Trending on /r/cars: 2019 Shelby GT500 to receive Ford's new N/A 7.0L V8 w/ DI

[machsmith]

That's not the engine's fault, many more factors that go into fuel mileage. Look at the Viper; huge V10 and can tickle 30mpg on the highway.

And I'm sure the v8 SC SE mustang that comes COULD get 20+MPG, but so far, what we have seen out of that EB 3.5v6 is that it isn't going to get even v8 power level gas mileage. I can see why from a weight perspective, to go with a v6TT, but not if its going to be a straight line burner. The mileage the v6 TT EB has gotten, isn't good. Heck, ford could have dropped a 5.0 v8 into the explorer and got better mileage with it, and had better power.

Show off ;) ...although I think you've left enough bread crumbs around for us to have a general idea of the platform. Maybe not the exact details and specs but those will come in time.

Yep, even though a lot here choose not to believe it. Maybe its because we are thinking 2 SE mustangs are coming...possibly a 429. So, It would be interesting to hear what Bmacil thinks of another SE offering, other than the mach1. Or could the mach1 50th in 2019 sport the 428?

Sponsored

 

[MikeyV]

The 6.2L heads supposedly flow pretty well in SOHC form. A good massage, from what I hear, and they flow nasty style.

Totally. Going the SOHC route would definitely allow easier fitment.

 

[MikeyV]

The Cyclone engine family was designed to be able to be safely opened up to 4.0L.

Why design a new 4.0L (V8) when they have an engine of that displacement much closer within reach in both design and r&d-wise, sound?

Such an engine would be a welcome sight to not only GT500 but top trim LMC offerings as well.

Saying things like, 'no one will buy it, it's just a V6", "sound > power", "but... muh V8!", hasn't stopped buyers of EB F-150's reaching 66%+ take rate. That's another group of buyers that "everyone" was sure that there would be serious pushback with TTV6's taking the place traditionally held by V8's, top of the food chain that is.

They don't have to get rid of the V8, no one is saying that. There are the enthusiasts that will only buy a V8 and that's fine it'll still be there. We have to admit that the "V8 only" enthusiast is a minority of buyers. So, yes cater to them by continuing to update and upgrade V8 offerings.

But fearing the TTV6's isn't going to change the fact that a lot of people will buy them, possibly/probably more than the former and at a higher premium, and thats ultimately what auto makers are after, sales/profits.

I agree with most of that. But the Mustang thrives on it's performance/sporty image, while the truck is based on work, or more so today on image. Any power plant that will move the hulk will do. In a Stang, it's more important. More important to some people than others, no doubt.

 

[200MPHCOBRA]

I'd put a 700hp TTV6 350R chassis up against a ZL1 anyday. It'd each him for lunch.

We know the GT500 is not going to be a TTV6 so why does it matter?

And if it had a twin turbo coyote, it would eat its breakfast and dinner too, and sound good doing it.

 

[StangFever2846]

The Cyclone engine family was designed to be able to be safely opened up to 4.0L.

Why design a new 4.0L (V8) when they have an engine of that displacement much closer within reach in both design and r&d-wise, sound? Yes sound, and heritage

Such an engine would be a welcome sight to not only GT500 but top trim LMC offerings as well. How is adding the same damn cookie cutter engine available on every other Ford model "a welcome sight?"

Saying things like, 'no one will buy it, it's just a V6", "sound > power", "but... muh V8!", hasn't stopped buyers of EB F-150's reaching 66%+ take rate. That's another group of buyers that "everyone" was sure that there would be serious pushback with TTV6's taking the place traditionally held by V8's, top of the food chain that is. It did to this F-150 shopper. I was ready to put down 40K+ for a regular cab pickup. I went and looked at and test drove the Tremor. Nice truck but I couldn't find an ecoboost exhaust that didn't sound like a whoopee cushion contest! Also Ford removed the 6.2 leaving the ecoboost as the top tier option.

They don't have to get rid of the V8, no one is saying that. There are the enthusiasts that will only buy a V8 and that's fine it'll still be there. We have to admit that the "V8 only" enthusiast is a minority of buyers. So, yes cater to them by continuing to update and upgrade V8 offerings. No, they don't have to get rid of the V8 per se (although they did the 6.2), they just have to keep giving them mediocre power bumps and keep tuning them to feel like they have the emergency brake on to give the illusion that they're worse than they really are. A little nudge if you will, to make sure you buy the ecoboost.

But fearing the TTV6's isn't going to change the fact that a lot of people will buy them, possibly/probably more than the former and at a higher premium, and thats ultimately what auto makers are after, sales/profits.

Does the Coyote truck engine have the torque that the ecoboost 3.5 has? Nope, but the Coyote in the F-150 is also severely handicapped by lower compression, tamer cams, a shit tune and a lower redline than it's mustang counterpart, yet surprisingly kept the same intake manifold. Why no intake manifold tuned for low end torque? Funny how Ford was able to use the same exact 3.7L from the mustang in the 11-14 150's with identical power and torque figures, but the 5.0 lost 52 hp and 10lb/ft of torque when making the same jump to the F-150. Explain that one to me. The 3.7L also has a torque curve that's as flat as an ironing board, the 5.0 truck engine not so much. Usually when an engine is tuned for truck duty, if it loses HP it's because it gained TQ, see GM's 6.2L engine. The 3.7L also retains the 7K redline in the trucks, but the truck Coyote gets a 5800 redline. Dafuq?? Nah nothing nefarious going on there right? Also why no 3.73/4.10 gear option on the regular cab 5.0 trucks? An N/A engine like the coyote needs to rev. Guess they really wanted me to buy that ecoboost Tremor huh?

The mustang isn't a GTR. A twin turbo 3.5L in the top dawg Mustang would push a lot of people to the dark side. Myself included.

 

[StangFever2846]

Look at the before and after HP curves. Look at how the stock tune even on 93 octane falls flat on it's face after 5700 rpm. Nope, no handicapping of the 5.0 truck engine to sell more ecoboosts right?!

Anyway sorry to go off topic, just had to help set the record straight on Ford's handicapping of the Coyote truck engine. Carry on. :ford:

 

[BmacIL]

Look at the before and after HP curves. Look at how the stock tune even on 93 octane falls flat on it's face after 5700 rpm. Nope, no handicapping of the 5.0 truck engine to sell more ecoboosts right?!

Anyway sorry to go off topic, just had to help set the record straight on Ford's handicapping of the Coyote truck engine. Carry on. :ford:

This is entirely because of the intake manifold design, which produces more down low and in the midrange at the expense of top-end power...the correct choice for a truck. They do not design and tool unique intake manifolds to intentionally handicap an engine...that is lunacy.

What is PR-X?

 

[StangFever2846]

This is entirely because of the intake manifold design, which produces more down low and in the midrange at the expense of top-end power...the correct choice for a truck. They do not design and tool unique intake manifolds to intentionally handicap an engine...that is lunacy. I never said they designed an intake manifold to make less power, I said they used the same one from the mustang instead of making one specific to the F-150 to make more torque like they should have.

What is PR-X?

It's just a tune on an otherwise stock truck with just a CAI. All runs done on 93 octane.

http://www.morepowertuning.com/2015-f150-5.0-tune-descriptions

That's a lot of power (and torque) left on the table.

 

[crysalis_01]

An interesting read concerning the current topic at hand over on SVTP

/forums/threads/coyote-f-150-intake-test.1110961/

Can't link the URL but I'm sure you know how to use the internet.

 

[BmacIL]

It's just a tune on an otherwise stock truck with just a CAI. All runs done on 93 octane.

http://www.morepowertuning.com/2015-f150-5.0-tune-descriptions

That's a lot of power (and torque) left on the table.

Emissions...

That tune would not even be close to in the box on emissions over the drive cycles. Cars are easier than trucks, and thus trucks have more "left on the table". Even the Mustang picks up ~20-25 whp from the better 93 tunes. The GT350 responds similarly. They don't leave power on the table, they have to do their best while being constrained by four main things: 1) They must meet emissions. 2) They must meet durability/reliability targets and have the testing to prove it. No tuners go through that rigor. 3) They must hit their fuel economy targets. 4) There are all sorts of drivability/driver preference tweaks to calibrations and hardware to suit a huge range of customer wants, some of which have slight detriment to power.

 

[StangFever2846]

An interesting read concerning the current topic at hand over on SVTP

/forums/threads/coyote-f-150-intake-test.1110961/

Can't link the URL but I'm sure you know how to use the internet.

Yup, Ford took a step in the right direction with the 15's. As much hp as the truck is down in comparison to the Mustang, I would've liked to have seen torque gains in the lower rpms and not just the midrange. Sadly us 11-14 owners got basically the same intake as the GT minus the silver color from what I've researched. If I'm wrong, I'm sure BmacIL will correct me. :ford: I wish they would've posted the stock dyno graph and A/F ratios too.

Anyway enough off topic, so tell me BmacIL, does the new 7.0L truck engine fit between the strut towers of the S550 without any modifications?? Or did you guys have to widebody that sumbitch to make it fit? Come on man throw us a bone. We're getting pretty desperate in here dissecting F-150 intake manifolds and shit. I'd rather be slobbering over a new spy pic or something.

 

[StangFever2846]

Emissions...

That tune would not even be close to in the box on emissions over the drive cycles. Cars are easier than trucks, and thus trucks have more "left on the table". Even the Mustang picks up ~20-25 whp from the better 93 tunes. The GT350 responds similarly. They don't leave power on the table, they have to do their best while being constrained by four main things: 1) They must meet emissions. 2) They must meet durability/reliability targets and have the testing to prove it. No tuners go through that rigor. 3) They must hit their fuel economy targets. 4) There are all sorts of drivability/driver preference tweaks to calibrations and hardware to suit a huge range of customer wants, some of which have slight detriment to power.

Makes sense. All this talk about SC 5.2's and N/A 7 Liters, sometimes I forget that we still have to deal with the eco nazi's killing all our fun. :rant:
I'm just glad we still have the aftermarket to do what Ford can't legally do.

 

[crs2879]

Current edition of Automobile Magazine had a paragraph about the GT500....they say supercharged 5.2 but no FPC...700+ HP, $70K+......

 

[DrumReaper]

Current edition of Automobile Magazine had a paragraph about the GT500....they say supercharged 5.2 but no FPC...700+ HP, $70K+......

Got a link?...

 

[crs2879]

Got a link?...

I get the actual mag in the mail....I did not see it online. Someone in another thread posted a picture:
http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1986406#post1986406

Sponsored