FA says 2024 GT still the same 450 hp!

[young at heart]

You seem to be confused.

I'm not inferring that your knickers are twisted, it was a generality. So stop taking personal that which isn't.



No. I posted that; "There's no reason to believe anything on FA is correct." As in Schrödinger's cat.

What IS doubtless, is that the article is meant to generate clicks and site visits.

And FA's "record" only exists for those that keep such a count. With so many bogus sources of "information" available now, there's no one keeping track anymore.

Plus, in this very thread is a prime example of FA being completely incorrect. So, it happens.

Of course it happens. By definition it happens to any journalistic source that speculates on an event which has not yet been actualized. I simply put forward that I don’t think they are intentionally disseminating false information and they believe their source, likely unnamed because he’s an insider. Each of us is free to believe what he will.

Sponsored

 

[young at heart]

Maybe this "source" leaked this misinformation to FA as to create more of a demand for the current S550 GTs. Some people are not a fan of the design of the S650, and if there's no jump on HP, the S550 becomes more appealing.

Or perhaps Ford couldn't get around emissions requirements, and indeed the HP bump will be minimal or none at all.

I personally don't expect a big HP bump. It's the last remaining traditional pony/muscle car. It's fitting, it was the first, and now the last.

Certainly a possibility.

 

[MAGS1]

I don’t think they’re lying, their source might have incorrect information (or old information and they’re not privy to updated info). I need to go back and watch the reveal again, but I’m pretty sure higher HP targets were mentioned by Ford execs themselves. The interview with Krenz seems to confirm higher than 450hp. So, I think FA is wrong this time but I don’t believe it’s intentional on their part.

 

[skinnyb]

I personally think the new S650 is lacking mainly in interior, the exterior is basically a severe face lift,. I went ahead with the 22 to kinda "stick with the devil I know" type attitude. P:lus I found mine in stock with every available option I could ever want. And for what it's worth, I don't find it lacking for power at all. Might want more some day but as of right now I think it's pretty good.

 

[kz]

It's basically the same engine, with a fancy intake (and the 18+ intake is already allegedly good), so I am not sure where everyone is expecting those power increases to come from - they need to insure some reliability.

 

[Dfeeds]

It's basically the same engine, with a fancy intake (and the 18+ intake is already allegedly good), so I am not sure where everyone is expecting those power increases to come from - they need to insure some reliability.

The mach 1 makes 20 more hp. The FP power pack, using the gt350 air intake and retaining the stock 18+ intake manifold, makes about 20 +- more peak HP. That alone shows the gt350 IM isn't necessary and it's more the tune and CAI. So having twin throttle bodies that are going to be open at WOT doesn't make it a stretch to believe the gen4 can be at least at the same level as the mach 1/bullitt. Another article states the IM and camshafts are also redesigned. The issue, that I see, is Ford not willing to make the Mustang GT 91/93 the minimum octane. That's definitely going to hold it back.

I'll also admit that the twin TB set up seems like a wasted opportunity when they could've had one TB per bank, but I digress.


I just think it would be questionable to bother investing any sort of r&d if the power level is going to remain the same. It would've been cheaper to dress up the mach 1 set up and toss it in the s650, in that case.

 

[MAGS1]

The issue, that I see, is Ford not willing to make the Mustang GT 91/93 the minimum octane. That's definitely going to hold it back.

True, although if you read the fine print, all the published power specs are based on 93 fuel. So, if an owner chooses to put the minimum 87 in, they’ll lose out on the full power by their own choice. But I agree with the general thought, we aren’t buying GT’s, Mach 1’s, Shelby’s to save on gas $$ so might as well make 91/93 required to get all the power.

 

[Dfeeds]

True, although if you read the fine print, all the published power specs are based on 93 fuel. So, if an owner chooses to put the minimum 87 in, they’ll lose out on the full power by their own choice. But I agree with the general thought, we aren’t buying GT’s, Mach 1’s, Shelby’s to save on gas $$ so might as well make 91/93 required to get all the power.

I think it's more just the tuning headache without jeopardizing reliability.

It's true that this wouldn't have any actual impact on peak HP number posted on the sticker. I just can see it becoming increasingly more difficult to keep the engine 87 octane friendly, the more power it makes. So that stringent will just act as a shackle as things move forward. This is the point I was leading into. They can't/won't increase the displacement so there's only so many things left to do. I'm all for innovation so I do enjoy learning about how these engineers squeeze out more power of an ICE. If it weren't for my 2019, I wouldn't have learned about viscous dampers. I wish I knew why Ford went back to elastomer...

Alternatively, Ford could go wild and design a titanium chassis. That would shave off a few pounds!

 

[Biggus Dickus]

Well, I guess you'll have to pry my 460hp 2019 Coyote from my cold dead hands

 

[RagmopInKona]

To your first point: nor is there any valid reason to disbelieve everything on FA. In the end, it’s an online journalistic rag that derives income from advertisers and reader’s clicks. Neither of these would continue without credibility, which could be roughly defined as being right more than they’re wrong. In any given instance they could be right or they could be wrong but they have a vested interest in being right. And by definition their unnamed source has been more accurate than not in the past.

Hope this helped.

You never heard of the New York Times, or washington post, or usa today.
Credibility left the building in journalism 50 odd years ago, no matter the industry .

 

[RagmopInKona]

Maybe this "source" leaked this misinformation to FA as to create more of a demand for the current S550 GTs. Some people are not a fan of the design of the S650, and if there's no jump on HP, the S550 becomes more appealing.

Or perhaps Ford couldn't get around emissions requirements, and indeed the HP bump will be minimal or none at all.

I personally don't expect a big HP bump. It's the last remaining traditional pony/muscle car. It's fitting, it was the first, and now the last.

Maybe Ford Had them report this to help move the s550's on lots. And not have to offer rebates/discounts later.
I am sure when ford says jump. F/A ask how high. to keep their inside contacts.

Frankly I'd rather a power boost in the mid range over a peak number .
Give me a 15-25hp boost between 2500-4600 rpm would be better than a 10hp at peak. As you are at 2500-4600 a lot more than you are at the 6800 or whatever red line power peak. But that does not sell cars, pointless power peak numbers do.

 

[young at heart]

You never heard of the New York Times, or washington post, or usa today.
Credibility left the building in journalism 50 odd years ago, no matter the industry .

That loud whooshing noise you just heard was my point sailing right over your head, to wit: regardless of a given instance when they may be right or wrong, they’re trying to get it right. Without making the effort to maintain credibility, they’re nothing. Same for FA.

 

[RagmopInKona]

That loud whooshing noise you just heard was my point sailing right over your head, to wit: regardless of a given instance when they may be right or wrong, they’re trying to get it right. Without making the effort to maintain credibility, they’re nothing. Same for FA.

It didn't go Whoosh. I just wasn't born yesterday. They'll state anything if they think it generate hits/clicks, likes. And then use that data for the almighty dollar.
I don't trust anything anymore because of it, Facts and truth take a backseat to the almighty dollar. Some see it, others not so much.

 

[Qcman17]

I think it's more just the tuning headache without jeopardizing reliability.

It's true that this wouldn't have any actual impact on peak HP number posted on the sticker. I just can see it becoming increasingly more difficult to keep the engine 87 octane friendly, the more power it makes. So that stringent will just act as a shackle as things move forward. This is the point I was leading into. They can't/won't increase the displacement so there's only so many things left to do. I'm all for innovation so I do enjoy learning about how these engineers squeeze out more power of an ICE. If it weren't for my 2019, I wouldn't have learned about viscous dampers. I wish I knew why Ford went back to elastomer...

Alternatively, Ford could go wild and design a titanium chassis. That would shave off a few pounds!

I think that even if the car couldn't run on 87 they would need to maintain adaptive tables to allow for bad gas or people putting the wrong fuel in. Not everyone are keeners like us who own these cars. My Camaro SS had a 91 minimum requirement but in the manual it said it could run on 87 if there was no other choice but it should be done with caution.

 

[Dfeeds]

I think that even if the car couldn't run on 87 they would need to maintain adaptive tables to allow for bad gas or people putting the wrong fuel in. Not everyone are keeners like us who own these cars. My Camaro SS had a 91 minimum requirement but in the manual it said it could run on 87 if there was no other choice but it should be done with caution.

Fair point. The downsides to making a car mass production and consumer friendly. You need things to survive when the owner likes to redline the engine, out of their neighborhood, 2 minutes after the car was started.

Sponsored