Sponsored

6.8 liter in 2022/3 mustang?

Scoobs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2016
Threads
4
Messages
407
Reaction score
355
Location
Ontario
Vehicle(s)
2017 MG GT350 sold, 2019 MG GT350R KR569
Anticipated production volumes for that engine, and what vehicles that production was planned for, would have been discussed during the Ford/Unifor negotiations. Doesn't mean its carved in stone but it would have been discussed.
Sponsored

 

CORNYOTE

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2019
Threads
13
Messages
526
Reaction score
877
Location
Oklahoma
First Name
Alex
Vehicle(s)
2019 GT
Anticipated production volumes for that engine, and what vehicles that production was planned for, would have been discussed during the Ford/Unifor negotiations. Doesn't mean its carved in stone but it would have been discussed.
“In a recent deal with Unifor, Ford's Windsor engine plants will be producing a new 6.8-liter V8 for the F-150 and Mustang. This is a component of Ford's recent $2 billion investment in its Canadian operations. Ford's Oakville plant, the same plant for producing all-star hits like the Ford Flex and Lincoln MKT, will be getting retooled to produce EVs, the Windsor plant will be producing some of the largest displacement engines in Ford's history. Talk about a Jekyll and Hyde situation.”
 

Scoobs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2016
Threads
4
Messages
407
Reaction score
355
Location
Ontario
Vehicle(s)
2017 MG GT350 sold, 2019 MG GT350R KR569
“In a recent deal with Unifor, Ford's Windsor engine plants will be producing a new 6.8-liter V8 for the F-150 and Mustang. This is a component of Ford's recent $2 billion investment in its Canadian operations. Ford's Oakville plant, the same plant for producing all-star hits like the Ford Flex and Lincoln MKT, will be getting retooled to produce EVs, the Windsor plant will be producing some of the largest displacement engines in Ford's history. Talk about a Jekyll and Hyde situation.”
Not sure why you posted this? The 6.8 is happening, that's a given. My comment was in reply to those who are questioning whether or not it will be going in the Mustang. My point was that the vehicles the 6.8 will be going into would have been discussed during negotiations, so if the union says its going in the Mustang they are saying that because it was discussed in negotiations. However, what is discussed and agreed to during negotiations can change after the fact as often happens in the car industry.
 

CORNYOTE

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2019
Threads
13
Messages
526
Reaction score
877
Location
Oklahoma
First Name
Alex
Vehicle(s)
2019 GT
Not sure why you posted this? The 6.8 is happening, that's a given. My comment was in reply to those who are questioning whether or not it will be going in the Mustang. My point was that the vehicles the 6.8 will be going into would have been discussed during negotiations, so if the union says its going in the Mustang they are saying that because it was discussed in negotiations. However, what is discussed and agreed to during negotiations can change after the fact as often happens in the car industry.
To support your comment.
 

Sponsored

Jonyxz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2017
Threads
4
Messages
354
Reaction score
269
Location
San Juan, PR
Vehicle(s)
2019 5.0 401A 10R80
A 6.8 would look great in the Bronco...and probably also in the Mustang SUV
 

Epiphany

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Threads
69
Messages
7,460
Reaction score
11,657
Location
Global
Vehicle(s)
I like to disassemble things.
...what is discussed and agreed to during negotiations can change after the fact as often happens in the car industry.
If Cornpop gets in I think you'll be hearing soon that it will be a short-lived, medium/heavy duty truck engine only. Cross your fingers.
 

Hack

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2014
Threads
83
Messages
12,283
Reaction score
7,444
Location
Minneapolis
Vehicle(s)
Mustang, Camaro
It just does not make sense to me but what do I know? Completely different direction than what they have been headed in. Turbos, electric, etc. Maybe Ford somehow figured out a way to make it very fuel efficient or like Tom just said, a specialty performance nitch???? Get it in F series trucks all day long and special order performance Mustangs?
It depends on what the public wants and what we all vote for. Gas could go away, and your opportunity to eat red meat, etc. Or we could move back to a more sensible time.

The Mach 1 is already looking at a guzzler tax. Maybe they are hedging to see if some of the standards are relaxed.

Maybe they will offset the gas guzzler cost with the parts savings? Is the consensus it will be a pushrod engine? Don’t know if the car is wide enough for Dohc or Sohc.
Taxes can be repealed. And I would pay a tax to get the right engine.

Who would want this heavy ass engine in the front of an already porky, traction limited, Mustang? I get some of you guys are slobbering over a big engine, but no.

The Mustang needs a diet, seriously. If the 1/4 mile times of the GT500 aren't a good enough lesson for weight reduction, I don't know what is.
I agree the Mustang needs a diet. But it also needs a bigger engine.

I can't see a large displacement engine ever going back into the Mustang again. It was never about displacement for the stang and with the world leaning more towards smaller displacement + boost it's not likely. That and the current success of the coyote.
Smaller displacement + boost is played out. It's time to go big displacement + boost.
 

Rinzler

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 23, 2014
Threads
16
Messages
361
Reaction score
582
Location
Houston
First Name
Andrew
Vehicle(s)
2018 Mustang GT Premium
Vehicle Showcase
2
We don’t know the weight yet. It may end up lighter than the coyote. From what I’ve read it will get an aluminum block vs the iron block of the 7.3 which makes sense. With all that less valvetrain it should be lighter.
Well now this is making less sense. Why would Ford create a bespoke engine using different compo
So you want a rear engine Mustang then. Gotcha

why on earth are you comparing a “muscle car” to a Porsche 911? They’re not even remotely in the same class
I'm using the Porsche as a case study in how power to weight can make a car punch WELL above the horsepower on paper. No one asked for a rear engine Mustang. The problem here is the Mustang is already EXTREMELY traction limited. Look at the GT500. That car should be much faster out of a dig on paper than it actually is. It's too heavy.
 

Sponsored

Rinzler

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 23, 2014
Threads
16
Messages
361
Reaction score
582
Location
Houston
First Name
Andrew
Vehicle(s)
2018 Mustang GT Premium
Vehicle Showcase
2
I think you are a few hundred pounds over in your estimation, lol.... but you have a point. Weight, its distribution, and ratio to power is everything.
 

CORNYOTE

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2019
Threads
13
Messages
526
Reaction score
877
Location
Oklahoma
First Name
Alex
Vehicle(s)
2019 GT
Well now this is making less sense. Why would Ford create a bespoke engine using different compo
They needed a low rpm heavy duty gas engine for the Superduty and fleet vehicles. So they established new tooling for that engine. It's cost efficient to offer different engines based on the same tooling. An F150 or Mustang engine would suffer from the weight of an iron block, but in fleet vehicles that would see 300-500K miles it definitely makes sense. Just as it makes sense to change materials and use the same tooling to make a lightweight alloy engine similar to the LS to put in the F150 and Mustang which have a much lower GVWR. Ford is looking for ways to reduce manufacturing costs and streamline production and that's a fantastic way to do it.

In regard to the 911, when has any Mustang had a fantastic weight bias? Never. Why would you change everything about it so that a handful of enthusiast can take it to a track and compare it to a 911? Mustangs are currently DOMINATING the drag strips across the country, even with an IRS and they do fairly well on open road courses as well despite their weight issues. If you want a better bias, remove all the luxuries that a new car comes with and shift weight to the trunk like battery, etc like the drag guys do. Now, that being said, an aluminum pushrod engine should weigh a bit less than a dohc coyote. And, without the massive cylinder heads, you could probably move the engine to the rear 2-3 inches, vastly improving the weight bias of the S650 platform. This is all speculation at this point, but it would be feasible.

Ford is killing the market share with Mustangs and F150's but the Coyote platform is reaching it's limitations. Currently modular engine tooling can only support 100mm bore space, so they're very limited in increasing any current engine sizes without a re-tool and that would be tremendously expensive. Moving to a pushrod motor in their V8's will reduce manufacturing costs by an immense amount. When I last talked to a Ford engineer they stated that the 7.3 originally was going to be a sohc motor, but that exceeded the manufacturing budget constraints Ford established for the program, so mid development they switched to a pushrod design and ended up significantly under budget and the Ford headshed took notice.

Despite Ford doing better than expected, they still expect an EBIT loss for 2020. They need to reduce costs to survive.

https://media.ford.com/content/dam/fordmedia/North%20America/US/2020/07/30/2q-fin-ford.pdf
 
Last edited:

newmoon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Threads
20
Messages
513
Reaction score
438
Location
NC
Vehicle(s)
04 Cobra, 10 SS, 12 392, 12 5.0
Bigger engines are not the answer! The Mustang needs to go on a diet! Drop 200 lbs off the GT, and 300 lbs off of the 500 and see what happens in overall performance.
 

CORNYOTE

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2019
Threads
13
Messages
526
Reaction score
877
Location
Oklahoma
First Name
Alex
Vehicle(s)
2019 GT
Bigger engines are not the answer! The Mustang needs to go on a diet! Drop 200 lbs off the GT, and 300 lbs off of the 500 and see what happens in overall performance.
that bigger engine would theoretically weight LESS than the current engine due to being a pushrod variant vice a DOHC.

And get rid of all the luxuries and you can easily lose 300+lbs. No one needs heated seats or navigation do they? LOL
 
Last edited:

Rinzler

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 23, 2014
Threads
16
Messages
361
Reaction score
582
Location
Houston
First Name
Andrew
Vehicle(s)
2018 Mustang GT Premium
Vehicle Showcase
2
They needed a low rpm heavy duty gas engine for the Superduty and fleet vehicles. So they established new tooling for that engine. It's cost efficient to offer different engines based on the same tooling. An F150 or Mustang engine would suffer from the weight of an iron block, but in fleet vehicles that would see 300-500K miles it definitely makes sense. Just as it makes sense to change materials and use the same tooling to make a lightweight alloy engine similar to the LS to put in the F150 and Mustang which have a much lower GVWR. Ford is looking for ways to reduce manufacturing costs and streamline production and that's a fantastic way to do it.

In regard to the 911, when has any Mustang had a fantastic weight bias? Never. Why would you change everything about it so that a handful of enthusiast can take it to a track and compare it to a 911? Mustangs are currently DOMINATING the drag strips across the country, even with an IRS and they do fairly well on open road courses as well despite their weight issues. If you want a better bias, remove all the luxuries that a new car comes with and shift weight to the trunk like battery, etc like the drag guys do. Now, that being said, an aluminum pushrod engine should weigh a bit less than a dohc coyote. And, without the massive cylinder heads, you could probably move the engine to the rear 2-3 inches, vastly improving the weight bias of the S650 platform. This is all speculation at this point, but it would be feasible.

Ford is killing the market share with Mustangs and F150's but the Coyote platform is reaching it's limitations. Currently modular engine tooling can only support 100mm bore space, so they're very limited in increasing any current engine sizes without a re-tool and that would be tremendously expensive. Moving to a pushrod motor in their V8's will reduce manufacturing costs by an immense amount. When I last talked to a Ford engineer they stated that the 7.3 originally was going to be a sohc motor, but that exceeded the manufacturing budget constraints Ford established for the program, so mid development they switched to a pushrod design and ended up significantly under budget and the Ford headshed took notice.

Despite Ford doing better than expected, they still expect an EBIT loss for 2020. They need to reduce costs to survive.

https://media.ford.com/content/dam/fordmedia/North%20America/US/2020/07/30/2q-fin-ford.pdf
Hmm, I see you like to misrepresent your opinions as facts. Ok, lets break this down.

Now, that being said, an aluminum pushrod engine should weigh a bit less than a dohc coyote. And, without the massive cylinder heads, you could probably move the engine to the rear 2-3 inches, vastly improving the weight bias of the S650 platform. This is all speculation at this point, but it would be feasible.
Firstly, this is complete speculation. You are making an argument on a product that doesn't exist, then tweaks they could make to said non-existent product, and how the tweaks to said non-existent product can be good for the platform. I'm going to completely ignore this, as a result.

Secondly, stripping down the car is NOT the right path for long-term viability of the product. It becomes completely uncompetitive to have a Mustang without the things which make it competitive. Stripping down the car makes it an undesirable option for the mass market, thus tanking the viability of the platform all together. We didn't see a 90s Camaro for a reason, and it's because GM did this exact thing. They lost sight of the product chasing the competition's numbers on paper. The Camaro at that time out-performed the Mustang on ever spec sheet, however, only one of them survived.

Back to my original point; Weight reduction improves every aspect of a vehicle from power to weight ratio, to handling abilities, to drag and track performance, and even to wear on components. Tooling up a new engine for the Mustang would be far more expensive in R&D and testing, than continuing making minor improvements to the Coyote DOHC platform. What would make the Mustang feel like a much faster car, would be removing the weight in the chassis and other elements. I would like to see innovation on the D2C platform inclusive of materials innovations and an overall focus on weight reduction. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the power output, power characteristics, or viability of the Coyote engine. The rest of the car needs to lose weight to make the whole of the car better.

Lastly, the rumored 6.8L engine doesn't even exist yet. The only thing Ford could do is make it aluminum and hope it was lighter than the current V8. That would mean the last decade of Ford tweaking the Coyote platform would be for nothing. I don't think that's going to be the case here, bud. I'm pretty sure the coyote will be safe for the S650 platform and we'll see a N/A version of the 5.2 cross-plane engine in a higher trim variant when the GT500 goes away.

You keep citing racing applications, however, have yet to realize that in most cases, hardcore racers hard NOT sticking large displacement engines in their vehicles. They're chasing ripping every pound of weight out of their cars. From exotic materials like carbon fiber, light weight wheels, removing NVH, seats, and unnecessary components to their application. Those folks already understand that weight is the enemy of performance. Period.
Sponsored

 
 




Top