GM Inside News Forum banner
1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,341 Posts
If they use this technology on the 4.6l that would make it about 450HP and a nice competitor for the SBC in the Camaro and in a lighter package. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,660 Posts
^ you think a Ford 4.6 with a twin turbo will be lighter than a SBC? I don't know, but my money is on the Chevy being lighter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,043 Posts
Uh.

The next Mustang is getting a 5.0L 400hp DOHC V8 for MY2011. 4.6L is getting Ford Racing upgrades for MY2010, then it's done.

It's also getting a 425hp 3.5L twin turbo V6 around the same time.

The engine being shown here is the AWD trim of the motor. Figure around 350hp or so with the 6-speed automatic. This engine is going in the MKS, MKT, Taurus, Edge, and Flex to start.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,341 Posts
Uh.

The next Mustang is getting a 5.0L 400hp DOHC V8 for MY2011. 4.6L is getting Ford Racing upgrades for MY2010, then it's done.

It's also getting a 425hp 3.5L twin turbo V6 around the same time.

The engine being shown here is the AWD trim of the motor. Figure around 350hp or so with the 6-speed automatic. This engine is going in the MKS, MKT, Taurus, Edge, and Flex to start.
I seem to recall reading the next gen Mustang is supposed to weigh less than the current version. Is so it should give the Camaro a run for its money!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
644 Posts
the iron block alum head 4.6 was heavier than its 5.0L windsor predecessor. the mod motor is a pretty beefy you aint saving any weight (even though it would probably be an aluminum block in this app)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,971 Posts
The article claims that the engine makes its full torque at 1500 RPMs.

The BMW 335 makes full torque at 1500 RPMs, and if you calculate the first gear ratio times final drive times wheel size divided by RPM, it reaches full torque at something like 7 mph.

That's the kind of turbo lag I think anyone can live with. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
991 Posts
If they use this technology on the 4.6l that would make it about 450HP and a nice competitor for the SBC in the Camaro and in a lighter package. :)
The biggest problem with that would probably be the overall size of the package. V8s are wedged into pony cars as it is; adding the plumbing of twin turbos would be nigh impossible in a relatively small package like that. Also it would pretty much guarantee the need for premium fuel which could make the fuel savings a wash.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,014 Posts
^ but considering that the 5.0 will make 400hp N/A they might not need ecoboost for the entry Mustang
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,043 Posts
The biggest problem with that would probably be the overall size of the package. V8s are wedged into pony cars as it is; adding the plumbing of twin turbos would be nigh impossible in a relatively small package like that. Also it would pretty much guarantee the need for premium fuel which could make the fuel savings a wash.
EcoBoost runs on regular... this is one of the key aspects of the program.

Second, Ford has been testing EcoBoost Mustangs for about a year now. Those who have driven them have said they are ungodly fast, and in one tune is faster than an Audi R8.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,245 Posts
It may be a great engine (and I'm hoping for Ford's sake that it is); but as an old street rodder I've got to say that it's one UG-LEE pile of metal. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
177 Posts
EcoBoost runs on regular... this is one of the key aspects of the program.
I have seen statements Ecoboost will run on 87 octane but will the the recommended fuel be higher octane? If so EPA fuel economy and horsepower numbers will be derived from premium fuel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,971 Posts
If they use this technology on the 4.6l that would make it about 450HP and a nice competitor for the SBC in the Camaro and in a lighter package. :)
The Saturn Sky Redline makes 260 horsepower from 2.0 liters turbocharged, and the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution makes 291 horsepower from 2.0 liters turbocharged. The Nissan GT-R makes 480 horsepower from 3.8 liters with twin turbochargers.

Even if Ford "only" matched the proportional output of the Sky Redline, that means they could get 455 horsepower from the twin turbo 3.5.

The current Ford 4.6 is not a particularly impressive V8 for power or economy. Ford would be better off using a top end version of the Ecoboost V6 or a highly redesigned version of the 4.6.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,484 Posts
The Saturn Sky Redline makes 260 horsepower from 2.0 liters turbocharged, and the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution makes 291 horsepower from 2.0 liters turbocharged. The Nissan GT-R makes 480 horsepower from 3.8 liters with twin turbochargers.

Even if Ford "only" matched the proportional output of the Sky Redline, that means they could get 455 horsepower from the twin turbo 3.5.

The current Ford 4.6 is not a particularly impressive V8 for power or economy. Ford would be better off using a top end version of the Ecoboost V6 or a highly redesigned version of the 4.6.
The 340/340 rating is for FWD based (transverse mounted ) applications. The longitudinal version will get the original 415hp/415 ft.lbs

Finally - there was an early clarification from Ford that Eco Boost will not try to squeeze every last drop of power from the engines - it aims for optimal efficiency.

Igor
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,675 Posts
I seem to recall reading the next gen Mustang is supposed to weigh less than the current version. Is so it should give the Camaro a run for its money!
I highly doubt that. It may be a smidge lighter, but with all the new safety regs coming, most likely the mustang will gain weight. You see, if it costs an arm and a leg with high tech materials to make a 3300lb corvette, you can bet they wont get that with a Mustang. No way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,043 Posts
I highly doubt that. It may be a smidge lighter, but with all the new safety regs coming, most likely the mustang will gain weight. You see, if it costs an arm and a leg with high tech materials to make a 3300lb corvette, you can bet they wont get that with a Mustang. No way.
Ford is going from a giant iron block V6 OHC engine to a much more compact, all-aluminum V6... there's some weight savings right off the bat.

For reference, the V6 Mustang weighs only 3300 lbs as is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,392 Posts
The biggest problem with that would probably be the overall size of the package. V8s are wedged into pony cars as it is; adding the plumbing of twin turbos would be nigh impossible in a relatively small package like that. Also it would pretty much guarantee the need for premium fuel which could make the fuel savings a wash.

The 2.8 Bi-Turbo in the BLS and the Saab is about the same block as the 3.6 V6. If it fits in there, it will also fit in the CTS or Camaro.

My guess...

GM: go TT36!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
249 Posts
The 340/340 rating is for FWD based (transverse mounted ) applications. The longitudinal version will get the original 415hp/415 ft.lbs

Finally - there was an early clarification from Ford that Eco Boost will not try to squeeze every last drop of power from the engines - it aims for optimal efficiency.

Igor
I can understand the FWD versions getting less HP/TQ due to the tranny and other componets not being able to handle any more reliably. However, I just cant fathom a 400 plus hp TT mustang or F150 with a V6 anyway. Then, consider the 5.0 that is coming for both the Mustang and 150 and it seems like a lot of overlap to me.

What am I missing here? I could see a 350 HP stang with the TT 3.5 leaving the 5.0 as top dog. So Igor, do you really think in RWD applications that the TT 3.5 is going to see this kind of HP? I cant see it happening but if it does it will make GM rethink the Camaro.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top