'd think that a 475 HP GT500 might be a little annoying around town; a 'Stang with "only" 350 would be less of a handful running to the grocery store in the rain, I suppose.

my buddy works at ford said msrp be around 44k

Wow, I am impressed at the figures. By far the best performance bang for the buck on the road when it comes out. The Vette will no longer hold that title.

I've never understood buying a Mustang as expensive as Saleen/Rousch/GT500 b/c when all is said and done.... it's still a Mustang. It's suppose to be the "cheap" way into the segment. I'd rather buy the Base GT for the platform and mod it myself. I guess it's all about the warranty.

I think I read a while back that this car will weigh 3800 lbs., is that correct? If so, it would have a HP/weight ratio about the same as a base model Corvette--8 lbs./HP. And for a similar price? I doubt it's going to cut into Corvette sales too much, even amongst people who are strictly interested in 1/4 mile times.

From what I've seen, the specialty Mustangs are worth it because they actually hold alot of their value.

When the car was first announced, the engineers said they had the chassis dialed in so well that nobody would miss the IRS. Also, Mustang enthusiasts believe in the live axle.

I don't know about the rest of you, but this one's definitely on the shopping list once the RX-8 comes off lease. A forced-induction RX-8 would get my attention too, but I get less and less optimistic as time clicks along.

I can't consider the Z06, or even the awesome C6, for one reason: I have a wife and a young child, and wouldn't get to use a two-seater enough to justify the expense.

Speaking of Mustangs, Saleen has a $15K package that supercharges the V6 Mustang (yes, you read that right) to 350 bhp. That's just weird enough for me to consider. I'd think that a 475 HP GT500 might be a little annoying around town; a 'Stang with "only" 350 would be less of a handful running to the grocery store in the rain, I suppose.

now does the saleen package for the v6 give it a live rear axle as well or does it maintain its "peg leg" rear, cuz i think 350 going just to the rear right tire would be a waste of money :nono:

The Horsepower war is getting carried away. I wonder how long it will last...HP war, that is.

my buddy works at ford said msrp be around 44k


The base price for the Shelby GT500 is going to be $39K......obviously the convertible versions will be higher and various option packages raise the price. I would say that $44K MSRP for a nicely equip'd Shelby GT500 sounds about right.

Note: Bascho...I know I know, it's not completely aimed at the Z06 anyway...I know...


You know me so well :D:

I think I read a while back that this car will weigh 3800 lbs., is that correct? If so, it would have a HP/weight ratio about the same as a base model Corvette--8 lbs./HP. And for a similar price? I doubt it's going to cut into Corvette sales too much, even amongst people who are strictly interested in 1/4 mile times.

3800LBS sounds about right.....

I disagree with the Shelby not cutting into Vette sales though. Here is why, around me, regular C6 Vettes are a dime a dozen. GM employees get such great discounts on these cars that you see them everywhere. The Shelby is limited in production #'s just like every other SVT product.....and they are all assigned a certificate with it's # out of the total made. This exclusivity and the fact that it has 'Shelby' in the name will have many would-be Vette owners thinking about their purchase. It wouldn't matter if the Vette was faster, the Shelby GT500 will sell on name alone.

I don't know about the rest of you, but this one's definitely on the shopping list once the RX-8 comes off lease. A forced-induction RX-8 would get my attention too, but I get less and less optimistic as time clicks along.



I am also thinking of making the Shelby GT500 my next car. I wonder how bad the insurance company will screw me :ky:

I'm sure pretty significantly. I also kind of want one so when I was getting the quote for my RX-8 I asked if they could give me a quote for it. For the convertible version it cost 2.5 times as much as the RX-8 to insure (at least for me). They also told me that was a rough guestimate at this time (based off Mustang GT as starting point) since they don't have full info for their database. I know I certainly can't budget that kind of money for one of those!!!

The lease on my car is not up until Sept 2007, so I will be looking at a 2008 Shelby GT500. I am going to talk to my insurance company about a policy for 'second vehicle that rarely gets driven' and see if that helps the annual premiums. I just hope Ford allows me to use A-plan....when the 2005 Mustang came out, A-plan could not be applied because they were already selling more then they could make. I am hoping that getting the Shleby on the second year of production may help. We'll see.....I may have to buy a used 2007 if a 2008 is still impossible to get. I am really excited though.....the only thing that would prevent me from getting the Shelby is a decent turbo kit for the RX8. I know the 8 is not a straight line performer.....but I don't autoX. I drive on regular streets and would like to waste my coworkers GTO off the line. I think that the RX8 will only be able to meet that requirement with 350rwhp. The Shelby would be able to do that without even trying.

I'm not into racing and all that stuff. I pick cars based off what features they have, appearance, and fun to drive. I drive mainly country roads and interstate so not a huge concern. Handling is a concern since I have a lot of winding roads around me.

I'm not into racing and all that stuff. I pick cars based off what features they have, appearance, and fun to drive. I drive mainly country roads and interstate so not a huge concern. Handling is a concern since I have a lot of winding roads around me.


I am not a huge race guy either (only been to a track once in my life). But having a faster car is a guy thing.....macho :D:

like having a better looking girlfriend...or bigger house.. or greater knowledge of sports............................or a bigger....uh hum....foot

We can't help it.......we're a simple-minded subspecies with very primal rules.

Example: Gather the 10 smartest men in the world and put them in a room with a naked playboy model........think anything intelligent will be discussed?

:rofl: definitely not unless they aren't into women or have very bad eye sight!!!!

I've got a size 15. How about you? :mdrmed:

The base price for the Shelby GT500 is going to be $39K......obviously the convertible versions will be higher and various option packages raise the price. I would say that $44K MSRP for a nicely equip'd Shelby GT500 sounds about right.

Dang...40K for 475HP, that's impressive...nice job Ford!

3800LBS sounds about right.....

Why oh why are American sports cars getting fatter and fatter, other than the Vette??? Gosh, I'm so tired of this overweight problem with our sports cars. Gosh, just look at the Solstice...no it's not heavy, but for it's size GM could have done a better job (then again it is a 20K car).

Anyway, I just don't understand why our sports cars seem to be not only retro in style but in weight also. Am I the only person that thinks a sports car should be relatively light?

3800...gosh, too fat...too dang fat!!!! Bascho...I wouldn't mind spending another 3K to cut the weight to 3400 pounds.

The Shelby is limited in production #'s just like every other SVT product.....and they are all assigned a certificate with it's # out of the total made. This exclusivity and the fact that it has 'Shelby' in the name will have many would-be Vette owners thinking about their purchase. It wouldn't matter if the Vette was faster, the Shelby GT500 will sell on name alone.

You know what, I think GM should make a limited edition Vette...bring back the Stingray nameplate. It should be based on the same platform of course BUT with a more daring and unmistakeably STINGRAY flavor. It should still look VetteISH, but be it's own style. Mabye it could sit between the standard C6 and Z06 in price and performance.

That name has so much history...it's a shame they have never brought it back. (Note: I hear there is a concept now based partially on the Soltice platform but a Stingray should NEVER have a V6.

if 44k is the msrp then expect to be paying well into the 50K's for this car....I remember when the new style of the mustang caused dealerships to charge atleast 10K in some cases over the msrp...

a premium GT coupe was like 26K msrp....... but the cheapest base model I could find was like 31 K .....not to mention all the cars with even the slightest packages costing 2-6k more than that...

my friend rushed out to one of the first to have the car and paid 43K with pretty much all features out the door ((convertible msrp 30K))...

43k for a Conv. GT Stang .....now imagine the GT500...

Oh by the way there will be a convertible GT500 and its going to weigh 125 pounds more.....and im sure the price will be rediculous

Well, if you do like I am doing on my RX-8, go through Costco and it is a locked in price of a certain amount over invoice. In my case it is $400 over invoice on MRSP over $36K. They can't add on all that mark-up that way. Of course, they may try to tell you they don't have any available or whatever because they want all that extra money.

Before I got my 8 I test drove the new Mustang and they wouldn't give me S-Plan pricing (like Bascho said) but on top of that, yes...they wanted alot more for the GT. BUT, the most insulting part of it all...was when the guy tried to convince me to get a V6 Mustang....

I felt insulted...

I've never understood buying a Mustang as expensive as Saleen/Rousch/GT500 b/c when all is said and done.... it's still a Mustang.
I could not agree more...

More overweight american garbage.
3920 lbs, Wow. and better is the 57/43 weight distribution. And I thought the regular GT was crap at 3500 lbs and 54/46.
5w-50 oil, and ford want their engines to use 5w-20 for better mileage.

I won't say crap, but FAT...yes, I agree 100%!

Bascho....why oh why is the Mustang getting fatter and fatter, heck look at the concept from Dodge that sucker comes in over 4K.

Is platform sharing the problem? I just truly feel sports cars should be relatively light, if I was building sports cars none of them would go over 3,200 pounds. Again, I don't mind paying another 1K if you are going to cut 500 pounds off the car.

Can you make a 2+2 with a 5.4L V8 & all the rear end work to lay down that kind of power weight much less than mid 3.5s? It took carbon fiber and other techniques to get the Z06 down to low 3s.

More overweight american garbage.
3920 lbs, Wow. and better is the 57/43 weight distribution. And I thought the regular GT was crap at 3500 lbs and 54/46.
5w-50 oil, and ford want their engines to use 5w-20 for better mileage.

Isn't that a little harsh?

The car will be tuned by SVT and with Shelby in the name it can't be a slouch on the performance end (handling AND raw power).

I doubt buyers of the GT500 are that concerned about gas mileage with 475 under the hood.

I won't say crap, but FAT...yes, I agree 100%!

Bascho....why oh why is the Mustang getting fatter and fatter, heck look at the concept from Dodge that sucker comes in over 4K.

Is platform sharing the problem? I just truly feel sports cars should be relatively light, if I was building sports cars none of them would go over 3,200 pounds. Again, I don't mind paying another 1K if you are going to cut 500 pounds off the car.

It's hard to offer all the content that people want, such as 4 airbags, 1000 watt stereos, heated seats, pretensioned seatbelts, body dampening to keep road noise down.......and a huge 5.4 S/C engine and not get in the 3800-4000 lbs range. It's easy to shed weight on these cars by removing many of the items mentioned above......but most buyers want/need those things. I'm not sure of any 4-seater cars with a V8 engine producing 475hp, with comparable convenience equipment that tips the scales at less than 3700lbs.

More overweight american garbage.
3920 lbs, Wow. and better is the 57/43 weight distribution. And I thought the regular GT was crap at 3500 lbs and 54/46.
5w-50 oil, and ford want their engines to use 5w-20 for better mileage.


Usually the only people concerned with 50/50 weight distribution are autoXers and those people can easily shift weight with aftermarket parts. They make carbon fiber fenders, and hood which would remove at least 100lbs.....then you can relocate the battery to the trunk, another 40lbs.

I am not a weight reduction expert......but I've seen quite a few Mustangs doing autoX and winning.......so SOMETHING must be right about this car.

Isn't that a little harsh?

The car will be tuned by SVT and with Shelby in the name it can't be a slouch on the performance end (handling AND raw power).

I doubt buyers of the GT500 are that concerned about gas mileage with 475 under the hood.
No not really.
5w-50 should not be necessary in a properly designed engine, this supercharger on a regular engine is just a hack.
You can't drive a mustang at night with its terrible headlights. H13s come on. H13s are a dead end, H4 would be a better choice Ford.
Fog lights belong low to the ground so they can light up the road not the fog (this applies to the regular mustang)
The regular mustang has an H coupling in the exhaust when it should be x-shaped because crossplane crank V8s are odd firing on their exhaust banks L R L L R L R R.
and this cost what? double the SRT-ized dodge caliber with 300hp.
and look in the trunk, fix-a-flat.

No not really.
5w-50 should not be necessary in a properly designed engine, this supercharger on a regular engine is just a hack.

Many engines subjected to the kinds of stresses found in an engine of the kind that's in the Mustang and Ford GT need a good, thick oil when running at high loads to ensure durability. Ford recommends a heavy oil rather than recommend a cheaper and potentially less protective brew because of this. I'm not really sure why you take exception to a performance oriented engine requiring performance oriented oils; that would be like buying a sports car and complaining that the manufacturer recommends summer performance tires to optimize your driving experience rather than going with a good set of all-seasons like most other cars do.

The regular mustang has an H coupling in the exhaust when it should be x-shaped because crossplane crank V8s are odd firing on their exhaust banks L R L L R L R R.

What does the odd firing pattern have anything to do with the differences between an H- and X-pipe? Both designes attempt to equalize the pressure in the two sides of the exhaust and try to take advantage of using the exhaust pulses from one bank to help scavange from the other. If they did not use a crossover, then your explanation would have explained why they should have used one, but they already use an H-pipe. :dunno:

Like you, I'm not entirely sure why they went with an H-pipe instead of an X-pipe. The X-pipe would seem to flow better than an H-pipe would, but in the real world differences are fairly minimal for similarly sized pipes (clicky (http://www.vetteweb.com/tech/0307vet_xpipe/) and scroll down for a comparison of the stock H-pipe with an X-pipe, where the X-pipe shows a ~1% (2-3 hp) gain in power throughout the powerband). As you can see, the difference is fairly minimal, and the lesser cost of a simpler H-pipe was probably the main reason why they went with that design.

The point being the regular mustang is overpriced crap at 30K, so at least ford is attempting to rectify the situation. But the cost of the supercharger and other incremental cost should make this a $35K car.
I would expect the engine, even with upgraded bearings to use Xw-40 oil.
The SLR mclaren uses 5w-50 oil, but has a lysholm supercharger like the ford GT.

The point being the regular mustang is overpriced crap at 30K, so at least ford is attempting to rectify the situation. But the cost of the supercharger and other incremental cost should make this a $35K car.
I would expect the engine, even with upgraded bearings to use Xw-40 oil.
The SLR mclaren uses 5w-50 oil, but has a lysholm supercharger like the ford GT.


Try 25k for the base GT, around 27800 for a loaded GT with Leather. Hardly overpriced crap or they wouldn't be selling so well. Try driving one.

Yeah, I've test driven the new Mustang...outright crap, it aint. Could it be better...sure, but it's not crap.

Guys...Ford should be able to do better than 3800, I know maybe not low 3's but certainly not near 4K pounds.

Last I heard the Rotary aint that light really (Chevy V8 is not that much heavier) and it has alot of options, usable rear seats, and comes in a little less than 3k or just over it. I know the Mustang can't match that...but gosh, it shouldn't be 700 pounds heavier either.

If they used more Aluminum and got a bit more creative they could have done better.

BUT, Bascho knows more about this than I do. Oh well...

No not really.
5w-50 should not be necessary in a properly designed engine, this supercharger on a regular engine is just a hack.
You can't drive a mustang at night with its terrible headlights. H13s come on. H13s are a dead end, H4 would be a better choice Ford.
Fog lights belong low to the ground so they can light up the road not the fog (this applies to the regular mustang)
The regular mustang has an H coupling in the exhaust when it should be x-shaped because crossplane crank V8s are odd firing on their exhaust banks L R L L R L R R.
and this cost what? double the SRT-ized dodge caliber with 300hp.
and look in the trunk, fix-a-flat.

This supercharger and the cast iron block engine were cost cutting... but I think Ford dropped the ball anyway. The aluminum block used in the Ford GT is lighter... which this car needs. Just drop the dry sump system to reduce costs. The heads are the same. The supercharger... they should have stuck with the twin screw they were running on the Ford GT or added an intercooler if they were going to switch to a crappy roots blower.

Headlights... in this day and age you are selling a nearly $30k car without offering Xenon headlights?! :Eyecrazy: Ford dropped the ball here... no question. The "driving lights"... I've said it before... I don't care which classic Mustang had it... I don't like it. The GT500 front end is MUCH better.

H pipe? Wah wah. Buy a widely available low-priced X-pipe. While you're at it pickup some hi-flow cats and a cat back (since the stock system is so quiet). Common mod on ALL V8 Mustangs...

This supercharger and the cast iron block engine were cost cutting... but I think Ford dropped the ball anyway. The aluminum block used in the Ford GT is lighter... which this car needs. Just drop the dry sump system to reduce costs. The heads are the same. The supercharger... they should have stuck with the twin screw they were running on the Ford GT or added an intercooler if they were going to switch to a crappy roots blower.

Headlights... in this day and age you are selling a nearly $30k car without offering Xenon headlights?! :Eyecrazy: Ford dropped the ball here... no question. The "driving lights"... I've said it before... I don't care which classic Mustang had it... I don't like it. The GT500 front end is MUCH better.

H pipe? Wah wah. Buy a widely available low-priced X-pipe. While you're at it pickup some hi-flow cats and a cat back (since the stock system is so quiet). Common mod on ALL V8 Mustangs...


The cast iron block was definitely about cost cutting.....big time! If Ford used the aluminum block they would have to ask $50K for this car. The supercharger used on the GT could not be produced in high enough volume to meet GT production and GT500 production......that is why they couldn't use it. The headlights are a matter of replacement cost evaluation. Ford is trying to make repairs on the new Mustang less expensive in a push to reduce insurance premiums. The insurance companys use repair costs of in a rolling 4 model year period when estimating premiums for every car. The repair costs of the SN95 were extremely high and therefore cause insurance rates to be high. The S197 Mustang will not see lower premiums until 2008. HID lighting is very expensive to service.....in the event of front collision, the headlamps alone can run the bill up several thousand dollars. Standard halogen lamps bring the repair cost in the low hundreds. While I love HID ligting systems......I would rather have lower insurance.

Can you explain the numbering you used?? Not all of us work @Ford and/or love Mustangs :mdrmed:

SN95 = older gen?
S197 = new gen?

The sweet blue glow of HIDs are nice.... and i've got them on the 8 but I agree that lower rates win out.

If Ford used the aluminum block they would have to ask $50K for this car.

Ah come on Bascho...that sounds crazy. So, an aluminum engine would raise the price by 10K? I can't disagree with you about the HID...I'd also rather have lower insurance, but I still think you guys could have done better with the weight of the car.

Regardless, it's a hell of a bang for your buck sports car.

Yeah, I've test driven the new Mustang...outright crap, it aint. Could it be better...sure, but it's not crap.

Guys...Ford should be able to do better than 3800, I know maybe not low 3's but certainly not near 4K pounds.

Last I heard the Rotary aint that light really (Chevy V8 is not that much heavier) and it has alot of options, usable rear seats, and comes in a little less than 3k or just over it. I know the Mustang can't match that...but gosh, it shouldn't be 700 pounds heavier either.

If they used more Aluminum and got a bit more creative they could have done better.

BUT, Bascho knows more about this than I do. Oh well...


Anytime you replace a very cheap cast iron part or steel part with a more expensive aluminum or titanium one, total vehicle cost increases exponentially. I definitely think Ford could have brought the weight of the vehicle down to 3400-3500lbs without eliminating creature comforts....but the base price of the car would be more than $50K. The goal of the GT500 project was to be able to offer the best Mustang ever and not raise the base price from the last SVT Cobra Mustang. That was a major undertaking.....believe me.

C5 Z06 is 7.7lbs/hp, C6 Z06 is 6.2lbs/hp and the GT500 is 8.2lbs/hp.

The Mustang is significantly cheaper (or will be after dealer markup, etc slows down) so i'd say the weight thing isn't a huge deal. I'd venture a guess that all of you bashing the GT500 would be the same people grinning from ear to ear behind the wheel.

Can you explain the numbering you used?? Not all of us work @Ford and/or love Mustangs :mdrmed:

SN95 = older gen?
S197 = new gen?

The sweet blue glow of HIDs are nice.... and i've got them on the 8 but I agree that lower rates win out.

Sorry about the internal vehicle line coding.....but you guessed right. The SN95 represent the Mustang from 1994-2004. S197 is 2005-??.

I love my HID also.....at least until it comes time to replace one of the components. I really hope they fail while I'm under warranty.

Ah come on Bascho...that sounds crazy. So, an aluminum engine would raise the price by 10K? I can't disagree with you about the HID...I'd also rather have lower insurance, but I still think you guys could have done better with the weight of the car.

Regardless, it's a hell of a bang for your buck sports car.


It's not all about material costs.....it's about production costs. The plant casting the blocks has to recover the costs of tooling, labor, etc. The more blocks they can make and sell, the lower the piece price per block. The cast iron 5.4 is produced in very large quantities for all Ford trucks and vans......hence the price per block is very low compared to the very low volume aluminum 5.4.

It's not all about material costs.....it's about production costs. The plant casting the blocks has to recover the costs of tooling, labor, etc. The more blocks they can make and sell, the lower the piece price per block. The cast iron 5.4 is produced in very large quantities for all Ford trucks and vans......hence the price per block is very low compared to the very low volume aluminum 5.4.

You mean like the Renesis? hehe

You mean like the Renesis? hehe


Good example :D:

C5 Z06 is 7.7lbs/hp, C6 Z06 is 6.2lbs/hp and the GT500 is 8.2lbs/hp.

The Mustang is significantly cheaper (or will be after dealer markup, etc slows down) so i'd say the weight thing isn't a huge deal. I'd venture a guess that all of you bashing the GT500 would be the same people grinning from ear to ear behind the wheel.

I plan on buying the GT500 in August 2007 (when the RX8 lease is up) and I can tell you that the day I walk off the lot with it, I will be looking at aftermarket exhaust which can easily bring the hp rating near 500hp with that mod alone. Lighter racing seats, battery relocation, lighter hood, rear seat removal, etc.......I am pretty sure I could get her down to 3500lbs without losing too many creature comforts. Now 500hp and 3500lbs that brings the ratio down to 7lbs/hp. Not quite as good as the C6 ZO6....but better than the C5 ZO6 :D:

I know you will enjoy your GT500...475HP is probably all you need to say.

I wonder how GM has been able to offer the LS2 with an aluminum block and still keep costs down? Probably it's because they don't have to resort to multivalve/multicam heads, or superchargers. Long term, Ford needs to quit dicking around and develop a next-gen pushrod motor like the Hemis and LS# for their trucks and performance cars. Bascho, why was the "Hurricane" engine project abandoned?

^^^^AMEN TO THAT!

The pushrod can do it!

Glad they're building the mustang for what people use it for, but it wont bring Ford out of the red.

why was the "Hurricane" engine project abandoned?

High development costs.... that's what I read anyway at the time.

Also, wasn't Ford developing a 6.4L V10 for the next supercar? is that nixed as well?

I wonder how GM has been able to offer the LS2 with an aluminum block and still keep costs down? Probably it's because they don't have to resort to multivalve/multicam heads, or superchargers. Long term, Ford needs to quit dicking around and develop a next-gen pushrod motor like the Hemis and LS# for their trucks and performance cars. Bascho, why was the "Hurricane" engine project abandoned?


Ford will never go back to push-rod.....they are finally 'mastering the modular'. Anyways, the Ford modular engines tend to produce greater hp per liter of displacement. I am not knocking pushrod motors.....but GM and DCX have had to use much larger displacement motors to get the power Ford gets from it's smaller modular motors. GM is able to produce aluminum block LS2 rather inexpensively because they use that motor in a larger range of vehicles and therefore can lower the price per block. Hypothetically, if Ford were to use the aluminum 5.4 block for a new Lightning, a SVT Explorer, the GT500, and the GT, well, then Ford could lower the price per block and feasibly use it in the GT500 for the current price base. But since the total production of the GT and GT500 are going to be so low......the cost of the aluminum block does not meet the current goal of getting the base price under $40K. Now, if DCX brings out the Challenger and GM brings the Camaro.....you can bet that Ford will consider the aluminum block oin the GT500.

The Hurricane engine is not abandoned.....but I can't tell you when it's slated for release because that has not been made public. But the Hurricane engine is not for cars.....it's a 6.2L Twin-Turbo Diesel for the F-SuperDuty line-up.

Glad they're building the mustang for what people use it for, but it wont bring Ford out of the red.


You mean Ford North America? Ford Motor Company made $2 billion profit in 2005.

Also, wasn't Ford developing a 6.4L V10 for the next supercar? is that nixed as well?

The V10 was used in the Shelby Cobra Concept, but that powertrain is not in production yet....if ever. Ford is really excited about the Tri-fuel S/C V10 (Hydrogen, E85 or gas) used in the Super Chief Concept which is being desplayed at autoshows all over the world. This is the technology that Ford want to offer in the future......flex fuel vehicles on steroids. Check it out if you've never seen it

http://media.ford.com/newsroom/release_display.cfm?release=22295

The V10 was used in the Shelby Cobra Concept, but that powertrain is not in production yet....if ever. Ford is really excited about the Tri-fuel S/C V10 (Hydrogen, E85 or gas) used in the Super Chief Concept which is being desplayed at autoshows all over the world. This is the technology that Ford want to offer in the future......flex fuel vehicles on steroids. Check it out if you've never seen it

http://media.ford.com/newsroom/release_display.cfm?release=22295

I didn't see anything about this at the Washington Auto Show. I saw plenty of hybird fuel stuff on the GM side though.

That is one sweet engine. Tell Ford I said go with it.

Ford will never go back to push-rod.....they are finally 'mastering the modular'. Anyways, the Ford modular engines tend to produce greater hp per liter of displacement. I am not knocking pushrod motors.....but GM and DCX have had to use much larger displacement motors to get the power Ford gets from it's smaller modular motors.

Hmmm, this is where I take issue...

GM's V8 has better (significantly) fuel economy, is lighter (IF I remember right), cost less (IF I remember right) to make, is less complicated, and makes more HP (regardless of it's based on size).

So, Chevy's 400HP V8 gets 3mpg more in the highway than Ford's 300HP V8 so who cares if it's smaller?

Bascho...don't take this the wrong way, I want American car companies to be the leaders of the world and you know I respect the new Mustang GT and GT500.

But, I don’t' see the need for DOHC or SOHC engines when all they offer is smaller size while getting "significantly" less mpg. Why is this key…or very important? Have you seen gas prices? Ford can’t ignore this issue with their V8’s.

Did you hear the latest, the 400HP version of the Chevy V8 is soon to be making 30mpg in the Highway now that they have cylinder shutoff technology.

So, I hope the best for Ford...but your V8 is inferior to the Chevy V8 in my opinion. All I see it offers is a smaller footprint (if that)...but, who cares if your fuel economy sucks or is just average for a V8.

17/25 is not very impressive for a V8 when you compare it to the Chevy V8’s 18/28 while making 100 more HP.

Oh, and if you say it’s gearing…well, fix that then because almost EVERYTHING has a 6-speed now a days and there is no reason why the Mustang GT still has a 5-speed. Yes yes…cost, but make it work already.

Note: Bascho…sorry, I kind of putt too much on your shoulders regarding Ford…lol, you should have never told me you work for them…lol.

google image search for "302 versus 4.6" yielded this

http://www.rx8club.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=69896

oh wait i forgot, the only size that matters is the piston bores ;)

Hmmm, this is where I take issue...

GM's V8 has better (significantly) fuel economy, is lighter (IF I remember right), cost less (IF I remember right) to make, is less complicated, and makes more HP (regardless of it's based on size).

So, Chevy's 400HP V8 gets 3mpg more in the highway than Ford's 300HP V8 so who cares if it's smaller?

Bascho...don't take this the wrong way, I want American car companies to be the leaders of the world and you know I respect the new Mustang GT and GT500.

But, I don’t' see the need for DOHC or SOHC engines when all they offer is smaller size while getting "significantly" less mpg. Why is this key…or very important? Have you seen gas prices? Ford can’t ignore this issue with their V8’s.

Did you hear the latest, the 400HP version of the Chevy V8 is soon to be making 30mpg in the Highway now that they have cylinder shutoff technology.

So, I hope the best for Ford...but your V8 is inferior to the Chevy V8 in my opinion. All I see it offers is a smaller footprint (if that)...but, who cares if your fuel economy sucks or is just average for a V8.

17/25 is not very impressive for a V8 when you compare it to the Chevy V8’s 18/28 while making 100 more HP.

Oh, and if you say it’s gearing…well, fix that then because almost EVERYTHING has a 6-speed now a days and there is no reason why the Mustang GT still has a 5-speed. Yes yes…cost, but make it work already.

Note: Bascho…sorry, I kind of putt too much on your shoulders regarding Ford…lol, you should have never told me you work for them…lol.


GM builds exceptional engines......always have. The estimated mpg of the LS2 equipped vehicles is waaay off though.....and the EPA is going to prove that in 2008 with the new standards for testing. My coworkers GTO gets more like 13/19 in real world use. When he is racing it around town it gets even worse. The best he's ever gotten is 22 mpg at 65mph on a 3 hour trip. The cylinder deactivation will make a large improvement for sure.......but only if you are maintaining a certain speed. I agree that Ford needs a similar system though since DCX and GM are offering one.

I am not a engine development engineer, so I am not sure of all the benefits of over-head cam engines......but Ford is not the only company using this technology so it can't be that inferior. I think many high-end exotics are using over-head cam engines (not that it's important to this conversation).

I agree that a 6-speed trans can be valuable to fuel economy.....if it's geared correctly. Look at the 6MT in the 8, 6th is a totally useless gear because it's too tall. 4,000RPM at 80mph WTF? Not sure why Ford didn't incorporate the T56 from the last gen Cobra into the GT.

I always appreciate your comments and criticism because you do so in a mature fashion. You and I have had some good discussions on this forum and I respect your opinion.......you never have to apologize to me for that.

google image search for "302 versus 4.6" yielded this

http://www.rx8club.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=69896

oh wait i forgot, the only size that matters is the piston bores ;)


That picture is awesome!!! Man the 302 looks so tiny next to the 4.6......gotta love those huge dual cam heads though. I know Ford isn't packing the 4.6 with tons of hp from the factory......but those modulars really love a S/C. It's like they were made to be FI. When you can buy a Mustang off the dealer lot, throw $3K down on a S/C and push over 400hp......that's a pretty sweet deal.

That picture is awesome!!! Man the 302 looks so tiny next to the 4.6......gotta love those huge dual cam heads though. I know Ford isn't packing the 4.6 with tons of hp from the factory......but those modulars really love a S/C. It's like they were made to be FI. When you can buy a Mustang off the dealer lot, throw $3K down on a S/C and push over 400hp......that's a pretty sweet deal.

Ok, w/o knowing a great deal about FI theory...

what makes modulars better for it?

Ok, w/o knowing a great deal about FI theory...

what makes modulars better for it?


Actually I have no idea....and it may not even be a modular design in general..... but the Ford modular engines seem to react better to FI then the older 302 does. I am going to do some research and see if anyone has a intelligent explanation for this. Again, I am not saying FI always promotes greater gains in modular engines vs. pushrod engines.....I am just saying that in Ford's two small blocks, the modular reacts better to FI.

i think some of gm's mpg ratings come from not being able to shift from first to 2nd or 3rd unless under hard accceleration too. which is just crap cause there are all kinds of reasons a driver may need to shift.

my soon to be father in-law is a ford dealer. i wonder what kind of deal they would give him on one. i'm sure it wouldnt be the 200$ over cost he gets normally.

I am not a engine development engineer, so I am not sure of all the benefits of over-head cam engines......but Ford is not the only company using this technology so it can't be that inferior. I think many high-end exotics are using over-head cam engines (not that it's important to this conversation).


From what I know about engine types:

Overhead cam engines usually allow for greater power/displacement figures. This is important in racing series (where displacement is limited) and in many foreign countries (where taxes on a car are partially based on its engine's displacement, so getting the same amount of power out of an engine of lesser displacement is financially beneficial). Many exotics use engines based on racing units, so OHC setups are used. OHC engines are also perceived to be "higher tech" despite being an older technology than pushrods, so people will pay a premium for these kinds of engines thinking they're getting the latest and greatest technology. Some people also like the sound of OHC engines more than OHV engines, or they like their revvier nature (although Ford's OHC engines don't rev any higher than GMs OHV ones), or they like peakier powerbands, or they just like being able to say that they can keep up with or beat cars with larger displacement engines in a race, all of which are things that OHC engines offer.

Pushrod engines, on the other hand, allow for better power:weight and power:size ratios than OHC engines of similar construction. Their small size means that a pushrod engine of much greater displacement can be placed in the same underhood space as a "smaller" OHC lump. More displacement means more power can be generated. Alternatively, as in the case of trucks, family sedans, and other non-performance vehicles of that nature, it means that the torque curve of the engine at low rpm can be considerably strengthened while maintaining the peak power needed for the application with an engine of a given size and weight.

A broad powerband allows the pushrod engine to be run at low rpm under many normal driving conditions, improving gas mileage and reducing the wear and tear on the engine, which allows it to be produced more cheaply than an engine that would have to be spun higher to produce the same amount of power. Not only that, but the engine's reliance on greater displacement to produce a broad, strong torque curve rather than complicated electronic and mechanical controls to achieve the same effect drastically reduces a performance-biased pushrod engine's cost when compared to that of the OHC competition. As a matter of fact, I think that you can order an LS7 for around $14,000, whereas a more highly strung (but much less powerful) S54 (M3's 3.2L I6) goes for $17,000-$18,000 (and this may be just for a shortblock), and that engine is made of iron. For a size comparison, here's a shot of an LS1 (approximately the same external dimensions as the LS7) in an E36 engine bay:
http://www.vorshlag.com/fair/bmw_mockup03.jpg

Actually I have no idea....and it may not even be a modular design in general..... but the Ford modular engines seem to react better to FI then the older 302 does. I am going to do some research and see if anyone has a intelligent explanation for this. Again, I am not saying FI always promotes greater gains in modular engines vs. pushrod engines.....I am just saying that in Ford's two small blocks, the modular reacts better to FI.


351 Windsor Vs 5.4L MOD? Are you serious?

Saleen Mustang S351
Engine
Configuration Supercharged V8
Valvetrain OHV
Displacement 5752 cc / 351.0 cu in
Power 369.1 Kw / 495.0 bhp @ 5400 rpm
Torque 664.4 Nm / 490.0 ft lbs @ 3500 rpm
Bore 101.6 mm / 4.0 in
Stroke 88.9 mm / 3.5 in
Compression Ratio 8.2:1
BHP / Liter 86.06 bhp
Redline Not Available

Ford Shelby GT500 Convertible
Engine type superchrgd dohc 4-valve/cyl V-8
Displacement 5409 cc
Bore x stroke 90.2 mm x 105.8 mm
Compression ratio 8.4:1
Horsepower (SAE) est 475 bhp @ 6000 rpm
Torque est 475 lb-ft @ 3500 rpm
Fuel delivery elect. sequential port

And you were saying again?

As the pic from BarronBigMeat shows... the DOHC MOD engine is bigger, heavier, top heavy and since it's inception in the Mustang in 1994, it hasn't made any decent power until the 2002/3 SVT Cobra and that's with a S/C... in NA form it wasn't until 2005. The engine is inferior. The LS7 is more compact, lighter, makes a lot more power and gets better gas mileage. The MOD V8 doesn't even have a higher redline than the pushrod motors even if it has VVT OHC on it. Just admit it... Ford screwed up again. They should have followed GM on this one... they have the Northstar V8 with OHC and the pushrod LS series. Ford should have updated/reengineered the pushrod V8's AND made the MOD V8's... and used them in the same way.

The estimated mpg of the LS2 equipped vehicles is waaay off though.....and the EPA is going to prove that in 2008 with the new standards for testing

Well, I’ve never owned a LS V8 so I can’t argue…but honestly while everyone keeps telling the EPA their testing sucks, honestly I’ve ALWAYS been able to do better than what the EPA listed.

In my probe GT (22/26) I use to get in all city 24mpg.

In my RX8 (18/24) I’m getting 19.2mpg lifetime average (with no lower than 18.6mpg)

So, I honestly still believe based on my own experience that the way people drive is the main factor on what they are going to get.

But again, I’ve never owned a LS so I can’t really argue. Let's see what the EPA comes up with in 2008. I fear our beloved RX8 might get 10mpg city...

Look at the 6MT in the 8, 6th is a totally useless gear because it's too tall. 4,000RPM at 80mph WTF?

I know, this is my biggest gripe with the RX8…I mean what was Mazda thinking???? If we were at 3K I think the 8 would get 27mpg highway.


I always appreciate your comments and criticism because you do so in a mature fashion. You and I have had some good discussions on this forum and I respect your opinion.......you never have to apologize to me for that.

Thanks.

i think some of gm's mpg ratings come from not being able to shift from first to 2nd or 3rd unless under hard accceleration too. which is just crap cause there are all kinds of reasons a driver may need to shift.

Well, with $25 or is it $50 you could remove that from the tranny so not big deal really.

Like explained, the OHV engine can be at lower rpm so that's really how it can save such gas because it's RPM's are so low on the highway.

The cast iron block was definitely about cost cutting.....big time! If Ford used the aluminum block they would have to ask $50K for this car. The supercharger used on the GT could not be produced in high enough volume to meet GT production and GT500 production......that is why they couldn't use it.

Why is it that other companies can so extensively use aluminum block engines... even in FI applications? Even Mitsubishi is changing in the next Evo. Are you serious about $10K?! Is Ford unable to design one that can be affordably produced?

As I mentioned... if they couldn't use the GT's supercharger, then they should have intercooled it. Else since the issue was production volume, then another supplier for the GT500's supercharger... but still twin screw.

The V10 was used in the Shelby Cobra Concept, but that powertrain is not in production yet....if ever. Ford is really excited about the Tri-fuel S/C V10 (Hydrogen, E85 or gas) used in the Super Chief Concept which is being desplayed at autoshows all over the world. This is the technology that Ford want to offer in the future......flex fuel vehicles on steroids. Check it out if you've never seen it

http://media.ford.com/newsroom/release_display.cfm?release=22295


There was another mentioned in one of the major car mags. It wasn't anything official. It was a pet project of several engineers. They took an SN95 Mustang and dropped in a V10 made from joining a couple MOD engines. NO useable ECU existed, so they used two... one for each cylinder bank. The magazine guys loved it... incredible power they said.

I wouldn't even consider a mustang because of the solid rear axle.
That car can not even hope of having a good pitch balance.
Sure not all cars can have a 45/55 f/r or more rear biased weight distribution.

The RX-8 doesn't have EGR, it needs it.
The new 6 speed automatic top gear is ~30mph/1000 revs.
The new auto is too tall, the axle ratio should be 4.444 and the 6 speed manual should be 4.3 for better mileage.

I wouldn't even consider a mustang because of the solid rear axle.
That car can not even hope of having a good pitch balance.
Sure not all cars can have a 45/55 f/r or more rear biased weight distribution.

The RX-8 doesn't have EGR, it needs it.
The new 6 speed automatic top gear is ~30mph/1000 revs.
The new auto is too tall, the axle ratio should be 4.444 and the 6 speed manual should be 4.3 for better mileage.

The new Mustang cleaned house in Grand Am racing last year against cars like M3s and 911s, despite its solid rear axle. There's far more to suspension design than just solid vs. independent, and a good design can make up for most of the drawbacks of either setup.

I completely agree with you and rx8wannahave about the gearing of the 6MT '8, though. If Mazda had given the RX8 a steeper 6th gear, a gear that's nearly useless for acceleration as it is, the car would probably get better mileage. Maybe they did it for durability concerns, however, thinking that people who did a lot of highway driving would see a lot of carbon buildup if they drove at low rpm all the time.

Maybe they did it for durability concerns, however, thinking that people who did a lot of highway driving would see a lot of carbon buildup if they drove at low rpm all the time.

Maybe...but I thought the Renesis has internally designed "cleaners" to help avoid that problem to begin with. Check this out...

Exhaust gas build-up against the side seal can easily cause carbonization, but with the wedge-shaped or cuneiform side seal, the seal shape is optimized to remove carbon. The shape is also more congruent to its opposed frictional surface, achieving much better sealing proficiency.

A key word here is that it states it is "optimized to REMOVE carbon"...not (reduce). This could be more hype than truth but that’s what is reported from that website.

Here is the picture:

http://www.rotaryengineillustrated.com/renesis/renesis14popup.jpg

If you want, read more here: http://www.rotaryengineillustrated.com/renesis.php

Anyway, our 6th gear is near useless as is and there is no reason why Mazda (that I know of at least) should have messed this up. When do we use 6th for acceleration????? Gosh...only if your trying to do a top speed run from 0mph...and even then I hear we reach a higher top speed at 9K in 5th.

The thing is, by looking at my wife’s Mazda 6…her auto is humming above 3k on the highway so Mazda has continuously messed this up. Mazda, for the love of GOD…check out how GM gets such nice fuel economy from their big V8’s…LOW RPM ON THE HIGHWAY!!!

351 Windsor Vs 5.4L MOD? Are you serious?

Saleen Mustang S351
Engine
Configuration Supercharged V8
Valvetrain OHV
Displacement 5752 cc / 351.0 cu in
Power 369.1 Kw / 495.0 bhp @ 5400 rpm
Torque 664.4 Nm / 490.0 ft lbs @ 3500 rpm
Bore 101.6 mm / 4.0 in
Stroke 88.9 mm / 3.5 in
Compression Ratio 8.2:1
BHP / Liter 86.06 bhp
Redline Not Available

Ford Shelby GT500 Convertible
Engine type superchrgd dohc 4-valve/cyl V-8
Displacement 5409 cc
Bore x stroke 90.2 mm x 105.8 mm
Compression ratio 8.4:1
Horsepower (SAE) est 475 bhp @ 6000 rpm
Torque est 475 lb-ft @ 3500 rpm
Fuel delivery elect. sequential port

And you were saying again?

I guess we should add this Saleen spec to your list then:


2006 SALEEN S281 Extreme Coupe
ENGINE
Type 4.6L, 3V, SOHC V-8
Bore and Stroke 3.55 x 3.54 in.
Displacement 4.6 liters, 281 cu in.
Horsepower 550 bhp
Torque 500 lb-ft
Saleen Intercooled Supercharger Saleen Series VI Integrated TwinScrew Supercharger With Two-Stage Water-To-Air Intercooler System; Cast 356-T6 aluminum alloy construction

or this one:

2006 Ford GT - Prep'd by Saleen (shown at 2006 NAIAS)
ENGINE
Type 5.4L, 4V, DOHC V-8
Bore/Stroke (mm): 90.2x105.8
Displacement (cu in/cc): 330/5409
Horsepower 650 bhp
Torque 600 lb-ft
Saleen Intercooled Supercharger Saleen Series VI Integrated TwinScrew Supercharger With Two-Stage Water-To-Air Intercooler System; Cast 356-T6 aluminum alloy construction


Saleen does better things with the modulars than they ever did with the old pushrod small blocks.

And they would do even better still, if Ford would develop a new pushrod motor in the 5.4~7L range.

Maybe...but I thought the Renesis has internally designed "cleaners" to help avoid that problem to begin with. Check this out...

Exhaust gas build-up against the side seal can easily cause carbonization, but with the wedge-shaped or cuneiform side seal, the seal shape is optimized to remove carbon. The shape is also more congruent to its opposed frictional surface, achieving much better sealing proficiency.

A key word here is that it states it is "optimized to REMOVE carbon"...not (reduce). This could be more hype than truth but that’s what is reported from that website.

Here is the picture:

http://www.rotaryengineillustrated.com/renesis/renesis14popup.jpg

If you want, read more here: http://www.rotaryengineillustrated.com/renesis.php

Anyway, our 6th gear is near useless as is and there is no reason why Mazda (that I know of at least) should have messed this up. When do we use 6th for acceleration????? Gosh...only if your trying to do a top speed run from 0mph...and even then I hear we reach a higher top speed at 9K in 5th.

The thing is, by looking at my wife’s Mazda 6…her auto is humming above 3k on the highway so Mazda has continuously messed this up. Mazda, for the love of GOD…check out how GM gets such nice fuel economy from their big V8’s…LOW RPM ON THE HIGHWAY!!!

Cool stuff, I hadn't seen that before. I think that Mazda's short top gears aren't helped by their relatively small, less-torquey (when compared to the competition) engines. I know the 3.0L V6 in the Mazda 6s doesn't have the low end torque that Nissan's VQ35s or GM's 3800s do, so maybe Mazda gears its cars so much shorter so that they can match or exceed their torquier competitor's top gear acceleration numbers? Maybe they just don't want to require downshifting to pass on the highway or to go up decently sized hills. :dunno:

And they would do even better still, if Ford would develop a new pushrod motor in the 5.4~7L range.

My thoughts exactly.

My thoughts exactly.


Should BMW, Mercedes, VW, Audi, Toyota, Nissan, etc all give up OHC V8 engine development with Ford?

^^ obviously something is FUBAR if they all can get more power, higher redlines, and lower weights packaged into cars that are lighter and most often handle better. What the hell? Is this a one-way relationship... pick Ford's brains and they get all the benefit?

^^ obviously something is FUBAR if they all can get more power, higher redlines, and lower weights packaged into cars that are lighter and most often handle better. What the hell? Is this a one-way relationship... pick Ford's brains and they get all the benefit?


I definitely think the problem is Ford being too conservative with the modulars and not the design itself. They need to do something drastic with the 5.4 here soon....especially since the Tundra has 380hp for 2007. Isn't it amazing how much power vehicles have these days? 5 years ago 380hp was a Lightning F150....the fastest truck at the time. Now you have 425hp Grand Cherokees, 400hp Trailblazers, 380hp Toyota Tundra??? WTF. Ford needs to step up to the plate if they want to remain the King of Trucks. I think we need to see a bigger modular...something closer to 6.0L and pumping out 380-400hp. Ford needs to change their mindset of '300hp is just fine' before they lose core customers. Toyota has two V8 engines over 300hp for 2007, Nissan's V8 is at 305hp, GM's 6.1L is at 360hp and Dodge's Hemi is at 345hp (even more with the V10). Ford has got to make a big increase in power in their truck line for 2007. That is my $.02.

^^ You and I are in complete agreement. Ford has been the King of Trucks, but they are going to lose that title if they don't start firing the bean counters, get some balls and step up to the plate... take some (calculated) risks damn it!

They have the engineering talent and as you mentioned work together with other major automakers... they know how to do it... they just aren't. It's past time that they do.

The need to amortize platform and engine development costs is just good business sense. There is DEFINITELY a market for a luxury RWD sports sedan. Even Toyota is smart enough to see this... thus the birth of the IS and the GS and LS have always been RWD. That's about all BMW and MB make... and this is their market (thus why Honda is dumb with the Acura line). Ford needs to not only take aim, but surpass them... at a better price. Let's see a RWD Lincoln sports sedan... better than the LS was. Build a 3 Series killer... use the V6 and V8 from the Mustang as powertrain. Then FINALLY make an SVT model which shares motors with the GT500... and give them both that aluminum block I was talking about. A larger displacement version of that aluminum block engine could power the top model lincoln sedan. Again helping to amortize costs...hell this will probably help with the regular Mustang costs (so they can up the interior quality in exchange if anything). Man... Ford PD or marketing could use me...

BTW... that new Tundra looks pretty nice. I hope that Toyota will be offering it with a M/T... if so... damn sweet ride. Ford better watch out.

Should BMW, Mercedes, VW, Audi, Toyota, Nissan, etc all give up OHC V8 engine development with Ford?

You have to remember that those companies operate mainly in markets where engines with extra displacement are "punished" by the tax structure. Most have not designed an OHV engine for a mass produced vehicle in decades, if ever, because of this. Ford, OTOH, made very respectable OHV engines up until roughly 15 years ago, when they switched to the OHC V8s.

I definitely think the problem is Ford being too conservative with the modulars and not the design itself. They need to do something drastic with the 5.4 here soon....especially since the Tundra has 380hp for 2007. Isn't it amazing how much power vehicles have these days? 5 years ago 380hp was a Lightning F150....the fastest truck at the time. Now you have 425hp Grand Cherokees, 400hp Trailblazers, 380hp Toyota Tundra??? WTF. Ford needs to step up to the plate if they want to remain the King of Trucks. I think we need to see a bigger modular...something closer to 6.0L and pumping out 380-400hp. Ford needs to change their mindset of '300hp is just fine' before they lose core customers. Toyota has two V8 engines over 300hp for 2007, Nissan's V8 is at 305hp, GM's 6.1L is at 360hp and Dodge's Hemi is at 345hp (even more with the V10). Ford has got to make a big increase in power in their truck line for 2007. That is my $.02.

:boink: However, I've read that the current mod V8 is limited to around 5.4L due to its short length (it was originally designed to fit transversely in a FWD car as well as in the RWD cars that traditionally got a V8). I think Ford will have to S/C their engine to maintain the fat low end torque curve that trucks need and boost power to 350+hp levels at the same time.

IMO, Ford should either take advantage of the OHC setup to produce more power out of their given displacements to try to make up for the mod engine's excessive bulk (in their sportier cars, anyway), supercharge the engines if necessary (which has been proven to work quite well), or move back to pushrods in applications where the excess weight is a handicap (imagine a Mustang with a modern, aluminum 302 that dropped 100lbs out of the nose of the car without sacrificing power). It's odd that they designed these nice OHC V8s but still limit the new ones to the same 6000-6500rpm redlines and relatively low specific outputs as Chevy's previous generation (LS1/LS6) of smaller, lighter, more powerful pushrod engines.

You have to remember that those companies operate mainly in markets where engines with extra displacement are "punished" by the tax structure. Most have not designed an OHV engine for a mass produced vehicle in decades, if ever, because of this. Ford, OTOH, made very respectable OHV engines up until roughly 15 years ago, when they switched to the OHC V8s.



:boink: However, I've read that the current mod V8 is limited to around 5.4L due to its short length (it was originally designed to fit transversely in a FWD car as well as in the RWD cars that traditionally got a V8). I think Ford will have to S/C their engine to maintain the fat low end torque curve that trucks need and boost power to 350+hp levels at the same time.

IMO, Ford should either take advantage of the OHC setup to produce more power out of their given displacements to try to make up for the mod engine's excessive bulk (in their sportier cars, anyway), supercharge the engines if necessary (which has been proven to work quite well), or move back to pushrods in applications where the excess weight is a handicap (imagine a Mustang with a modern, aluminum 302 that dropped 100lbs out of the nose of the car without sacrificing power). It's odd that they designed these nice OHC V8s but still limit the new ones to the same 6000-6500rpm redlines and relatively low specific outputs as Chevy's previous generation (LS1/LS6) of smaller, lighter, more powerful pushrod engines.

S/C the 5.4 has definitely provided some nice results......and that may be the least expensive option for Ford. Developing a larger displacement modular would be a much greater expense than using a S/C which has already proven itself on the Lightning and Harley Davidson versions......of course that was before the 3V heads. However, Saleen has been able to pull 450hp and 500 lb/ft from a S/C 5.4 3V in their new 2007 S331. Ford should be able to get 400hp with a smaller blower.

I really don't think Ford is going to invest in a small block V8 OHV ever again.....I could be wrong......I don't think it's going to happen. The could start offering the V10 OHV in the F150 kinda like Dodge offers the V10 in the Ram 1500.