2018 Mustang refresh?

[Spartan]

$2500 worth for who? The brakes on the SS don't stop any quicker than the GT. The cooling on the GT is perfectly adequate. Rims/tires may be marginally better (for the track). The suspension is what it is though. The SS is obviously far more capable stock for stock, but I'd venture to say most of these components with the exception of the wheels/tires cost about the same on either vehicle.

With that said, I think most would be fine paying a small extra premium for the 10 speed over what the current 6 is, at least those looking at the V8 option. Direct injection is going to cost you though, which is where a majority of a horsepower bump would likely come from. That is of course, unless they decide to slap the power pack 3 on stock for a few extra $$$.

Right but what I'm saying is if someone on the GT takes the PP that adds about $2500 to the price. A lot of whats in the GTPP is standard on the SS. Lots of threads about this when their specs came out and most agreed that the SS is more similar to a GTPP for price comparisons, not a GT.

I really don't care about the power bump but great for those that want it...but I think you won't see DI till another year and if they do anything here it's just a tune to get a few more HP out of it.

Sponsored

 

[15wile]

Right but what I'm saying is if someone on the GT takes the PP that adds about $2500 to the price. A lot of whats in the GTPP is standard on the SS. Lots of threads about this when their specs came out and most agreed that the SS is more similar to a GTPP for price comparisons, not a GT.

Even if true, I can buy a GTPP for $29k, right now, down the street at Brandon Ford. Cheap, cheap! But GM should have optioned that stuff anyway. Ford can get even cheaper with a stripper V8. There's a market for that (me!) -- and Ford catered to more market segments with the Mustang than GM did with the Camaro.

 

[Spartan]

Right but what I'm saying is if someone on the GT takes the PP that adds about $2500 to the price. A lot of whats in the GTPP is standard on the SS. Lots of threads about this when their specs came out and most agreed that the SS is more similar to a GTPP for price comparisons, not a GT./QUOTE]

Even if true, I can buy a GTPP for $29k, right now, down the street at Brandon Ford. Cheap, cheap! But GM should have optioned that stuff anyway. Ford can get even cheaper with a stripper V8. There's a market for that (me!) -- and Ford catered to more market segments with the Mustang than GM did with the Camaro.

Totally. What GM did was stupid. In fact they should have offered the RS with a V8. Many people don't need/want what's on the SS but would take the set up of the RS but want a V8.

 

[millhouse]

Right but what I'm saying is if someone on the GT takes the PP that adds about $2500 to the price. A lot of whats in the GTPP is standard on the SS. Lots of threads about this when their specs came out and most agreed that the SS is more similar to a GTPP for price comparisons, not a GT.

I really don't care about the power bump but great for those that want it...but I think you won't see DI till another year and if they do anything here it's just a tune to get a few more HP out of it.

Gotcha.

 

[Petroleum Jesus]

Ya. What he said. I was in the process of typing the same thing but he beat me to it so i deleted it.

I sense an heir of sarcasm in your response :headbonk:

...and just for reference, here is a dyno comparison of stock LT1 vs LS3 vs LS7 torque curves. A 56lbft increase over a base of 360lbft is an increase just short of 16%, and a majority of that is available at 3kRPM. Granted, a bit of that potential comes from the application of variable valve timing, but not that much, as it's neutered by it's single cam design. Duration, overlap, and lift are static.

 

[Darkane]

My figures are derivative of LT1 torque curves over LS3 as a baseline with VVT locked out. I modeled the combustion cycle myself using my own proprietary algorithms in Engineering Management Studio, which is what I use to design chemical processing plants. Granted, it has occured to me that I need to adjust my valve-geometry to account for the DI nozzles, so my figures may be a bit generous on flow rates (assuming valves would need to be downsized). I'm assuming a .5 CR bump as a result of cooler piston temp allowance and otherwise using the current volumetric model.

That said, the 458 engine actually has much more torque potential, but is biased towards top end power as a result of it's firing order/ exhaust-merge configuration. It could likely produce 100lbft/Liter if it used a configuration similar to the coyote, with runner and collector offsets adjusted of course.

My methods may not be perfect, but they do have a first principle basis. Just FYI, I modeled the voodoo back in 2011 at 5.3L at an output of 550hp/405lbft. Not perfect, but pretty close. If I would have had the firing order correct, it would have been within +/-2% of the outcome.

Interesting. I couldn't do what you've done, not by a long shot. Mind you my experience is with Aspentech's HYSIS for static simulations and Simsci DYNSIM for the dynamic simulations. Those are more industry standards for process, oil and gas etc. We're using it currently, and like I said way over my head for trying to simulate IC dynamics on.

In a vacuum, the engines may be able to make that kind of power, but not with emissions and mpg targets.

Cool stuff, but my money is on a 5-7% increase in torque if that. Will be exciting to see.

 

[Petroleum Jesus]

Interesting. I couldn't do what you've done, not by a long shot. Mind you my experience is with Aspentech's HYSIS for static simulations and Simsci DYNSIM for the dynamic simulations. Those are more industry standards for process, oil and gas etc. We're using it currently, and like I said way over my head for trying to simulate IC dynamics on.

In a vacuum, the engines may be able to make that kind of power, but not with emissions and mpg targets.

Cool stuff, but my money is on a 5-7% increase in torque if that. Will be exciting to see.

We have HYSIS, Aspen + and ICARUS (ACCE), but we rarely use any of them. We just keep them licensed because a lot of their models were used as benchmarks for our first models. Though most of the derivatives have been superceded by superior proprietary engines, a lot of artifact code is still lying around in config files and we would rather pay $40k a year for authorised use than run the risk of infringing on Aspen's intellectual property. ExxonMobil tried to do something similar a couple of years back, but they blew their budget before they could finish their API and the bean counters axed the project :headbonk:

You bring up an excellent point concerning emissions and fuel economy. My estimates could very well be a pipe dream for this reason alone. Then again, one could hope that cylinder deactivation could solve that issue, though I seriously doubt we could see that tech implemented before S650, if at all.

 

[thet33]

Now I see why I don't get paid the big bucks

 

[BluByeU]

Guys can we get back to the '18 model refresh?! jeez my head is spinning from all of the HYSIS, ICARUS, jibber-jabber .
very informative just don't know what the hell you are talking about :lol:

 

[Petroleum Jesus]

Now I see why I don't get paid the big bucks

:lol:My better half gets paid 3x as much as me working for a company that assesses petroleum and natural gas storage levels. She probably works an average of 30hrs a week from home and pops into the office like once every two weeks.

Trust me, if it was only about what you know, I would have a GT350 :headbonk:

 

[Petroleum Jesus]

Guys can we get back to the '18 model refresh?! jeez my head is spinning from all of the HYSIS, ICARUS, jibber-jabber .
very informative just don't know what the hell you are talking about :lol:

My apologies.

 

[BluByeU]

My apologies.

J/k man...

 

[Darkane]

Guys can we get back to the '18 model refresh?! jeez my head is spinning from all of the HYSIS, ICARUS, jibber-jabber .
very informative just don't know what the hell you are talking about :lol:

Yeah you bet.

I'm just looking forward to the engine changes as it could potentially foreshadow the next voodoo power plant.

 

[Bob99b5]

I remember some guy saying that he was trading in his Mustang because his wife was pregnant. I'm like why? My son fits fine in the back, and the whole family fits in a pinch.

We traded in my wife's 2 seat Mazda RX-7 the day before our first son was born, but we kept my GT. That car and the next 3 Mustang GTs after it held our entire family of 4. Of course we needed a bigger car for road trips, but the car's size has always worked, at least while the kids were younger.

After the RX-7, my wife had a 626 V-6 5 speed, a Passat turbo 5 speed, Lexus RX350, and her current ride an Infiniti FX-35. She loves that car but I think the thing rides like rock - much harder than any Mustang I've ever owned. I do wish now that we'd kept the RX-7 too - it was the last year of the original body - '85 RX-7 GSL with manual steering and a buzzer at the redline that sounded like an old school bell. Really fun car.

 

[c-rizzle]

Right but what I'm saying is if someone on the GT takes the PP that adds about $2500 to the price. A lot of whats in the GTPP is standard on the SS. Lots of threads about this when their specs came out and most agreed that the SS is more similar to a GTPP for price comparisons, not a GT.

I really don't care about the power bump but great for those that want it...but I think you won't see DI till another year and if they do anything here it's just a tune to get a few more HP out of it.

FYI, GT Performance Pack is now $2,995!! The first month or so of 2016 production was still made at $2,495, but the price kicked in sometime around July.

Trust me I know, I looked all over the place for a 2016 with the options that I wanted. But it worked out that I had to order a 2017 which costs $500 more, plus the PP costs $500 more... So my MSRP was $1,000 more than if I could have found a 2016 with the same options.

Sponsored