2018 Mustang Refresh (Prototype) First Look!

I just want at least 475hp/475 LB-FT.....i don't care at all for fluff stuff

Played around with the hood separating it from the grille like the 2010-2012, but it doesn't really make a difference. :shrug:

AxelFoley said:

I just want at least 475hp/475 LB-FT.....i don't care at all for fluff stuff

Click to expand...

That bold part?

Not going to happen on a factory N/A 5.0...that would need FI.

Even if DI raised the power 10%..you're still looking at "only" 440 foot lbs of torque.

It's just the reality of it...n/a 5.0L motors are not going to make the the torque of engines that are over a liter larger.

Spartan said:

Nice find...I wouldn't doubt if the front got rid of the blinkers and worked them into the main LEDs...would be awesome.

Click to expand...

wouldn't that mean the headlight would have to turn off during the time the blinker is on, like the Fogs do on cars where they're too close? I don't see that happening. maybe if it was in addition to the normal turn signals and just for fun. but that seems a bit gimmicky, and they'd never do gimmicky turn signals ;)

1320' said:

That bold part?

Not going to happen on a factory N/A 5.0...that would need FI.

Even if DI raised the power 10%..you're still looking at "only" 440 foot lbs of torque.

It's just the reality of it...n/a 5.0L motors are not going to make the the torque of engines that are over a liter larger.

Click to expand...

I'd imagine everyone would be happy with 475hp/440 LB-FT out of the 5.0L. It would certainly be faster than the Camaro.

1320' said:

That bold part?

Not going to happen on a factory N/A 5.0...that would need FI.

Even if DI raised the power 10%..you're still looking at "only" 440 foot lbs of torque.

It's just the reality of it...n/a 5.0L motors are not going to make the the torque of engines that are over a liter larger.

Click to expand...

Modular engines don't make a lot of torque compared to a push-rod engine, correct?

Hence why the SS and Scatpack/SRT have a ton of torque; push-rod engines.

SS: 455 HP / 455 lb-ft
HEMI: 485 HP / 475 lb-ft

intoadaze said:

Modular engines don't make a lot of torque compared to a push-rod engine, correct?

Hence why the SS and Scatpack/SRT have a ton of torque; push-rod engines.

SS: 455 HP / 455 lb-ft
HEMI: 485 HP / 475 lb-ft

Click to expand...

They make more torque cubic inch to cubic inch, but the physical size and bore spacing limitations of the Mod motor block make big displacement motors an impossibility. For their big displacement, the LT1 and Hemi are not massive engines in terms of dimensions, but the LT1 is a heavy bitch (460LBS IIRC). However the Coyote makes as much raw torque as the 5.7 Hemi, but not as low in the RPM range and for not as long..so it feels less torquey.
The LT1 has a 74 cubic inch advantage on the Coyote, and the 6.4 Hemi a 90 cubic inch advantage..that's tough to overcome with DI/Cam/Intake manifold trickery.

Made a first version of how I think the facelift will look like according the the things we can see on the mule. Just edited the headllights and shrinked the middle part of the front bumper (adjusting the upper grille).

Take a look at the posts of mjhousto for pointing out the tribars and intoadeze for showing the possible new fender line on the top of the lights. You can also see the GT350-look a like lower bumper on the mule.

1320' said:

That bold part?

Not going to happen on a factory N/A 5.0...that would need FI.

Even if DI raised the power 10%..you're still looking at "only" 440 foot lbs of torque.

It's just the reality of it...n/a 5.0L motors are not going to make the the torque of engines that are over a liter larger.

Click to expand...

DI and GT350 heads could get close. DI torque gains tend to be a bit higher than that. It they offered a 5.2L with DI and GT350 heads (Mach 1), 475lbft could actually happen.

AxelFoley said:

I just want at least 475hp/475 LB-FT.....i don't care at all for fluff stuff

Click to expand...

475 lb-ft is not going to happen on a stock Coyote. You would need a blower or DI and many thousands in NA upgrades to hit that number. The 5.0 just isn't designed for gobs of torque, not like a push-rod is. Doesn't mean Coyotes are slow, they just pull from the top end not the bottom.

JWS said:

We need to bring back the Grande'.

We need a true luxury version.

Like the late 60s and early 70s.

Click to expand...

Actually, I think a touring version with slightly softer everything- suspension, seats, etc would sell well. I wonder why Ford has never replaced the Thunderbird... "luxury coupes" always have their niche.

Spartan said:

Lots of articles, pics, etc on this subject since the S550 came out.

http://jalopnik.com/2015-ford-mustang-design-dissection-1476996831


You have that on your current GT in the front. Just google Mustang/Fusion and look at the photos.

Click to expand...

No, you're not understanding me. The current GT strikes a good balance, but any more cues from the Fusion and the Mustang will dip too far into the wrong design direction. I am aware of what it looks like now, what I am saying is that anymore like a Fusion and I won't like the design.

That hitch receiver is siiiiiiick

Petroleum Jesus said:

DI and GT350 heads could get close. DI torque gains tend to be a bit higher than that. It they offered a 5.2L with DI and GT350 heads (Mach 1), 475lbft could actually happen.

Click to expand...

A DI 5.2 Coyote with GT350 heads ..could get to 475 tq, yes.

However, you won't see GT350 heads on a factory 5.0 Coyote, valve shrouding would make it a less than ideal fit. You'll either see GT350 heads on a 5.2 block or just normal Coyote heads on a 5.0 block.

SpeedLu said:

No, you're not understanding me. The current GT strikes a good balance, but any more cues from the Fusion and the Mustang will dip too far into the wrong design direction. I am aware of what it looks like now, what I am saying is that anymore like a Fusion and I won't like the design.

Click to expand...

Spartan jumps at any chance he can get to compare the mustang to the fusion. He seems to lack a fundamental understanding of how design languages work.