Hi-PO Stang
Well-Known Member
So, we are back to square 1. Car and Driver makes most sense.
Sponsored
That's where the Mustang's 3.5 would differ from the FGT. The GT uses an actual parallel twin turbo while the Mustangs could use a Powerstroke version of the Turbo set up for the Mustangs.That sounds a cool line-up. I thought the EB3.5 was too wide for the S550 engine bay though. I'd suspect the same would be try of the 7 litre?
So, I'd "settle" for:
GT500/KR EB 5.2
Mach 1 supercharged 5.0
Bullitt
:ford:
That is what I thought... but the "Powerstroke" Hot V Turbo design IS currently in production. No telling what kinda $ was saved.3.5 is twin turbo, one on each side of the V. Powerstroke is single sequential turbo (SST). Plus, it has reverse flow heads so the exhaust exits towards the center of the V.
I don't think it's realistic for them to totally redesign the engine and engine bay to accommodate reverse flow heads and center mount turbo.
You gotta remember the EBV6 like most V6 engines is a 60 degree angle and is very narrow. The valley is likely not as deep as a V8 also. This means there may not be enough physical room to get a decent exhaust manifold design and turbo in there. I'm sure it's possible but may not be optimal. The injectors are in there too I believe.That is what I thought... but the "Powerstroke" Hot V Turbo design IS currently in production. No telling what kinda $ was saved.
Except the entire layout of the intake/exhaust, which is a HUGE factory of turbo position.No part of powerstroke diesel engine could be used so it's irrelevant.
I think the Hot V configuration is limited to the DOHC V8.You gotta remember the EBV6 like most V6 engines is a 60 degree angle and is very narrow. The valley is likely not as deep as a V8 also. This means there may not be enough physical room to get a decent exhaust manifold design and turbo in there. I'm sure it's possible but may not be optimal. The injectors are in there too I believe.
I'm not sold on Ford using the TT3.5 in a Mustang JUST to embarrass the ZL1 dollar for dollar, HP for HP.You gotta remember the EBV6 like most V6 engines is a 60 degree angle and is very narrow. The valley is likely not as deep as a V8 also. This means there may not be enough physical room to get a decent exhaust manifold design and turbo in there. I'm sure it's possible but may not be optimal. The injectors are in there too I believe.
Layout design can be done on a napkin. Engineering parts for completely different diesel and gasoline engines exhaust and intake requirements is a different story. If they chose (i doubt it) to create a unique reverse flow cylinder head, intake & exhaust. Their decision was not based on the powerstroke giving a head start.Except the entire layout of the intake/exhaust, which is a HUGE factory of turbo position.
I understand the difference however, now that PDI is available (as reported), the entire system CAN mimic the Powerstrokes layout, specifically speaking, the reverse head placement and backwards exhaust.Layout design can be done on a napkin. Engineering parts for completely different diesel and gasoline engines exhaust and intake requirements is a different story. If they chose (i doubt it) to create a unique reverse flow cylinder head, intake & exhaust. Their decision was not based on the powerstroke giving a head start.
Twin turbo, twin scroll exhaust housing EFR 7064 or 7163 mounted on cast manifolds would allow most engineering money to be spent on cooling and testing. Standard off the shelf turbos (only require unique compact cast housings), conventional forged pistons & rods, production heads etc.. The only thing you need to change to existing layout is move the A/C lines that stick straight up our of the compressor. They kind of block the area where intake would run.
But hey who knows. maybe it'll have dual compound turbo supercharger. Single turbo creating 5 psi boost and supercharger bumping that up to 20 psi.