Mustang News, In Case You Missed It

Oct 23, 2009 15 Replies

All good stuff... read on.


09-06-09: This week has been filled with yet more revelations of new technology coming to the 2011 Mustang. Namely, Ford has two new engines headed for the 2011 Mustang that are a breath of fresh metal. The revolution starts with a new 3.7 liter DOHC V6 which is rumored to power out 315hp for the base 2011 Mustang. This will put the entry level model at a higher horsepower level than many legendary and iconic =93Muscle Mustangs=94 of the past.

We=92re talking the 1965 Shelby GT-350 at 271-306hp, 1969 BOSS 302 at



290hp, and all Fox Bodied Mustang 5.0 GT and Cobras ranging from
157-240hp. At 315hp this new base engine even out-powers many of the naturally aspirated 4.6 liter DOHC V8 engines found in the SVT Cobras and Mach 1 during the SN-95 years! When you consider this is the base Mustang you can get for under $25,000 with some options that is pretty remarkable.

This new engine has a number of technologies that get that power up including dual-overhead cams with variable valve timing. This allows infinite tuning of the cams on the fly by the engine control module. It is also rumored that direct injection is the key to that extra power above and beyond the 273hp that the 3.7 V6 puts out in Lincoln applications.



What this means is that the Mustang V6 is likely to no longer have the stigma of being the low man on the totem pole. With 315hp, the V6 would prove a credible option for enthusiasts and frugal buyers alike. If Ford sees fit to give this thing a nice dual exhaust and pair it with a 6-speed manual as they plan with the next generation V8, we have it made.



Speaking of that next generation 5.0 liter V8, there has been a lot of news and rumor about the upcoming =93Coyote=94 engine. The engine is a completely new architecture, very compact in design, and shares little to nothing with the current =93modular=94 V8 family. The new 5.0 liter engine will be used in both the F-Series trucks and in the Mustang for



2011. The current 4.6 and 5.4 modular V8=92s are believed to be going away for both cars and trucks. The new 6.2 liter V8 will replace both the 5.4 V8 and the V-10 in the F-Series.

The new DOHC 4-valve engine appears from spy photos to feature dual variable valve timing which helps put power at or above the 400 mark. That means both intake and exhaust cams can be individually timed for optimum settings in all conditions. It might have direct injection for future applications, but prototype photos appear to show standard port injection. There have been news accounts however of the engine being tested with direct injection and turbo charging, but the first show of the new 5.0 will be naturally aspirated.



The good news is that the extra power does not come at the cost of efficiency. The new V8 will meet or exceed the current 3V V8 in mpg. This will in part be achieved by mating the engine to a 6-speed manual transmission which should make many a Mustang fan happy. The compact size of the engine itself will also leave room for modders to really get creative under the hood.



Other news on the wire this week is that the next revision of the Shelby GT-500 will use an aluminum block to save weight. What is not known is whether this will be a version of the current 5.4 liter supercharged V8 or whether Ford is going for a force-fed version of the new 5.0. In either case a substantial weight reduction for the GT-500 would go a long way to upgrading performance and handling as well as casting off its image as being shall we say =93portly=94.



If all of these technological dreams come to pass in the next year, the powers that be at Ford will have answered virtually every criticism of the Mustang that has existed. That is with the exception of the live axle rear suspension. While there is much debate in the press, in the enthusiast circles, and even at Ford about whether the Mustang should have a modern day rear suspension, one thing is clear. The rest of the world and even Ford has decided that an IRS is the best solution.



The Crown Victoria and Town Car are going out of production soon, leaving the Mustang as the only mainstream production car in the world with a live axle. While most Ford spokespeople and engineers we have talked to sell us on the notion that an IRS isn=92t all that great or necessary, it hasn=92t stopped them from installing it in every SUV they build and even one of their pick-up trucks. If you read the brochures for the Explorer, Sport-Trak, or the Expedition the benefits of IRS are extolled like virtues from heaven. Yet their own halo sports car does not need it? Something is amiss.



We have been told by Ford to look at Grand Am where Mustangs with live axles race and win against cars with IRS from companies like BMW, Porsche, and others. This may be true, but one has to remember that a smooth race track and the driving environment of public roads are two different worlds. Once off the race track we have bumps, pot holes, railroad tracks, expansion joints, and surface transitions that make that live axle dance. These conditions all remind a Mustang driver every day of that piece of 14th century design underpinning their driving experience.



The point of an IRS is not necessarily always about performance, but rewarding the driver with confidence, stability, and refinement that is expected in a modern day performance car. With the amount of power these Mustangs have today, an IRS would not only increase safety by a huge margin, but also market appeal in a world full of IRS equipped Chevy Camaros, Nissan 370Zs, Corvettes, and yes even a Hyundai Genesis Coupe. And when you consider that some high performance Mustangs are now in the $50,000-80,000 price range, it really has become the time give the horse some new legs.



Patrick


Any idea on the date for the 2011? I'm not sure I can wait another year to buy a car given what the government and fed are doing to the money.

On the IRS thing, it does seem as if Ford has finally made the live axle a lot better than it has traditionally been. Far better than I could have thought when they decided on not using IRS for the '05. The latest GT500 vs. vette test in one of the car rags shows the GT500 doesn't suffer much because of it. But like you wrote, that's on the track. Not hitting a chicago pot hole or frost heave that can feel like it's going to send the car into the next lane. That said, I am used to dealing with the solid axle.

I really want IRS, the car should have it, but then something in the back of my head thinks of snow, salt, and temperature that combine with use to attack CV boots. It just becomes one more thing to watch and take care of. It's not like I can do what I did with my '97, scrape off the scale and paint it.

A 2011 with the 400 something HP 5.0 and the track pack sounds good and less money than buying a GT500 even after I have to change the brakes on it. They might even offer green as a color again... but I don't know if it's possible to wait that long. Things being the way they are some political or economic changes might mean it never happens.

Ok... I'm a V6 enthusiast... Couple of things come to mind...

Yes, the V6 will have 315HP but what about torque? Yes, like the old say HP sells cars... The thing is a V6 at 315HP is probably only going to make about 270 ft/lbs of torque, give or take a few ft/lbs. So yeah, it may have the same or higher HP level as older V8 but a lot of those V8s still made more torque! I can't believe they brought up the

2003 Mach1! LOL! The Mach1 was rated at 302HP/320TQ.... I think a lot of folks agree the Mach1 was underrated! I've seen dyno sheet that would put the Mach1 more in the 330 to 340 TQ range... So even at 315HP I don't see the 3.7 V6 making those kind of torque numbers....

Also... as long as there is a V8 option the V6 will still be shunned by some people... V6 owners will continue to hear "Oh, it's only a V6?" or "You should have got the V8". The V6 in my new Camaro is basically identical to the 3.7 Duratec as it's being proposed and yes, this new and improved 3.7 Duratec does sound very impressive.... but I think you have to maintain a sense of realism too... Yes, the media may look more favorable on the new high tech 3.7 than previous V6 mustangs but there will always be those that think that Mustangs HAVE to have a V8 or it's not a real Mustang...

Looking forward to seeing the new line up! I think i read Job #1 was like Mid-March 2010...

It's too bad that ford in the USA shuns the inline 6. That would solve the torque issue.

Mustang is still a pig. 100+HP more than some cars (claimed) and it can't keep up with them. It needs to lose about 500lbs and weigh like the 1988's did.

that and the electronic throttle, they keep initial torque limited so old ladies wont spin out

Pffht.

In case you haven't noticed, the only thing that kept the Mustang from being cancelled was the non-GT models. But I am sure you have.

In a related note, 99% of buyers don't care about horsepower. Go tell Honda and Toyota that HP matters. 99.99% of cars never see the track. 99.99% of drivers drive to work, to the grocery store, to pick up their kids. Does anyone think they give a crap what HP their car has? I bet 99.99% of them can't tell you how much HP it has, let alone TQ. As long as it goes well in bumper-to-bumper gridlock, they're good.

HP ratings are simply marketing and a sales tool. But it ranks way low after economy, quality, and safety. There was a time when these things did not matter and domestics ruled the roost. Today... you figure it out.

It's great the new V6 will put out more HP than my 1993 Cobra. But I don't care. I am, however, not a new car buyer wondering if I should buy a 17 year old car or a new one. My 2006 Lincoln has 200 HP and it does just fine on the road... surprise! Ford is very wise not to get into a HP race... has anyone seen GM or Dodge stock lately? LOL. A increase in HP is fine as long as the economy, quality and safety are there. It's hardly Job 1.

The times have changed kids in case you haven't noticed. Honda 4 bangers are the ride of choice today. Ford has to stay with the competition, but that's all this is. Believe me, they don't give a rat's butt if the GT sells or not, as long as the V6s, and Escapes and Fusions are rolling off the lot. Marketing is all this is - if Ford could get away with 125 HP in the new Mustang, they would in a heartbeat (excuse the dead pun).

B

Ok... I'm a V6 enthusiast... Couple of things come to mind...

Yes, the V6 will have 315HP but what about torque? Yes, like the old say HP sells cars... The thing is a V6 at 315HP is probably only going to make about 270 ft/lbs of torque, give or take a few ft/lbs. So yeah, it may have the same or higher HP level as older V8 but a lot of those V8s still made more torque! I can't believe they brought up the

2003 Mach1! LOL! The Mach1 was rated at 302HP/320TQ.... I think a lot of folks agree the Mach1 was underrated! I've seen dyno sheet that would put the Mach1 more in the 330 to 340 TQ range... So even at 315HP I don't see the 3.7 V6 making those kind of torque numbers....

Also... as long as there is a V8 option the V6 will still be shunned by some people... V6 owners will continue to hear "Oh, it's only a V6?" or "You should have got the V8". The V6 in my new Camaro is basically identical to the 3.7 Duratec as it's being proposed and yes, this new and improved 3.7 Duratec does sound very impressive.... but I think you have to maintain a sense of realism too... Yes, the media may look more favorable on the new high tech 3.7 than previous V6 mustangs but there will always be those that think that Mustangs HAVE to have a V8 or it's not a real Mustang...

Looking forward to seeing the new line up! I think i read Job #1 was like Mid-March 2010...

and.......one of my pet peeves: aerodynamics.......

can't see anything but sky out the back windows of new cars...........can't see where the front of the car since they all have to slope down to a point (and all the better for slop to run-up on the windshield and to submarine under other vehicles).....all in the name of fuel-saving aerodynamics.

lot of good that does in rush-hour traffic or suburban driving which comprises most of our miles.

Damn it those sports cars! And damned all those super fast internets too!

have had more than my share of cars that managed to be fast despite the aerodynamics of a brick.

and surely it makes sense to reasonably employ aerodynamics to increase fuel efficiency.

but doesn't seem sensible to drastically comprimise utlility or safety of "family" cars (with odd shapes, poor outward visibility, etc) for a miniscule fuel savings at speeds that comprise a minority of road time on......while Bubba still wants a Suburban.

If you can't see that far you might need glasses. Safety? Really?

sorry you can't conceptualize the advantages of being able to see something in the rear view mirror besides sky........guess you are accustomed to limited vision.

If you are seeing nothing but sky in your r.v.mirror, then I suggest:

1.Adjust your seat upward. 2.Adjust your r.v.mirror. 3.For your next Mustang, buy the r.v.camera option.

Bob.....

the Mustang is a convert which is not only butt-up, but has a smallish rear window.with wide band of vinyl at the bottom (and its now reached

1800 miles in 4 years, so unlikely to replace soon!)

worse is the Taurus: "nothing but air" in the rear view mirror.....yes, have the back-up alarms. and virtually impossible to clean the inside of it......almost as much fun as "cab forward" Chrysler windshields.

did a little search and found that it was the 1951 Packard that first had "all round visibility" where the driver could see all four corners.......commended by Motor Trend and others as a major safety advancement. Progress.......sort of like mid-80s 'stangs that touted amber rear turn signals: where did those go if they were so much safer than red?

Amber is safer but red is cheaper (shared lamp and/or lens (without two-shot molding) with brake lamps) and makes styling cleaner.

Yeah, the ragtop is a problem. I suppose you could always drop the top, then have your copilot stand, face the rear, and give you directions :-D

If your copilot has nice legs, try to not get too distracted.

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required