6.8 liter in 2022/3 mustang?

[CORNYOTE]

Hmm, I see you like to misrepresent your opinions as facts. Ok, lets break this down.



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.

I concede that my comments are speculation. But from a money standpoint they make a lot of sense. The S650 platform will be all new so R&D will be happening regardless and tooling already exists now for the 7.3. I’m coming from a point of economics based on Ford’s current money issues.

Exotic metals will even further their demise and drive costs even higher so I don’t see that as a viable option aside from aluminum body structure. Not only that, but it would drive the price point even higher and Ford would lose a vast majority of their demographic.

and there is a single issue with the Coyote platform and that’s manufacturing costs.

You’re making a far fetched wish list and I’m making assumptions on current economic turmoil.

Sponsored

 

[Myshelby3425]

Not happening on such a mass produced GT. The gas mileage would be crap and deter all the regular buyers

 

[kilobravo]

A big block blast from the past. They were rare, at least in northern Ohio and I never knew someone who owned one. But raced a few. My modded 340 'Cuda hung right in there with them, too.

KB

 

[Hack]

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.

I think weight reduction would be a great way to go. But 200 lbs is not nearly enough if your goal is improving overall performance. A 5% change to anything is basically polishing it, not a big improvement. I do think the Mustang is a little big for my taste and I'd love to see it shrunk down a little. However, it can't decrease the size of the cabin - at least not the driver's part of the cabin.

IMO the easiest thing to do for overall performance is going to a transaxle. It would improve the balance of the car and give it a lot more traction for better acceleration.

Hmm, I see you like to misrepresent your opinions as facts. Ok, lets break this down.



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.

I agree that racers strip down cars to decrease weight. I also agree it's not viable for the Mustang to be stripped down in that way. Too many people would not be interested in purchasing it. And real "racing" in the modern day is too much about competitiveness and equality rather than winning. When you have a larger engine than the competition, the sanctioning body forces you to put a tiny intake opening on the engine rather than letting you win every single race. That is exactly what happened when the GT350 was racing. The Mustang had the most power and it could have won every race. So the sanctioning body came in and made rules to slow the Mustang down. IMO racing is a bad analogy, because you aren't allowed to run a truly superior car and win every race by a wide margin.

IMO Ford's goal shouldn't be "racing", but making a car that performs well and is enjoyable to drive - on a budget. Mustang is already pushing too high a price and exotic materials will do nothing but shoot prices sky high. I realize a transaxle will cost more as well, but I think it would be a good compromise to achieve better performance without sky high prices.

The thing about a larger displacement engine is that you get a lot more performance and reliability for a similar cost to produce. It doesn't cost much more to make a 7 liter V8 vs. 5 liters. And the size isn't much larger. Going from 26 inch engine length to a 28 inch length could get you 40% more displacement, for example. And the weight of a 7 liter engine vs 5 liters isn't that much more either if the 7 liter is well-designed. A 7 liter LS and a 5.7 liter LS weigh virtually the same ~460 lbs fully dressed. A 7.0 DOHC V8 might end up weighing a little more, but not a lot more.

 

[Epiphany]

...you could probably move the engine to the rear 2-3 inches, vastly improving the weight bias of the S650 platform.

You'd never see that kind of available room at the the rear of the engine/firewall interface. Lucky if there was 1" to play with. Speaking of which, I moved the engine back 1" in my Fox coupe. It netted less that .5% improvement in weight distribution. Moving the control arms forward, both at the pivot and at the balljoint enabled a 1% improvement. So I don't see any of this from a production effort on the S650 unless the firewall is moved back a few inches.

 

[Rinzler]

I think weight reduction would be a great way to go. But 200 lbs is not nearly enough if your goal is improving overall performance. A 5% change to anything is basically polishing it, not a big improvement. I do think the Mustang is a little big for my taste and I'd love to see it shrunk down a little. However, it can't decrease the size of the cabin - at least not the driver's part of the cabin.

IMO the easiest thing to do for overall performance is going to a transaxle. It would improve the balance of the car and give it a lot more traction for better acceleration.



I agree that racers strip down cars to decrease weight. I also agree it's not viable for the Mustang to be stripped down in that way. Too many people would not be interested in purchasing it. And real "racing" in the modern day is too much about competitiveness and equality rather than winning. When you have a larger engine than the competition, the sanctioning body forces you to put a tiny intake opening on the engine rather than letting you win every single race. That is exactly what happened when the GT350 was racing. The Mustang had the most power and it could have won every race. So the sanctioning body came in and made rules to slow the Mustang down. IMO racing is a bad analogy, because you aren't allowed to run a truly superior car and win every race by a wide margin.

IMO Ford's goal shouldn't be "racing", but making a car that performs well and is enjoyable to drive - on a budget. Mustang is already pushing too high a price and exotic materials will do nothing but shoot prices sky high. I realize a transaxle will cost more as well, but I think it would be a good compromise to achieve better performance without sky high prices.

The thing about a larger displacement engine is that you get a lot more performance and reliability for a similar cost to produce. It doesn't cost much more to make a 7 liter V8 vs. 5 liters. And the size isn't much larger. Going from 26 inch engine length to a 28 inch length could get you 40% more displacement, for example. And the weight of a 7 liter engine vs 5 liters isn't that much more either if the 7 liter is well-designed. A 7 liter LS and a 5.7 liter LS weigh virtually the same ~460 lbs fully dressed. A 7.0 DOHC V8 might end up weighing a little more, but not a lot more.

I see what you're trying to say, but I'm trying to stay out of the hypotheticals. I'm talking about existing engines, existing platforms, and with the understanding that the S650 has been under development for years.

Also, contrary to your statement, a 200lb difference IS a huge deal in straight line speed. That's one of the reasons a ZL1 can match the GT500 in 1/4 mile times in the real world while being down 110 crank horsepower and why a Hellcat is beaten by almost everything over 600 HP in the 1/4 mile.

I don't think it does the conversation any good to speculate about things which we objectively know to be either not real or not slated for the Mustang. We do, however, know that one of the defining features of the S650 is modifications to the chassis to include bits from the CD6 architecture. That we know for sure.

I would hate to see the Mustang go down the same path as the Challenger where they focus on larger displacement engines at the expense of being a better overall car. The Mustang is nicely in the middle of the Camaro and Challenger in that way, imho.

 

[JR369]

Wonder how much the Mustang will cost with that 6.8L in it.

We already know this. MSRP + ADM

 

[Hack]

Also, contrary to your statement, a 200lb difference IS a huge deal in straight line speed. That's one of the reasons a ZL1 can match the GT500 in 1/4 mile times in the real world while being down 110 crank horsepower and why a Hellcat is beaten by almost everything over 600 HP in the 1/4 mile.

Google says the GT500 is 0.8 seconds faster than a ZL1 in the quarter mile. You can easily do the math on how much faster a car will be with a 200 lb weight reduction. If it's a 400 lb car, it's a huge difference. If it's a 4,000 lb car, not as much of a difference.

Edit, try a 1/4 mile calculator:
4,000 lbs, 760 HP gives 10.13 seconds through the 1/4.

3,800 lbs, 760 HP gives 9.96.

 

[Rinzler]

Google says the GT500 is 0.8 seconds faster than a ZL1 in the quarter mile. You can easily do the math on how much faster a car will be with a 200 lb weight reduction. If it's a 400 lb car, it's a huge difference. If it's a 4,000 lb car, not as much of a difference.

Edit, try a 1/4 mile calculator:
4,000 lbs, 760 HP gives 10.13 seconds through the 1/4.

3,800 lbs, 760 HP gives 9.96.

That's the published figures by Ford, however, it's been widely known that it's damn near impossible to get a 10.6 second 1/4 out of the GT500. You can find plenty of evidence of that on YouTube in recorded races and real-world launches of the car.. Also, I specifically said "in the real world", and not on some specially prepped track like what Dodge does w/ Hellcat numbers.

Also, I'm not sure what math or 1/4 mile calculator that you're doing, but there are a LOT of factors into what 1/4 mile times look like including altitude, tires, heat soak, overall traction, etc. Please quit quoting fictional internet numbers. Thanks.

 

[ZRacerLE]

Pushrods are light. Don't remember the numbers, but the LS7 was one of the smallest and lightest engines out there. Couldn't handle the high boost though. Viper engine might be the better example.

 

[Jordan @ Lethal]

Pushrods are light. Don't remember the numbers, but the LS7 was one of the smallest and lightest engines out there. Couldn't handle the high boost though. Viper engine might be the better example.

It was so heavily bored out that the cylinder walls were particularly thin. That's why they went with the 6.2 for boosted cars.

 

[Hack]

That's the published figures by Ford, however, it's been widely known that it's damn near impossible to get a 10.6 second 1/4 out of the GT500. You can find plenty of evidence of that on YouTube in recorded races and real-world launches of the car.. Also, I specifically said "in the real world", and not on some specially prepped track like what Dodge does w/ Hellcat numbers.

Also, I'm not sure what math or 1/4 mile calculator that you're doing, but there are a LOT of factors into what 1/4 mile times look like including altitude, tires, heat soak, overall traction, etc. Please quit quoting fictional internet numbers. Thanks.

The fictional numbers (1/4 mile calculator) are of course idealized numbers assuming everything is done perfectly. They are a goal for people to try to achieve and you won't achieve them with street tires on any surface. I was explaining what a 5% / 200 lb weight loss does for performance and a 1/4 mile calculator is the perfect tool to do it with.

If I go on Youtube I can easily find times lower than 10.6 for the GT500. Obviously it's not anywhere near impossible.

 

[kilobravo]

Obviously it's not anywhere near impossible.

Definitely not, Hack...plenty of slips in the mid nine's. It's all about the launch and density altitude, the rest is just the car doing what it was designed to do. But at Track Attack, the limitation was clearly the PS4 tires and our instructors didn't have us do burnouts. Guess they were trying to save money.

But many were in the low eleven's with all sorts of different launch RPM's, no one even mentioned the air pressure in the tires. I found some number under 2000 was best for that day but with the right wheels and tires, I would think that would be maximized at a much higher RPM. So knocking off a couple seconds just isn't that difficult in this car if that's what your goal happens to be.

Sponsored