Last year for V8 2024 (and Mach-E discussion) via Ford Performance conference call

[Jmk]

Ford says old ways, old timers? I was 36 when I bought my GT350. I would think that is prime market but what do I know. They also say it’s happening if we like it or not. That is their right, it’s their product. You or I don’t have to buy their product. I’m due for a new daily and was seriously looking at the new explorer now I’m not sure if I want to give ford my money. Ford needs to tread carefully. That’s what happened we when you alienate your loyal fans. This might hurt them more than they think

Sponsored

 

[CrashOverride]

Most of that sound has to do with the firing order. A little bit deals with the head design. LS engines have quite a bit different firing order.

The coyote absolutely wins in sophistication and technology but at what cost? Need to apply the KISS principal (keep it simple stupid) and realize most everything the coyote dies could have been achieved with a much simpler design. And I emphasize the COULD HAVE part of that last statement.

I know exactly what you're saying re: KISS. In my head I'm thinking the only plausible explanation of why Ford would want to continue working with the existing 5.0 engine (Other than just plain being too cheap to change the bore centers) would be to avoid larger-engine taxes. Suppose they want 500HP NA for the next Mustang. If they are limited to 5L (Be it from taxes) then it would be pretty hard to do it on a pushrod motor. Not impossible for sure, but spinning a street engine fast enough to get 500HP on 2 valves (plus meeting emissions) would be difficult, especially for an emissions cam and a stock/cast (not CNC' or hand ported) head.

I just find it hard to believe that Ford will continue to crank out the Coyote for trucks. And once they kick the coyote out of the truck, it will be the death rattle for the Mustang. That's why I think the 7.3L OHV gasser they just made will end up cast in aluminum, and end up in a F150 as a 5.8L to make the cherished 351 live on. I say Aluminum because Ford is going out of their way to control weight on light duty trucks, and there is no way they would put a cast iron block in a truck they are using aluminum body panels in. With some really good heads, or going with w 3V forked setup like they did before, they might be able to hit 500 NA HP out of 5.8L, but I personally think they would have to be playing in the same 6.2-6.4L sandbox that GM and FCA are in. GM learned that spending a lot of money into designing a great head that is easy to cast is how you win the battle. Then you can use cheap (and less) engine parts (Not crappy, but just cheaper to produce) to make power.

If my memory is correct, the Mustang started with a 289 because that's what Ford had when they had the Falcon. And the Mustang was designed by Iacocca to be cheap for "kids" so they didn't plan on dumping a lot of money into making a larger engine just for this "toy" (Or so they thought!). Then engine sizes got bigger, then the fuel crisis hit, engine sizes went down, and the 302 became the engine that shouldered on through the decade of 70's garbage. When the 80's rolled around, if I'm not mistaken there was a 5L limit on the IROC racing series, and that's why Ford never went bigger. Chevrolet "cheated" by calling a 305 a 5L, but they needed all the help they could get because the 305 was a utter piece of junk (I know, I had two of them). From there the Mod motor was designed for a FWD lincoln, and they went smaller bores and smaller bore spacing because they had to (in their minds) fit it sideways in a FWD car. They dumped all that money into the production lines, and that pesky 100mm bore spacing still plagues them today.

 

[EcoVert]

Not saying that’s untrue, but ever since the LS1 was put into the F body or Vette’s of the 90’s cracking off high 20’s on the highway was a fairly normal thing.

I got 12 mpg in my 6.0 2500HD. I got 26 mpg in the cammed 6.0 in my GTO, albeit there was probably a 2500 lb weight difference.

Probably true my friends have silverados

 

[Norm Peterson]

The second part is the EVIDENCE for climate change. This includes data taken from ice cores and various other sources that fairly accurately tell us about Earth's past climate. That data really can't be argued....

​

The data is what it is, but it doesn't mean anything until it is properly interpreted. Right now all we really have is an educated guess, of uncertain accuracy at best.

​

That data is also what tells us that Earth is experiencing a MASSIVE increase in the RATE of warming unlike anything within the last millennium. A reason for that is us. It's asinine to argue that climate change is not real and that we are not at least A CAUSE for it.

Even a millennium is but a snapshot given the [estimated] age of the Earth. What happens within any hundred years or so may be significant relative to that millennium, while still only being noise in the overall scheme. I'm not saying it has to be that way, just noting that it could.

I'm sure that humans do bear some responsibility. Some. For all we know, human activity over the last couple of centuries only amounted to the proverbial "last straw" that started tipping the balance. Maybe we were headed there regardless, perhaps human population is already beyond what the Earth can sustain at any recent standard of living.


Norm

 

[GreenS550]

Us older motorheads never, ever thought we would see a 300 cubic inch engine make the power the Coyote does. Never. Times change. The flathead went out. The ohv engine came in. The ohv with pushrods went out (at least for companies that saw the future, like Ford). Now it seems that the turbos are in. As are the new electric vehicles which I believe will be a bust. I can state that the tt in my Explorer sport with a tune is lightning fast. Really. I can take most new muscle cars up to 50 or so. I want the v8, but a tt 3 liter Mustang will be very, very fast especially if they awd it.

 

[Ericc B]

To my brothers and sisters in the EU: I've long thought that in the EU, taxes are based on engine size, or perhaps car insurance was. Is that true, or is it based on CO2/Km?

Most countries have moved to CO2 emission as the base for taxation, but like Ace said there are immense differences. In Germany and the UK for example there is no such thing as 'new vehicle tax' (apart from sales tax, which btw is on average 20% in Europe) but in countries like Norway, Danmark and Netherlands there is a new vehicle tax (on top of the 20% sales tax) which is heavily influenced by the emissions. On a small 95 gram CO2 3 cylinder 1 liter engine it might be 2.000 euro, but the increase for bigger engines is insane. I have 2016 GT and the tax on that was 60,000 euro, which is roughly $66,000. On a GT350 it's around 100,000 euro. Norway and Danmark are even worse.

Besides all this madness upcoming EU legislation is limiting the average amount of CO2 emission allowed for new cars to under 100 grams which is insanely low. Manufacturers will have to pay hefty fines for every gram that their fleet on average is above that times times the number of cars sold. So for example for every 300 gram emitting Mustang GT Ford Europe sells it will also have to sell 2 BEV's to compensate. Which obviously is bananas since BEV vehicles are far from CO2 emission free, but that's another discussion. These new regulations will significantly raise the costs per vehicle and prices for us end consumers and Ford has already announced behind the screens that they will vastly limit the amount of Mustang GT's that they will be importing here in the future. Which means higher prices for us for sure.

I've read that front ends are becoming flatter and hoods raising because of EU pedestrian protection.

That is correct. Pedestrian protection is a very important part of the Euro Ncap safety rating. If you don't work it into your design properly the car will never qualify for a 5 star rating.

 

[Hack]

Political paranoia for the win! It's easy to explain everything away and justify your beliefs when it's all just a conspiracy...

I have an open enough mind to accept evidence. Is there evidence that the climate change theories/predictions are correct or are you accepting it on faith? There is a lot of evidence of ties between climate change theories, big business and politicians. Can you accept that information, or do you deny it?

 

[Hack]

The second part is the EVIDENCE for climate change. This includes data taken from ice cores and various other sources that fairly accurately tell us about Earth's past climate. That data really can't be argued.... That data is also what tells us that Earth is experiencing a MASSIVE increase in the RATE of warming unlike anything within the last millennium. A reason for that is us. It's asinine to argue that climate change is not real and that we are not at least A CAUSE for it.

I remember seeing the evidence of ice cores. The study I saw looked at CO2 content in the atmosphere during various times in the past and also within the same ice core showed whether the temperatures were high and low. And the higher temperatures did NOT correlate with higher CO2 concentrations.

So those that think CO2 and temperatures are linked have a problem with that evidence and they have been trying to disprove it. Rather than accepting evidence with an open mind and using it to guide actions, many are more interested in disproving the evidence. Why is this?

Also, many people who used to talk about global warming now say climate change and say that storms are now worse because of human activity. I see a pattern. Basically people aren't scared enough by global warming threats, so these people try to come up with a bigger and scarier threat. And I bet this will continue to occur, because the goal has nothing to do with the climate. It's all about gaining political control.

More evidence to support my theory is that right before the global warming scare, the same people were talking about global COOLING. But the public wasn't scared enough by that, so they came up with something different.

 

[bootlegger]

This thread is a fine collection of science denial, speculation, auto industry "rumor", and emotional chest pumping.

 

[Norm Peterson]

I am going to ask again because I have forgotten your previous answer.... Have you ever truly experienced an EV like a Tesla? The acceleration is real.... The INSTANT power is real. It is not "kool-aid" and points directly to my comment about having to actually experience one to understand it.

It's not about whether the acceleration or instant power/torque is real, because it certainly is. I also realize that it's a particularly appealing pitch for those whose car enthusiasm is already biased toward big power and brutal acceleration.

The assumption that the car companies appear to have been making, and which you are supporting, is that once an enthusiast - any enthusiast - sips a cup of an EV's acceleration, they'll just let that experience overwhelm everything else they value about a car's performance envelope and fall in line with the masses.

You're proving my "kool-aid" point for me by expecting me to enjoy its taste enough to put straight line acceleration up where most other people apparently prioritize it. I'm trying to tell you that for me at least, that won't work.​

Other benefits include true variable AWD, greatly improved handling and weight distribution, much better packaging (you can now make a mid engine sports car look without the mid engine engineering and platform, etc...) It frees up design to do things that currently were not possible (within budget).

I don't think you understand what it is I want - and don't want - in a car. I'm afraid I can't resolve "greatly improved handling" with a 5000 lb vehicle, no matter how that weight might be distributed. And I know I don't want to be relegated to co-pilot status by somebody else's computer programming (not even if such programming could allow me to turn quicker lap times than I could achieve on my own).

If I'm reading your "better packaging" correctly, you're thinking "skateboard chassis". By design, that's an approach much more suitable to SUVs, CUVs, and minivans. Not so much to sports cars and ponycars in their traditional senses.

What I will say directly about "mid-engine look without an engine in the middle" is that from a style & design point of view it would be just plain wrong. Design should hint at what's really there, not con you into thinking it's something that it's not.


Norm

 

[Norm Peterson]

To be completely honest, the mod architecture has always been overly complicated for what it offers.... When GM can get 28+ mpg out of a 6.3L V8 (cylinder deactivation) while Ford can barely manage 25mpg out of a 5.0l engine, the benefits of the more efficient valvetrain start to disappear.... That plus the packaging issues of a massive DOHC head design makes you wonder if Ford would have been better served updating the SBF architecture and going the route of GM with larger displacement engines with cylinder deactivation tech...

The modular architecture - bore center dimension in particular - was probably about right for a 4.0L V8. What we got was already a mild 'stroker' up to essentially 'square' bore x stroke. Already a compromise.


Norm

 

[w3rkn]

It's not about whether the acceleration or instant power/torque is real, because it certainly is. I also realize that it's a particularly appealing pitch for those whose car enthusiasm is already biased toward big power and brutal acceleration.

The assumption that the car companies appear to have been making, and which you are supporting, is that once an enthusiast - any enthusiast - sips a cup of an EV's acceleration, they'll just let that experience overwhelm everything else they value about a car's performance envelope and fall in line with the masses.

You're proving my "kool-aid" point for me by expecting me to enjoy its taste enough to put straight line acceleration up where most other people apparently prioritize it. I'm trying to tell you that for me at least, that won't work.​

I don't think you understand what it is I want - and don't want - in a car. I'm afraid I can't resolve "greatly improved handling" with a 5000 lb vehicle, no matter how that weight might be distributed. And I know I don't want to be relegated to co-pilot status by somebody else's computer programming (not even if such programming could allow me to turn quicker lap times than I could achieve on my own).

If I'm reading your "better packaging" correctly, you're thinking "skateboard chassis". By design, that's an approach much more suitable to SUVs, CUVs, and minivans. Not so much to sports cars and ponycars in their traditional senses.

What I will say directly about "mid-engine look without an engine in the middle" is that from a style & design point of view it would be just plain wrong. Design should hint at what's really there, not con you into thinking it's something that it's not.


Norm

Norm....

I agree 100% with what you are saying, but much of what you say is not realistic. You are looking at this from a 12 year old Mustang's perspective. IN 2020, if looking to buy you have to weigh that against the nearly 5klbs Mustang GT, too.

And how that handles compared to any other car, EV or not. Obviously the Mach E weighs 750lbs more? But almost all of that weight is an ultra low center of gravity.

And with both the S550 and this Mach E on Magneride...



That is a valid comparison, not your track monster.

 

[zackmd1]

The assumption that the car companies appear to have been making, and which you are supporting, is that once an enthusiast - any enthusiast - sips a cup of an EV's acceleration, they'll just let that experience overwhelm everything else they value about a car's performance envelope and fall in line with the masses

There "assumption" is correct.... EVs can and do perform better than ICE counterparts in most every metric. A enthusiast should be able to recognize that. Now, they don't have the sound of course and that's going to be a personal preference for sure. I will say Norm that you are and most on this forum are the MINORITY when it comes to who auto makers design these cars for. IMO, if it performs, I don't give a sh*t that it doesn't have a sound.

I don't think you understand what it is I want - and don't want - in a car. I'm afraid I can't resolve "greatly improved handling" with a 5000 lb vehicle, no matter how that weight might be distributed. And I know I don't want to be relegated to co-pilot status by somebody else's computer programming (not even if such programming could allow me to turn quicker lap times than I could achieve on my own).

So do you even bother to do research before formulation such a strong opinion? My 3s curb weight is 3350-3650 depending on where you look. That's the same weight as a EB Mustang and less weight than a GT with a perfect 50/50 distribution and a MUCH lower CG. The taycan does weight 5500lbs but still performs around the track better than much lower weight ICE vehicles. It's not so much about how much weight, it's about how and where it's located in the vehicle....

I'm sorry to say this but you are already there. Stability control, traction control, advanc track, etc... All do this already. No reason why an EV can't have an off switch for these features just like an ICE vehicle.

I'm reading your "better packaging" correctly, you're thinking "skateboard chassis". By design, that's an approach much more suitable to SUVs, CUVs, and minivans. Not so much to sports cars and ponycars in their traditional senses.

Please do enlighten us on why you think the skateboard architecture isn't suitable for sports cars considering EVERY EV sports car right now (roadster, taycan, EV hypercars) all use this design....

And when I mean mid engine styling I mean that the skateboard design allows them to make the vehicle into whatever they want. They don't need to design around an engine and engine compartment anymore.

 

[Norm Peterson]

Most of that sound has to do with the firing order. A little bit deals with the head design. LS engines have quite a bit different firing order.

Make that exhaust pipe routing/merging rather than firing order.

Every crossplane V8 fires "left-right-right-left-right-left-left-right" if you start out at the right place in the firing order. Once the engine is running, cylinder numbering and the firing order itself do not matter because the above sequence will show up. Flow inequality among the various exhaust primary pipes could cause shifts in the character of the sound, as can the presence and design of any downstream crossover piping (none, H, X).


Norm

 

[zackmd1]

Make that exhaust pipe routing/merging rather than firing order.

Every crossplane V8 fires "left-right-right-left-right-left-left-right" if you start out at the right place in the firing order. Once the engine is running, cylinder numbering and the firing order itself do not matter because the above sequence will show up. Flow inequality among the various exhaust primary pipes could cause shifts in the character of the sound, as can the presence and design of any downstream crossover piping (none, H, X).


Norm

Different cylinders firing on different banks and merging at different times do modify the sound....

Ask yourself why the 4.6 4v and other mod motors (5.4-5.8) sound much different than the coyote when they are largely the same....

Sponsored