Mustang Hybrid (S650) Announced, Debuts in 2020

[Norm Peterson]

People are bitching over nothing. The Ecoboost Mustang is on par with the performance of a 2012 GT and for less money.

We need to realise as the combustion engine is always improving it means it's going to have less cubes, which means less cylinders.

The raw numbers may be the same.

The driving experience is not. And that starts to matter once you get to the point where you stop defining car performance solely in terms of ET's and the numbers its engine puts up.

Or would people prefer Ford kept the old Windsor 5.0

In some respects, the whole modular engine series took a step back from the Windsor.


Norm

Sponsored

 

[OX1]

People are bitching over nothing. The Ecoboost Mustang is on par with the performance of a 2012 GT and for less money.

We need to realise as the combustion engine is always improving it means it's going to have less cubes, which means less cylinders.

Or would people prefer Ford kept the old Windsor 5.0 and charged you $29,990 for it?

An hybrid V8 would most likely be an SE anyway; way too fast for less than $50k.

Not in throttle response, and the coyote throttle response blows compared to any Winsdor that had an actual throttle cable (part of that may be the new autos too).

 

[millhouse]

People are bitching over nothing. The Ecoboost Mustang is on par with the performance of a 2012 GT and for less money.

We need to realise as the combustion engine is always improving it means it's going to have less cubes, which means less cylinders.

Or would people prefer Ford kept the old Windsor 5.0 and charged you $29,990 for it?

An hybrid V8 would most likely be an SE anyway; way too fast for less than $50k.

Funny, I didn't realize the EB mustang ran 12 second 1/4 miles as the 2012 5.0 mustangs did.

And, improving the internal combustion engine doesn't necessitate smaller displacement.

As for the windsor, I would have no issues with an OEM 408W assuming it was as updated as GMs current LT engines.

 

[jasonstang]

The original mustang would score a God awful crash rating by today's standards. It didn't have to carry aribags, the abundant electronics or additional structure that today's cars are required. It wasn't demanded to have the structural rigidity that today's pony cars have.

Think of it this way. The 1964 had nearly the same curb weight as the current Mazda Miata. Let that sink in for a second. Hell, the current Miata is WIDER both in overall and track width.

And for the record, the RS is only shorter in overall length. The wheelbase, track width, interior space etc. are all on par to the WRX.

The WRX has good crashing rating and its not that much smaller than the Mustang on the inside but the Mustang is much bigger on the outside. Most of Mustang's bulk comes from that long hood and very thick bodylines. If they can shrink the length and width by 7-8 inches, you will not feel much smaller inside but the car will feel much better in terms of size and weight.
The new Mustang is the perfect example of American excess. Bigger is better.

 

[millhouse]

The WRX has good crashing rating and its not that much smaller than the Mustang on the inside but the Mustang is much bigger on the outside. Most of Mustang's bulk comes from that long hood and very thick bodylines. If they can shrink the length and width by 7-8 inches, you will not feel much smaller inside but the car will feel much better in terms of size and weight.

You are forgetting that unlike the WRX, the mustang has to protect for a V8 engine. As long as the mustang has a V8 and rear seats, it's length isn't going to shrink. There simply isn't enough room.

There is a reason the camaro and mustang share nearly the exact same external length and width dimensions.

 

[Erik427]

The raw numbers may be the same.

The driving experience is not. And that starts to matter once you get to the point where you stop defining car performance solely in terms of ET's and the numbers its engine puts up.



In some respects, the whole modular engine series took a step back from the Windsor.


Norm

351 Windsor was and is leap years ahead of the Mod Motors.
The Mod Motor was not one of Ford's better ideas.
Heavier/wider/less power/less fuel economy.
Maybe better emissions.......
Give me a FE/385 Series/Windsor or Coyote any day.

 

[jasonstang]

The original Mustang had a 108" wheelbase. It looks smaller more because the styling is not intentionally 'muscular' or bulky. IOW, it's as much an optical effect as it is from the actual differences in width and height.

The popular Fox-body Mustang was on a 101" wheelbase platform.

The S197 has a 107.1" wheelbase.

The Focus sits on a 104.3" wheelbase, pretty much in the middle of the various Mustang wheelbases.

I don't see any deal-breaker level of difference if any future Mustang was to end up on a 104" - 105" wheelbase as long as it was readily identifiable as a Mustang and not some special edition of Focus with a couple of Mustang styling cues tacked on.


Norm

If they can shrink down to the original mustang size, they can save maybe 200-300 lbs worth of metal, it will be a very fun car to drive.

 

[Norm Peterson]

Give me a FE/385 Series/Windsor or Coyote any day.

The Coyote (and even the Voodoo) are part of the modular engine family . . .

What I'd have preferred to see starts with at least a 98 mm bore and about 11 mm shorter stroke.


Norm

 

[jasonstang]

You are forgetting that unlike the WRX, the mustang has to protect for a V8 engine. As long as the mustang has a V8 and rear seats, it's length isn't going to shrink. There simply isn't enough room.

There is a reason the camaro and mustang share nearly the exact same external length and width dimensions.

That's why I said a smaller displacement V8 with turbo will allow the extra space for the car to grow smaller.
The flat 4 in my WRX is as wide as the 90 degree v8 in the Mustang.

 

[millhouse]

That's why I said a smaller displacement V8 with turbo will allow the extra space for the car to grow smaller.
The flat 4 in my WRX is as wide as the 90 degree v8 in the Mustang.

I think you are vastly underestimating just how little of a difference a smaller displacement V8 would have on packaging....especially if you were to throw an any type of forced induction. An inch, maybe. 7-8 inches, no way in hell.

 

[1320']

351 Windsor was and is leap years ahead of the Mod Motors.
The Mod Motor was not one of Ford's better ideas.
Heavier/wider/less power/less fuel economy.
Maybe better emissions.......
Give me a FE/385 Series/Windsor or Coyote any day.

Oh please.

Please show me how to build a 302 Windsor that makes 435 net HP that still manages to make 20+ combined MPG, pass emissions, is fully streetable and will last for 150,000+ miles.

 

[Grimace427]

That's why I said a smaller displacement V8 with turbo will allow the extra space for the car to grow smaller.
The flat 4 in my WRX is as wide as the 90 degree v8 in the Mustang.

A turbo V8 would take up much more room than a naturally aspirated engine, regardless of displacement. Look at the 4.0 BMW S65 V8 vs the 5.0 Coyote(about the same) then look at the 6.2-7.0 GM LS engines(much smaller externally). Benz has the M178 4.0 hot-V twin turbo V8 which is about the smallest you could make a TT V8 and it still is massive, not even taking into account the extra coolers and plumbing necessary to keep the engine performing.


Internal displacement means almost nothing compared relative to external dimensions.

 

[jasonstang]

I think you are vastly underestimating just how little of a difference a smaller displacement V8 would have on packaging....especially if you were to throw an any type of forced induction. An inch, maybe. 7-8 inches, no way in hell.

A turbo V8 would take up much more room than a naturally aspirated engine, regardless of displacement. Look at the 4.0 BMW S65 V8 vs the 5.0 Coyote(about the same) then look at the 6.2-7.0 GM LS engines(much smaller externally). Benz has the M178 4.0 hot-V twin turbo V8 which is about the smallest you could make a TT V8 and it still is massive, not even taking into account the extra coolers and plumbing necessary to keep the engine performing.


Internal displacement means almost nothing compared relative to external dimensions.

So you are telling me a 3.8L V8 with two turbos is gonna be bigger than a 5.0L?

 

[Grimace427]

So you are telling me a 3.8L V8 with two turbos is gonna be bigger than a 5.0L?

Since we are talking about overall packaging, easily.



Speaking of 3.8 TTV8 engines, McLaren's M838T has a 108mm bore spacing vs the Coyote's 100mm which will increase the engine block length by 32mm not taking anything else into account.

 

[millhouse]

Since we are talking about overall packaging, easily.



Speaking of 3.8 TTV8 engines, McLaren's M838T has a 108mm bore spacing vs the Coyote's 100mm which will increase the engine block length by 32mm not taking anything else into account.

Exactly. The only thing that is going to allow the mustang to significantly decrease in overall length is going to be chopping off 2 or 4 cylinders.

Sponsored