2015 Ford Mustang - General Discussion

[Zenith]

They keep pulling the "jaw line" of the rear end out. It was already a bit much on the recent models, in the render it's just excessive.

 

[McLaren]

I always prefer an engine-driven supercharger. Less lag, and they sound cool instead of weak.

I get where you're coming from. Twin turbos on whatever V8 the GT500 ends up using would be a fast combination for sure. But twin turbo setups are notorious for lagging like a dial-up connection (epescially when modification enters the picture), and besides, I don't care how effective they are, using turbochargers on a muscle car V8 is just wrong.

This isn't the 90's anymore. Several manufacturers know how to minimize turbo lag by significant margins. Porsche's turbo setups are perfect examples & there's no reason Ford can't engineer a system that does the same.

And nobody in this thread besides maybe Slashfan cares what you think anymore. You've proven you have an incredibly warped & judgmental view of anyone who doesn't like what you like.

 

[Slash]

We already know we are getting a turbo 4, so why not make it a twin turbo 4? Then it'd even have more potential to outperform the V8 car. Wouldn't ever happen but everyone seems so fixated on a TT setup...


@Zenith


I agree the could lay off it a little bit. Doesn't need to be huge back there.

 

[RandomCarGuy17]

I wouldn't have a problem with a twin turbo v8 mustang personally. It sounds like fun.

 

[Slash]

I'm going to do a fantasy lineup...

Base: 3.7L V6, 310hp
SVO: Turbo I4, 350hp
Mach 1/GT....retains N/A Coyote 5.0 V8, pumps out 445hp
Boss 351...5.0 Coyote stroked to 5.8L (351ci), Turbo/Twin Turbo, 550hp
SVT Cobra/GT500...5.8L supercharged, 675hp


Won't ever happen. But it would be a neat lineup.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

We already know we are getting a turbo 4, so why not make it a twin turbo 4? Then it'd even have more potential to outperform the V8 car. Wouldn't ever happen but everyone seems so fixated on a TT setup...


@Zenith


I agree the could lay off it a little bit. Doesn't need to be huge back there.

That's even more development than needed, as already said a single turbo is enough and can run with little to no lag.

 

[Slash]

That's even more development than needed, as already said a single turbo is enough and can run with little to no lag.

I know, I'm merely throwing the idea out there.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I know, I'm merely throwing the idea out there.

I'd rather see the V6 TT that the SHO runs and just boosted and further tuned.

 

[Omnis]

@Zenith, it's called a bumper. And this new mustang is in dire need of one instead of this bullcrap trunk/bumper design the Infinity G coupe started.

 

[CodeRedR51]

More like a makeshift "diffuser" which on the render is quite over stated.

 

[Tornado]

That render looks like the render from a few pages ago, but made in Play Doh.

 

[ProjectWHaT]

After seeing these new renders, I can definitely confirm that I prefer the current generation then this one (by looks only, not performance wise).

 

[Badasp5.0]

I'm going to do a fantasy lineup...

Base: 3.7L V6, 310hp
SVO: Turbo I4, 350hp
Mach 1/GT....retains N/A Coyote 5.0 V8, pumps out 445hp
Boss 351...5.0 Coyote stroked to 5.8L (351ci), Turbo/Twin Turbo, 550hp
SVT Cobra/GT500...5.8L supercharged, 675hp


Won't ever happen. But it would be a neat lineup.

Good lineup except I would go with a TT Trinity 5.8 in the SVT Cobra/GT500 and a NA version as the BOSS351.

To be honest I am surprised the 6.2 hasn't made it to the Mustang yet. Its odd its a F-150 only motor when it was tested a few years back in NMRA with a 7 liter version. I would like that to be in the "new" Mach1.

 

[Slash]

I've wondered why te 6.2 isn't in it as well. Who the hell knows what kind of power it would put down. It's not like the haven't used truck engines in the car before. The 390, 302, 429, 351W and others were all used in trucks with minimal if any differences between the application.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

So basically we want the top variant of this car to do only one thing good and that is go like a rocket still, but not like a true super car? My issue with the 6.2 is that it really is only useful for the idea of what the GT500 has been, the 302 shouldn't have it ever, and if you want a between I guess a destroked version for a Mach would be fine. I just don't see Ford going to extremes to build a vast amount of V8 applications for the Mustang ever again, rather I see various options that they already have in other cars finding their way to the mustang.

 

[Slash]

I agree. The days of 10 engines offered in one car are long gone.

 

[Tornado]

I'm assuming the 6.2 isn't used is because I'm pretty sure it is even bigger than the already humongous 5.4 it replaced.

 

[Slash]

I wish they'd develop another compact yet high displacement V8. Ever since the modulars rolled around they got huge. The coyotes dropped a bit but they still are big.

 

[Joey D]

We already know we are getting a turbo 4, so why not make it a twin turbo 4? Then it'd even have more potential to outperform the V8 car. Wouldn't ever happen but everyone seems so fixated on a TT setup...

I doubt a 2.3L 4 cylinder would produce sufficient enough exhaust gas in order to spool two turbos.

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

Thing is, Ford wants to get rid of Trinity V8.

Joey, twin turbo I4's are already a commonplace in Europe, but in Diesels. Also, back in the 80;s, the theoretical S-Group rallycars would've used twinturbo I4.

 

[Wolfe]

I wish they'd develop another compact yet high displacement V8. Ever since the modulars rolled around they got huge. The coyotes dropped a bit but they still are big.

The term you're looking for is overhead valve (OHV).

 

[Badasp5.0]

I'm assuming the 6.2 isn't used is because I'm pretty sure it is even bigger than the already humongous 5.4 it replaced.

IIRC its a hair narrower and a bit longer. Height I could not say but that would depend on application. oddly enough there isn't a listed exterior dimensions listed online.

I wish they'd develop another compact yet high displacement V8. Ever since the modulars rolled around they got huge. The coyotes dropped a bit but they still are big.

Its funny since most European posters on here applaud Ford for going OHC even with the HUGE size penalty. The only way to massively reduce size is going 60 degree or OHV which Ford will probably never do. The last 60 Degree V8 Ford did was the SHO one that wasn't that great of a motor.

 

[Slash]

I know but it would be nice to have something compact again

 

[Badasp5.0]

I know but it would be nice to have something compact again

Oh for sure. I always wonder how a new gen pushrod Ford V8 would have played out, Ford fans would have probally avoided the "Dark ages" of the late '90s for starters. The LS GM stuff is pretty damn awesome.

 

[MrWednesday]

What's "dark" about the late '90's? My sideline view of the modular engine is that it's fairly solid---in particular, it has a good reputation for durability in LeMons, and the InTech modular that they put in Lincolns looks pretty impressive by comparison with the 302, but I'll admit that my view through the Chump/LeMons lens tends to distort things.

 

[Badasp5.0]

What's "dark" about the late '90's? My sideline view of the modular engine is that it's fairly solid---in particular, it has a good reputation for durability in LeMons, and the InTech modular that they put in Lincolns looks pretty impressive by comparison with the 302, but I'll admit that my view through the Chump/LeMons lens tends to distort things.

I am talking more about the main stream 2v SOHC GTs more than the 4v DOHCs. Performance wise the 2vs were not that great stock and there was almost no performance parts. It wasn't till the PI heads came out for the '99 GTs did the 2v cars start to be good. The '96-'98 GTs are dogs and even now there resale value shows it you can get a 96-98 GT for way less than a '87-'93 5.0 fox. On the 4v Cobra/MarkVIII side they were damn good but very peaky cars and were expensive.

 

[Slash]

When the 4.6L 2V came out it was barely making the same power the 302 was and it was doing it at a higher rpm as well, not to mention they were a behemoth of an engine on top of it all. They are better now that aftermarket has come around a bit but when they first came out they weren't everything Ford promised and people were pissed. I still see people swapping in 302s in New Edge mustangs. Easy too.

 

[White & Nerdy]

Apparently cylinder heads were a big obstacle for quite some time. Quite difficult to re-engineer, or something - the aftermarket has got around to solving that problem in recent years, or so I've heard.

 

[Badasp5.0]

Apparently cylinder heads were a big obstacle for quite some time. Quite difficult to re-engineer, or something - the aftermarket has got around to solving that problem in recent years, or so I've heard.

Yeah it was chamber shape, intake runner length/shape and cam profiles that were the BIG 2v issues.Swapping the PI cams on a NPI would net a almost 20hp gain on its own.

When the 4.6L 2V came out it was barely making the same power the 302 was and it was doing it at a higher rpm as well, not to mention they were a behemoth of an engine on top of it all. They are better now that aftermarket has come around a bit but when they first came out they weren't everything Ford promised and people were pissed. I still see people swapping in 302s in New Edge mustangs. Easy too.

The 4.6L made less Ford back in '93 downrated the 302. I have lined up quite a few 94-95 5.0 GTs VS 96-98 4.6GTs and barring driver error the 94-95 wins everytime. 94-95s usually dyno 5-10HP more than a 96-98.

 

[Wolfe]

What's "dark" about the late '90's? My sideline view of the modular engine is that it's fairly solid---in particular, it has a good reputation for durability in LeMons...

Generally speaking, durability and output are inversely related. A "lazy" engine tends to be a longer-lasting one.