Will the regular GT ever again have 460 or more HP without electric assist?

[oneheadlite]

Oh Yeah, I remember those cars well, I was totally obsessed with those when I was in high school (they were the hottest new cars you could get at the time, even faster than the Corvette). The plain 6.6 was actually an Olds 403 engine rated at 185 HP. The T/A 6.6 was a real Pontiac engine, 400 ci with Ram Air heads. It was 15 HP more at 200 HP, but that was in '77. The '78 T/A 6.6 got a 20 HP bump, (while the 403 lost 5, down to 180HP) so compared to the '77 403, it actually had 35 more HP, plus a fatter torque curve that peaked at a lower rpm, so yes, a '78 T/A 6.6 was a noticeably more powerful engine.

In my mid-20's I tried (unsuccessfully) to resurrect a wrecked '78 Formula Firebird, but to this day still wish I had gotten a late 2nd gen T/A when they were just a used car before they got insanely expensive. They are on my top 5 list of best looking cars ever made.

my younger brother obsessed over mom's '78 T/A. Tried to buy it off her
and everything. Then, his GF got pregnant, so he joined the Air Force.

I have helped him locate a couple over the years, but he never has bought one.
Now, he has cancer and I doubt that he'll ever have one.................

Sponsored

 

[Hack]

The Voodoo engine is a FPC engine with a higher RPM redline. That's how Ford did it...

We will have a v6TT eventually...but at least it will be an ICE. Hell, they could add an electric motor to that setup for 500+HP and keeping within EPA regs. The lighter V6 would be offset by they battery pack/motor...but I think it would still be pretty nimble.

Yes you're right the Voodoo had a higher redline, but a cross plane engine can be built to rev to 8,250 as well - or higher. Heck, NASCAR engines are cross plane and they rev to 10,000 RPM. Yes I realize they are a race engine and don't have a long enough life, but 10,000 RPM is not needed either.

But like I said, more cubic inches would be the easier way. A V6 TT will probably weigh more than a V8 if it makes comparable or more power. Reference actual F150 weights with different engine options. Notice that the 5.0 is significantly lighter than the 3.5 V6TT. Electric is heavier yet. I'm not looking for a big HP or torque number - I want a car that actually is fun to drive.

 

[paulm1]

If no V8, they should just kill the Mustang now. It won't sell in other countries without it, and won't sell well here either. I seriously don't think Ford will let that happen.

I wouldn't say that. Ford already tried the "probe" experiment and it failed miserably. This is all cyclical, I'm older than most, and owned a lot of muscle cars. One of my favorites was and still is an '87 buick that had a V6, turbo, intercooler, bump in the hood, and she was black....and fast......in a strait line. If ford wanted they could easily drop a version of the GT V6 into the mustang @ 500 or so HP and get good gas mileage out of it. Once leadership changes again and emissions are set by adults, instead of greenpeace hippe teenagers, HP ratings will climb again.

 

[br_an]

@oneheadlite very sorry to hear about your brother's illness. I hope he has successful treatment and can get his T/A too.

If ford wanted they could easily drop a version of the GT V6 into the mustang @ 500 or so HP and get good gas mileage out of it. Once leadership changes again and emissions are set by adults, instead of greenpeace hippe teenagers, HP ratings will climb again.

I think the V8 is a crucial part of the Mustang legacy, and Ford would be foolish to not offer it while the ICE survives, but with that said (warning: sacrelige ahead) I would definitely entertain the idea of buying a Mustang TT V6 like the GT has. I've owned two 3.5L EB F150s, and those suckers can scoot despite their weight and size. A properly tuned application in a Mustang wouldn't be a huge turn-off for me. A decent exhaust system can make the noise coming out of the tailpipe tolerable. Although I would miss the V8 sounds.

I suspect the emmisions standards are being driven less by "greenpeace hippie teenagers" and more by investors in the electric auto industry that also happen to donate heavily to political parties. Call me a skeptic, but the move to electric seems to be more about the cash grab than long-term environmental concerns.

 

[LSchicago]

I wouldn't say that. Ford already tried the "probe" experiment and it failed miserably. This is all cyclical, I'm older than most, and owned a lot of muscle cars. One of my favorites was and still is an '87 buick that had a V6, turbo, intercooler, bump in the hood, and she was black....and fast......in a strait line. If ford wanted they could easily drop a version of the GT V6 into the mustang @ 500 or so HP and get good gas mileage out of it. Once leadership changes again and emissions are set by adults, instead of greenpeace hippe teenagers, HP ratings will climb again.

500HP V6 is fine for those content with an 11 second car. It doesn't work for those of us with goals in mind. Staying factory is boring.

 

[paulm1]

500HP V6 is fine for those content with an 11 second car. It doesn't work for those of us with goals in mind. Staying factory is boring.

Im dumb and I took a single turbo buick v6, base 275hp to 450 reliable hp in about an hour with a manual boost controller and a methanol kit. I'm sure all the smart folks here can figure out how to crank out 800hp from a twin turbo V6 GT engine.

 

[Hack]

No matter how much power it makes, a V6 still sounds crappy. I'm not buying to race, I'm buying something to enjoy.

IMO if Ford goes away from the V8, they should shrink the Mustang and do a 4 with a turbo in a 3,000 lb car. I don't see any advantage to a V6. It just forces the car to be larger, which is a disadvantage.

 

[Garfy]

If you're talking about hp off the show room floor, It was readily available pre the 1971 change from gross hp to net for auto specifications. For example, the 1971, 426 hemi was one of the few motors to quote both. It was rated at 425 gross but only 350 net. The lowly 307 in today's Mustang puts out 460 net. Yes, the EPA rules eventually ended up reducing compression ratios and hp. However, a lot of the actual loss was due to the way Detroit touted gross hp and got caught up in the ASE switch to net. Blaming the EPA was convenient, marketing friendly, and became folklore.

Granted the big bores had more torque. However, if Ford could make a N.A. motor in the +400 cubic inch range using today's technology it would probably crush an old school big block.

I believe it was 1972 when the HP switch was made. A 1971 Mustang 302-2V was still rated at 210 HP but in 1972 I think it dropped to 144 HP. Of course, it wasn't just the gross to net HP rating that accounted for the difference as supposedly the compression was dropped from 9.5:1 to 8.5:1 and the HP rating was at 4000 rpm vs. 4600 rpm for the '71.

With the gross rating, there was the Chevy 427 that was rated at 425 HP. While it definitely has more torque than the current GT, I believe if you found a stock 427 in good condition, it would still lose in the 1/4 mile to the GT, especially with the A10 tranny.

 

[TrevorGT]

For the Trans Am lovers, I still have 3 of them. A 76 455 car, 77 SE 400, and 01 ws6 6 spd.
The 77 has 29k original miles.

 

[Rinzler]

I swear, if I ever want to see more whining than a 5 year old not getting their way at a Target, I come to these forums.

We have ~$35K cars with 450-460 hp, and 0-60s ~4-4.5 seconds and folks still have something to complain about.

1. Ford has already confirmed a V8 for next generation. That's at least 7-9 more years of a V8 Mustang for the S650.
2. Horsepower, technology, and chassis sophistication has only gone up since CAFE was introduced in 1975 (and price unfortunately).
3. Electric cars are not the boogeyman. Go and drive one, they're different but exactly the same. Just cars. Some go fast, some don't.
4. No one is holding a gun to your head re electric or hybrid cars. If they are, call 911 immediately...

I feel like some of y'all just like to be stressed out about absolutely nothing. Also, that Mach-E GT is going to run you off the road 9/10 times in the real world. Ford has not shown any signs of forgetting enthusiasts as shown by the 760HP GT500 that gets about 8 mpg even though the scary EPA says they don't like that.

This is all to say, chill out and calm down.

 

[young at heart]

I swear, if I ever want to see more whining than a 5 year old not getting their way at a Target, I come to these forums.

We have ~$35K cars with 450-460 hp, and 0-60s ~4-4.5 seconds and folks still have something to complain about.

1. Ford has already confirmed a V8 for next generation. That's at least 7-9 more years of a V8 Mustang for the S650.
2. Horsepower, technology, and chassis sophistication has only gone up since CAFE was introduced in 1975 (and price unfortunately).
3. Electric cars are not the boogeyman. Go and drive one, they're different but exactly the same. Just cars. Some go fast, some don't.
4. No one is holding a gun to your head re electric or hybrid cars. If they are, call 911 immediately...

I feel like some of y'all just like to be stressed out about absolutely nothing. Also, that Mach-E GT is going to run you off the road 9/10 times in the real world. Ford has not shown any signs of forgetting enthusiasts as shown by the 760HP GT500 that gets about 8 mpg even though the scary EPA says they don't like that.

This is all to say, chill out and calm down.

I‘ve been wrong before and will be again, but I’d be shocked to see Ford continue to produce a standalone everyday Mustang GT V8 at the current level of performance for another 7-9 years. The greenies and the EPA just aren’t going to allow it. I’d wager that the vast majority of their powertrain resources is pointed directly at EVs and hybrids.

Buy what you want now and enjoy it.

 

[LSchicago]

...I don't know about 10hp, but......
in 1977 I had a Trans Am that had 200 hp. (plain 6.6)
In 1978 my mom bought a Trans Am with a T/A 6.6 with 20hp more.

You could feel the difference..................

10% difference, vs 2% difference.

 

[boB]

I swear, if I ever want to see more whining than a 5 year old not getting their way at a Target, I come to these forums.

We have ~$35K cars with 450-460 hp, and 0-60s ~4-4.5 seconds and folks still have something to complain about.

1. Ford has already confirmed a V8 for next generation. That's at least 7-9 more years of a V8 Mustang for the S650.
2. Horsepower, technology, and chassis sophistication has only gone up since CAFE was introduced in 1975 (and price unfortunately).
3. Electric cars are not the boogeyman. Go and drive one, they're different but exactly the same. Just cars. Some go fast, some don't.
4. No one is holding a gun to your head re electric or hybrid cars. If they are, call 911 immediately...

I feel like some of y'all just like to be stressed out about absolutely nothing. Also, that Mach-E GT is going to run you off the road 9/10 times in the real world. Ford has not shown any signs of forgetting enthusiasts as shown by the 760HP GT500 that gets about 8 mpg even though the scary EPA says they don't like that.

This is all to say, chill out and calm down.

How dare you bring a voice of reason to this thread! ;)

 

[LSchicago]

I swear, if I ever want to see more whining than a 5 year old not getting their way at a Target, I come to these forums.

We have ~$35K cars with 450-460 hp, and 0-60s ~4-4.5 seconds and folks still have something to complain about.

1. Ford has already confirmed a V8 for next generation. That's at least 7-9 more years of a V8 Mustang for the S650.
2. Horsepower, technology, and chassis sophistication has only gone up since CAFE was introduced in 1975 (and price unfortunately).
3. Electric cars are not the boogeyman. Go and drive one, they're different but exactly the same. Just cars. Some go fast, some don't.
4. No one is holding a gun to your head re electric or hybrid cars. If they are, call 911 immediately...

I feel like some of y'all just like to be stressed out about absolutely nothing. Also, that Mach-E GT is going to run you off the road 9/10 times in the real world. Ford has not shown any signs of forgetting enthusiasts as shown by the 760HP GT500 that gets about 8 mpg even though the scary EPA says they don't like that.

This is all to say, chill out and calm down.

Mach E GT is quicker than the stock 18 up Mustang GT 0-60, not in the 1/4 mile. They are stop light queens, and slow down after a few seconds.

young at heart said:
I‘ve been wrong before and will be again, but I’d be shocked to see Ford continue to produce a standalone everyday Mustang GT V8 at the current level of performance for another 7-9 years. The greenies and the EPA just aren’t going to allow it. I’d wager that the vast majority of their powertrain resources is pointed directly at EVs and hybrids.

Buy what you want now and enjoy it.

It can easily happen. All the new EV's are what will raise corporate MPG (E) numbers and make it possible.

 

[gone_n_60]

For the Trans Am lovers, I still have 3 of them. A 76 455 car, 77 SE 400, and 01 ws6 6 spd.
The 77 has 29k original miles.

Oooohhhh I'm channeling Burt Reynolds now...

Sponsored