predator 5.2L vs aluminator 5.2L

[nastang87xx]

Sponsored

 

[Hack]

The more I think about it the more the Voodoo looks more like an engineering ego stroke and very little after that!

I personally am really glad Ford spent the money and engineering time to create the Voodoo. I wouldn't have minded a larger displacement version of the Coyote, but I was tired of my Mustang GT. And I tried to like the Camaros, but they weren't enough better/different/whatever to be worth the extra dough.

Ford sold a lot of GT350s. And the car was PCOTY. And lots of people even paid over sticker for GT350s. So if you want to ignore all those things about the car and say the Voodoo was worth very little, that's your prerogative. IMO you are demonstrably wrong.

 

[Darkane]

Chassis people..... The 6th gen Camaro Chassis is better and lighter.

Its not just all about HP and suspension.

If Ford can manage to stuff a DCT Transmission and Multimatic suspension under the GT500 Id consider that a decent start.

But again its going to need more than just more HP over the GT350 to beat the ZL1 1LE.

Agreed.

Do you have any proof at all that there's something better about the Camaro's chassis? I've never seen that. Just Camaro guys that come on here and say it.

Is the chassis X amount stiffer in some direction compared to the Mustang?

Do you think the slight weight difference between the cars is a big deal?

Also to note, the alpha chassis has a longer wheelbase. Length increases stability on a race track. Shorter is better for maneuverability. The S550 might be a better autocrosser, not circuit racer.

Also, the Camaro has lower overhangs which reduces the polar moment of inertia. It’s easier to maintain, gain, and keep in control = stability.

It has these over the mustang sadly. I love my GT350 and it’s huge booty however. It could lose some though lol.

 

[Notagain]

I personally am really glad Ford spent the money and engineering time to create the Voodoo. I wouldn't have minded a larger displacement version of the Coyote, but I was tired of my Mustang GT. And I tried to like the Camaros, but they weren't enough better/different/whatever to be worth the extra dough.

Ford sold a lot of GT350s. And the car was PCOTY. And lots of people even paid over sticker for GT350s. So if you want to ignore all those things about the car and say the Voodoo was worth very little, that's your prerogative. IMO you are demonstrably wrong.

Whoa Whoa slow down I just mean Ford nearly gave up the farm designing and developing it. I mean it simply cost ALOT.

Do I regret it? No. Do I think Ford is a bit crazy for doing it? Yes.

However I will admit the Voodoo engine alone is worth the price of admission for a GT350.

 

[Grimace427]

... and the FPC 5.2 Voodoo engine cost a fuck ton of money in development.

I mean it simply cost ALOT.

How much exactly? How much was the Coyote to develop?

 

[Darkane]

How much exactly? How much was the Coyote to develop?

I’m guessing, but the coyote would have been more only because it was a brand new engine.

The voodoo is based off the coyote. Also they knew the coyote cost was to be spread across the F150 lineup, so more ROI.

 

[Hack]

I’m guessing, but the coyote would have been more only because it was a brand new engine.

The voodoo is based off the coyote. Also they knew the coyote cost was to be spread across the F150 lineup, so more ROI.

I expect the Coyote was based off the 4.6. Yes, with numerous revisions, but still based off the 4.6.

 

[nastang87xx]

I expect the Coyote was based off the 4.6. Yes, with numerous revisions, but still based off the 4.6.

This is correct. In fact the first iteration was basically a bored out 4.6L Modular. Then they went from there. More valley structural support, revised mains, cooling jacket changes, etc etc as the program went on.

 

[nastang87xx]

I'm not surprised that 15% of the cost went to balancing and tuning of that sort. In fact I don't think that's all that unreasonable. It's easy to start milling and boring out blocks and all that. It's the tiny little things that bite you in the ass at the end that require a lot of attention. Structural integrity, harmonics, etc etc. What is kinda annoying though is that the dual mass flywheel was supposed to be a lightweight aluminum piece. That was probably an easy 10lbs minimum just right there that got jacked back onto the driveline.

 

[S550Boss]

And that is why i said before ,FORD PERFORMANCE needs a guy like JOHN running the show.Can you imagine where FORD would be today with him?The 13-14 GT500 would have had the best RODS with him.We probably would have had another lightning truck,4 door fatcat killer,and the MUSTANG would have already had 850hp.

Ford Performance does NOT need another Coletti running the show. During his time there were repeated and severe engineering, testing, and manufacturing issues with every single product (except the SVT Focus and Contour from Europe that he could not claim credit for - although he tried).
The first >>hundred Ford GTs, for example, all had to have an $18,000 dollar suspension replacement due to cracking control arms (yes, I saw and handled the kit at the dealer), and then had oil leakage requiring a retrofit of what is essentially a diaper - followed by overheating issues where the cars couldn't even spend a weekend at the track (SVTs own demonstrator GT failed repeatedly at events - I saw this in person over two years and had their chief engineer confirm to me - imagine having your own production demonstrator gark it's fluid in front of fans at track events). And then there is the "Terminator" - with an engine so poorly designed and tested that it had multiple issues. First the cylinder head casting issue, then an issue with cold warm up stalls, then cooling, and then even worse. My own engine failed due to casting sand in the block... to tell you how bad this is statistically, my own dealer had 3 Cobras the same color as mine all getting new engines. Looking at the earlier SVTs, the '99 Cobra had severe cooling issues and production issues that caused a power loss, both caused by lack of testing (engineering and then production verification), that another round of recalls was issued. And then there was the '96 cooling and transmission issues (another round of recalls for both, and many disappointing track weekends for many of us), and even the '94 had issues with the few pieces that were changed over the base GT (such as the magnesium seat brackets, causing a seat failure on mine at a track event).
And, yes, I experienced every single one of these issues over the years. So no more Coletti for me, and no more SVT either. The entire process was faulty, including how the delta changes to the base Mustangs were incorporated into the test program - or more often not. I confirmed all this from years of conversations with Ford and SVT engineers (both), even two with Coletti over the years. One well before the then-new '94 where I talked about side-to-side movement in the rear axle impacting the inner fenders and the need for a solution (which contributed to his widening the rear fenders allowing for more axle movement), another for my faulty '03 Cobra engine when confronted by a picture my dealer emailed to him of the sand in the block he changed his mind and approved a replacement (despite the local service zone rep denying it at first). The replacement '04 engine was built correctly and was tuned correctly (although the car still had poor cooling - the bane of all Mustangs unless these days you are smart enough to order the "track pack" - ridiculous that this is not standard).
Yes, sure, late production of each of these cars didn't suffer from the same issues... because of a constant battle to fix the issues and move production forward (and it was frequently stalled many months leaving us all waiting).
I do not have this last thing confirmed: I believe that all the warranty costs were a factor in Coletti's sudden departure. No company is going to put up with such high warranty costs. And I also believe that this was a factor in the cost cutting moves against the 2005+ Mustang, where the suspension was dumbed down, the real Cobra motor was cancelled (DOHC supercharged - all aluminum, although an aluminum BOSS 7 liter had been considered and dropped because there wasn't any truck program to pay for it - the truck program had funded the all basic Mustang V-8 engines for many years and still does) along with the completed and production-ready IRS, the 4.6 SOHC supercharged engine was cancelled (a cost-cut SVT Cobra motor, also dooming the Marauder which was to share it), and more. Then SVT itself was killed, which meant that all the processes for engineering, testing and production performance vehicles were brought back to the core team instead of outliers. Finally.
Do we need more bad and rushed engineering and an artiste in charge? No.
So, yes, I have a lot of simmering resentment again about that organization and him due to all the issues that I went thru back then, along with so many others. Many people were lost to other brands, some stayed and stuck it out because there wasn't an alternative in the market. And I think "his" book is marketing propaganda. I salute his enthusiasm, but he and his organization couldn't deliver despite having a number of heroes who did so well in later years when the processes matured and the right management was brought in.
Where are we today? Ford Performance is a FAR better and more effective organization, and while there are issues they are tiny compared to what they used to be. Creativity is getting thru the system now - and quality is far better. Not perfect, there are still issues (the GT350 oil cooler comes to mind, as does it's oil thirst), but there are also major wins (the existence of the GT350 dedicated engine, the Ford GT, the Focus RS differential, and all the features on the GT500 we'll be hearing about in detail in a few weeks - although that program had a lot of issues and was delayed for years). And they can't do anything for a Focus or Fiesta ST/RS in North American unless a framework exists with the base cars being sold here. Thanks to the elimination of SVT and the creation of the new processes used to bring the performance products into production, we Ford enthusiasts are in far better shape now than we have been in years. The ability to sell the Mustang in multiple countries is one result, and the resulting successes have contributed to the 2022 Mustang moving over to CD6 - our first all-new platform since the 1979 FOX platform (shared with several products for many years). And CD6 is a shared platform too, where engineering - and testing - are shared across multiple programs and budgets (it did wonders for the Camaro on Alpha where the basic bones of the platform are world-class). Quality is going to soar, as is the budget available to do the kinds of things we want here, because we finally get a world-class platform instead of two generations of hand-me-downs.

 

[S550Boss]

4 door fatcat killer

As for a "fatcat killer", the question is "justified how" and "built on what platform".

Justification - 4-door sedans aren't selling, the market is changing, and Ford's strategies are rapidly changing. Yes, maybe a halo performance 4-door would help such a product sell (it has kept Dodge's old Charger selling a few more years, which is only still in production because it is based on an ancient Mercedes hand-me-down platform that was paid off many many years ago).

Platform - Ford hasn't had a platform to use. We saw the planned MN-12 4-door platform killed, intended to be replaced by the near-perfect DEW-98 (LS, T-Bird, S-Type) which was then itself killed in the product-killing frenzy to kill all things "Jacques", including the terrific LS, a planned smaller LS, the "real" Continental, a new Mark, a concept car for Ford that was shown (showing of it's DEW rear suspension!), and the planned DEW-98 based Mustang. Fortunately Ford is trying again with the CD6, and thanks to the Aviator and Explorer paying the big bills we will have a Mustang that has a world-class platform and engineering (but I will wait until late 2021 to confirm that because it can still be dumbed down before production - it's happened too many times before, we could for example end up with ye olde strut up front due to costs). But will there be a 4-door variant possible given the new platform? Maybe the 4-door Mustang that has been rumored? We don't even know what that is, if anything (at this early point, it can't even be claimed to be a Mustang - maybe it's just "Mustang-like-attributes" as in E-Mach). It might be all-electric, since rumor has it that there is a 4-door SUV (the short video of the "Mustang/Explorer cross"... which could be anything at this early point, even just a sportier body like the China-only market CX-7 is to the CX-5). Or it might be on CD6 as a hybrid (using the new 3 liter twin-turbo hybrid: 400 HP and 600 torque!), it might use the hybrid Mustang engine (whatever that is, we don't know at this point, it could be just a 2.3 4 using the same hybrid electrics as the 3 liter), or it might be naturally aspired. The new CD6 platform enables the hybrid or naturally aspirated options, and spreads the costs to the Aviator and Police Explorer (supposedly a Continental on CD6 has been killed).

As to the fatcat, remember that it's not the HP number that counts, it's how much weight it has to pull around. The Challenger and the fatcat are both morbidly obese so the HP number isn't as good as it seems. They, and the SRTs, exist solely to bring some element of halo to the rest of the line in an effort to keep some degree of sales (the pedestrian versions being heavily discounted because they are alone in the market, and because they were for a long time all that Dodge had to sell - not to mention the Chrysler version and is one of only 2 remaining Chryslers - how long can that last??). Yes, it is working to a degree, but the numbers of the Halo cars are very small. And the SRTs are really lousy products... last year we put several hundred miles on a rental SRT Charger and were surprised by just how bad the car really was. Like a 15 year old design (which his is), awful ergonomics and seating, handling like a plow, cheap shocks that crashed over everything, and the engine had the worst "farting" on deceleration that I've ever heard. I have video of that and it's hilarious... until you realize what poor engineering that represents and what kind of person that would appeal to. It's future? Not much... and as was announced the switch to the excellent and world-class Alfa Gulia platform has been cancelled because FCA can't afford it. Maybe they can bandaid the old Mercedes platform and take a few pounds out of it.... but as we've seen with S550, a band-aid can only go so far to take weight out.​

 

[SVTSNAKE355]

Ford Performance does NOT need another Coletti running the show. During his time there were repeated and severe engineering, testing, and manufacturing issues with every single product (except the SVT Focus and Contour from Europe that he could not claim credit for - although he tried).
The first >>hundred Ford GTs, for example, all had to have an $18,000 dollar suspension replacement due to cracking control arms (yes, I saw and handled the kit at the dealer), and then had oil leakage requiring a retrofit of what is essentially a diaper - followed by overheating issues where the cars couldn't even spend a weekend at the track (SVTs own demonstrator GT failed repeatedly at events - I saw this in person over two years and had their chief engineer confirm to me - imagine having your own production demonstrator gark it's fluid in front of fans at track events). And then there is the "Terminator" - with an engine so poorly designed and tested that it had multiple issues. First the cylinder head casting issue, then an issue with cold warm up stalls, then cooling, and then even worse. My own engine failed due to casting sand in the block... to tell you how bad this is statistically, my own dealer had 3 Cobras the same color as mine all getting new engines. Looking at the earlier SVTs, the '99 Cobra had severe cooling issues and production issues that caused a power loss, both caused by lack of testing (engineering and then production verification), that another round of recalls was issued. And then there was the '96 cooling and transmission issues (another round of recalls for both, and many disappointing track weekends for many of us), and even the '94 had issues with the few pieces that were changed over the base GT (such as the magnesium seat brackets, causing a seat failure on mine at a track event).
And, yes, I experienced every single one of these issues over the years. So no more Coletti for me, and no more SVT either. The entire process was faulty, including how the delta changes to the base Mustangs were incorporated into the test program - or more often not. I confirmed all this from years of conversations with Ford and SVT engineers (both), even two with Coletti over the years. One well before the then-new '94 where I talked about side-to-side movement in the rear axle impacting the inner fenders and the need for a solution (which contributed to his widening the rear fenders allowing for more axle movement), another for my faulty '03 Cobra engine when confronted by a picture my dealer emailed to him of the sand in the block he changed his mind and approved a replacement (despite the local service zone rep denying it at first). The replacement '04 engine was built correctly and was tuned correctly (although the car still had poor cooling - the bane of all Mustangs unless these days you are smart enough to order the "track pack" - ridiculous that this is not standard).
Yes, sure, late production of each of these cars didn't suffer from the same issues... because of a constant battle to fix the issues and move production forward (and it was frequently stalled many months leaving us all waiting).
I do not have this last thing confirmed: I believe that all the warranty costs were a factor in Coletti's sudden departure. No company is going to put up with such high warranty costs. And I also believe that this was a factor in the cost cutting moves against the 2005+ Mustang, where the suspension was dumbed down, the real Cobra motor was cancelled (DOHC supercharged - all aluminum, although an aluminum BOSS 7 liter had been considered and dropped because there wasn't any truck program to pay for it - the truck program had funded the all basic Mustang V-8 engines for many years and still does) along with the completed and production-ready IRS, the 4.6 SOHC supercharged engine was cancelled (a cost-cut SVT Cobra motor, also dooming the Marauder which was to share it), and more. Then SVT itself was killed, which meant that all the processes for engineering, testing and production performance vehicles were brought back to the core team instead of outliers. Finally.
Do we need more bad and rushed engineering and an artiste in charge? No.
So, yes, I have a lot of simmering resentment again about that organization and him due to all the issues that I went thru back then, along with so many others. Many people were lost to other brands, some stayed and stuck it out because there wasn't an alternative in the market. And I think "his" book is marketing propaganda. I salute his enthusiasm, but he and his organization couldn't deliver despite having a number of heroes who did so well in later years when the processes matured and the right management was brought in.
Where are we today? Ford Performance is a FAR better and more effective organization, and while there are issues they are tiny compared to what they used to be. Creativity is getting thru the system now - and quality is far better. Not perfect, there are still issues (the GT350 oil cooler comes to mind, as does it's oil thirst), but there are also major wins (the existence of the GT350 dedicated engine, the Ford GT, the Focus RS differential, and all the features on the GT500 we'll be hearing about in detail in a few weeks - although that program had a lot of issues and was delayed for years). And they can't do anything for a Focus or Fiesta ST/RS in North American unless a framework exists with the base cars being sold here. Thanks to the elimination of SVT and the creation of the new processes used to bring the performance products into production, we Ford enthusiasts are in far better shape now than we have been in years. The ability to sell the Mustang in multiple countries is one result, and the resulting successes have contributed to the 2022 Mustang moving over to CD6 - our first all-new platform since the 1979 FOX platform (shared with several products for many years). And CD6 is a shared platform too, where engineering - and testing - are shared across multiple programs and budgets (it did wonders for the Camaro on Alpha where the basic bones of the platform are world-class). Quality is going to soar, as is the budget available to do the kinds of things we want here, because we finally get a world-class platform instead of two generations of hand-me-downs.

If that is the case so be it. I know their are multiple 350 engine problems, and some people are on their 3rd motor. The 2018 motor tick,is outrageously ridiculous. Then FORD is out of control with this turbo v6 in dam near everything.

 

[S550Boss]

If Ford wants to catch a ZL1 1LE on a road course it better pull out every trick in the book and stuff some GT supercar suspension under the GT500. Magride, Carbon wheels, and more HP wont get it done.

It's a Camaro ZL1 1LE competitor and that's the sole competition in cars that turn. I hope they don't think of focusing on any kind of drag mode to compete with the Challenger Hellcat mojo. And of course it can't compete with a Corvette ZL1 due to the simple laws of physics.

The GT500 is coming at the end of the S550 run to help keep market momentum (and the GT500 program clearly had issues - it's years and years overdue). Hoping for the ultimate model in the 2nd year of a new generation is apparently too much to hope for.

Don't even think about pricing. The GT350 already competes with the Camaro ZL1 on pricing... they are a mis-match. The GT500 will certainly have to be priced far higher, leaving it alone in the market. It's a shame it ended up like this. Of course you could go with a Camaro, a car that you will find you can't live with on a daily use basis, and with special models like the banana-colored Bumblebee. Yikes.

But the Camaro has a far better chassis, including engine location, and is inherently lighter (of course it also has kid stuff styling that makes it an ergonomic nightmare... especially in track events where you can't even see out of it... I know, I've been there with students, and I hate it when I get stuck with a student with one of those because they don't know what is going on around them and can't see out of it anyway). It's weight and dynamics superiority is thanks to the shared world-class Alpha platform, and the sharing of the big engineering bills with the Cadillac ATS and CTS.

The bigger statement will be when the S660 shows up, making the S550 obsolete just as the S550 did so effectively to the prior generation when a properly optioned GT could out-do the allegedly mightily Boss 302 - which I had one of, it's suspension was POS, I remember a conversation I had at the S550 press reveal with Joe Hinrichs when I said thanks a lot for making my Boss so awfully obsolete and he laughed good naturedly. Parking my former boss next to an S660 pointed out how obsolete it truly was... putting them both on a lift and looking underneath revealed yet again that the S550 is just a S-197 re-CAD'ed with some good money spent on the suspension. Hinrichs didn't appreciate that observation. .

 

[SVTSNAKE355]

As for a "fatcat killer", the question is "justified how" and "built on what platform".

Justification - 4-door sedans aren't selling, the market is changing, and Ford's strategies are rapidly changing. Yes, maybe a halo performance 4-door would help such a product sell (it has kept Dodge's old Charger selling a few more years, which is only still in production because it is based on an ancient Mercedes hand-me-down platform that was paid off many many years ago).

Platform - Ford hasn't had a platform to use. We saw the planned MN-12 4-door platform killed, intended to be replaced by the near-perfect DEW-98 (LS, T-Bird, S-Type) which was then itself killed in the product-killing frenzy to kill all things "Jacques", including the terrific LS, a planned smaller LS, the "real" Continental, a new Mark, a concept car for Ford that was shown (showing of it's DEW rear suspension!), and the planned DEW-98 based Mustang. Fortunately Ford is trying again with the CD6, and thanks to the Aviator and Explorer paying the big bills we will have a Mustang that has a world-class platform and engineering (but I will wait until late 2021 to confirm that because it can still be dumbed down before production - it's happened too many times before, we could for example end up with ye olde strut up front due to costs). But will there be a 4-door variant possible given the new platform? Maybe the 4-door Mustang that has been rumored? We don't even know what that is, if anything (at this early point, it can't even be claimed to be a Mustang - maybe it's just "Mustang-like-attributes" as in E-Mach). It might be all-electric, since rumor has it that there is a 4-door SUV (the short video of the "Mustang/Explorer cross"... which could be anything at this early point, even just a sportier body like the China-only market CX-7 is to the CX-5). Or it might be on CD6 as a hybrid (using the new 3 liter twin-turbo hybrid: 400 HP and 600 torque!), it might use the hybrid Mustang engine (whatever that is, we don't know at this point, it could be just a 2.3 4 using the same hybrid electrics as the 3 liter), or it might be naturally aspired. The new CD6 platform enables the hybrid or naturally aspirated options, and spreads the costs to the Aviator and Police Explorer (supposedly a Continental on CD6 has been killed).

As to the fatcat, remember that it's not the HP number that counts, it's how much weight it has to pull around. The Challenger and the fatcat are both morbidly obese so the HP number isn't as good as it seems. They, and the SRTs, exist solely to bring some element of halo to the rest of the line in an effort to keep some degree of sales (the pedestrian versions being heavily discounted because they are alone in the market, and because they were for a long time all that Dodge had to sell - not to mention the Chrysler version and is one of only 2 remaining Chryslers - how long can that last??). Yes, it is working to a degree, but the numbers of the Halo cars are very small. And the SRTs are really lousy products... last year we put several hundred miles on a rental SRT Charger and were surprised by just how bad the car really was. Like a 15 year old design (which his is), awful ergonomics and seating, handling like a plow, cheap shocks that crashed over everything, and the engine had the worst "farting" on deceleration that I've ever heard. I have video of that and it's hilarious... until you realize what poor engineering that represents and what kind of person that would appeal to. It's future? Not much... and as was announced the switch to the excellent and world-class Alfa Gulia platform has been cancelled because FCA can't afford it. Maybe they can bandaid the old Mercedes platform and take a few pounds out of it.... but as we've seen with S550, a band-aid can only go so far to take weight out.​

I hear you on fca. My uncle worked at a dodge factory before and he said when they were putting Motors together they were junk. I just want Ford to be competitive and win.

 

[S550Boss]

And to clarify, the S550 was NEVER meant to go to all aluminum body shell. There was never any kind of discussion on that, and the costs would have been far far far outside of the Mustang budget. Keep that in mind when you hear F-150 enthusiasts talk about how "now" the entire line or Ford products can "go aluminum", they are doing a lot more than stretching. It's far more involved with that. And Ford has been studying this for years... the aluminum Sables with partner Alcoa, for example, were an early public peak at this thinking. But even that was impossible financially... and from an architecture standpoint that project made it clear that more is required structurally than simply switching materials, and the new materials also enable new capabilities.

The S550 is nothing more than a slightly evolved S197, with some money spent on the suspension. Rear suspension first, then as was reported they understood the front needed better geometry and additional money was budgeted on that for a relatively simple update. Designers opened their CAD and went thru the basic body. Even the early S550 design drawings has the same rear side windows, and today there is still the huge same structure beneath it as it had before. Look underneath and you'll find freshening like an "X" versus "+" in a strengthening element in the stamping. And if you looked closely at the S197 mules with the S550 new suspension... you can start thinking about how easy it would be to update your S197. I am surprised that nobody has done it yet. Don't get me wrong with what I'm saying, Ford did heroic work here and the product was a huge step up, but it is what it is.

This argument has been had before when some people claimed that the S550 engine compartment was different from the S197 - where the former GT500 motor allegedly "wouldn't physically fit". Not true, make some measurements and you'll see how little was changed. The old GT500 motor is too tall, but then it was too tall for the S197 and that was addressed. The sole problem is the electronics location and much smaller room for the airbox.

Lastly, the Alpha is designed for different lengths and widths... hence the differences between Camaro, ATS, and CTS (there is an evolution to the Alpha platform coming soon in the CTS replacement). Modern chassis are designed like that, which is why the new Focus chassis will be used across such a broad range of products and why the 2022 Mustang can be built on a platform shared with the Explorer (and I think that makes it obvious that the 2022 Mustang will be leaving Flat Rock, although we haven't seen that yet of course).

It's speculation on just what is going on underneath the CD6... we already know that the rear suspension is very much like the Mustangs, same general design (also used in the Fusion, Edge, Continental, MKZ, Nautilus, and the Chinese Taurus - all in re-scaled from), and we know from the Aviator launch (look at the transparent image) that a short/long arm front suspension is used (like Nissan/Infiniti FM platform - another shared platform that enabled multiple products). Certainly all the suspension bits and crossmembers are aluminum. But how much aluminum is used in the body - it is too early to tell from public information. We might be surprised and find an aluminum body shell (somebody needs to go after the Aviator show car with a magnet!). More likely we will just find some aluminum infrastructure up front in the firewall, shock mounts and inner apron and structure. Even that raises the cost considerably and remember that the base model Mustang and Explorers have to drive the ultimate choices (there is, unfortunately for most, no low end Aviator!). The base Mustang is $26,120 now, and the base Explorer at 32,365. Remember that the sheer volume of the F-150 can support a 28,155 price, volume that the Mustang/Explorer/Interceptor/Aviator won't have, despite high Aviator margins. So I can't see an all "Aluminum Mustang" as a possibility.

Sponsored