Mach 1 Engine vs Bullitt Engine

[MountainStang]

Hey All,

I was thinking about starting some discussion on this topic and hear people’s thoughts. I’ve read in a couple articles (older articles) that the Mach 1’s engine is different than the Bullitt’s engine. This would also explain the original Ford announcement which stated a projected horsepower of 480 (maybe confirming they weren’t sure what the output was, but then it ultimately also landed at 480). What do we think would change (if there was a change) maybe some more components picked for track endurance etc..., different pistons/rods, removal of any coyote ticks?


Here is one article:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mo...2021/first-look-2021-ford-mustang-mach-1/amp/

Here is the initial Ford announcement:

https://media.ford.com/content/ford...s-pinnacle-of-mustang-5-0-liter-v8-style.html

Sponsored

 

[Bikeman315]

Based on the articles you posted the internal engine components are the same. The external changes are:

Integrated into the Mach 1 engine are revised Shelby GT350 components including the intake manifold, oil filter adapter and engine oil cooler, increasing engine oil cooling capability by 50 percent.

That’s it. Not really a lot to talk about.

 

[ChitownStang]

Biggest difference is when you hook a 10sp Auto to it, it goes way faster!!! lol

 

[Schwerin]

I suspect the biggest change will be a more refined/tweaked ECU tune. That may leave teh same peak numbers but have a better power curve. Which, realistically a good proper 91+Oct tune will be better than anyway, and an e85 tune will be MUCH better than.

I had hoped that Ford would make the Mach1 a flex fuel car with 480hp on 91+ and 500 on e30 or e85. In a perfect world it would have been GT500 engine in NA trim.

 

[wimbrow]

Biggest difference is when you hook a 10sp Auto to it, it goes way faster!!! lol

and a Tremac with better ratios

 

[Strokerswild]

In a perfect world it would have been GT500 engine in NA trim.

This.

 

[jake_zx2]

Man, I don’t know why you guys are so dead set on the Mach 1 having an expensive, unreliable, untested engine in it as opposed to the tried and tested Coyote, even when they’d have about the same power

I’m glad it’s a “parts bin” car, because that means it got everything that’s already been proven to be the best and the most reliable, and I can buy it to track it and not worry about anything ending my sessions early

 

[EFI]

maybe some more components picked for track endurance etc..., different pistons/rods

The Coyote engine was tested to survive thousands of miles at peak torque (the equivalent of running 400 Daytona 500s back to back). There's nothing that Ford needs to do to to improve track endurance.

As stated in those articles, the engine is a Coyote with a few external bits from the GT350 for cooling.

 

[Strokerswild]

A NA CPC 5.2 would be as stone reliable as the 5.0, likely the only reason Ford did what they did was the Bullitt-spec engine was already a done deal for the US and Europe markets. And laziness. They know people will flock to the latest and greatest special model and, bam, grab some sales.

 

[jake_zx2]

A NA CPC 5.2 would be as stone reliable as the 5.0, likely the only reason Ford did what they did was the Bullitt-spec engine was already a done deal for the US and Europe markets. And laziness. They know people will flock to the latest and greatest special model and, bam, grab some sales.

Do you have proof of this? Probably not, because it’s not a production engine, and thus would have to go through a lot of testing and would still be an unknown variable (Ford thought the Voodoo would be reliable, too). But if the GT500s showing up to the dealership with rod knock are any indication, I’d wager that it would likely be far less reliable than a Coyote

It wasn’t laziness, it’s that building a bespoke engine for a 1 1/2 year run of a car that would barely make any more power is a very poor value proposition

 

[Bikeman315]

OP asked a specific question about one engine. The 5.0 Coyote. The question was answered. Now we are going to spend the next 200 posts going back to the same BS arguments about the 5.0 vs the 5.2.

 

[Strokerswild]

True. No need for a speshul car to have a speshul engine. I keep forgetting.

 

[Charlemagne]

Was the 351 cu in (5.8 L) Windsor V8 in 1969 Mach 1 introduced and unique to Mach 1 only?

Does the new Mach 1 not meet the "performance-oriented option package of the Ford Mustang"? The claim "best handling Mustang on track" by Ford shows to me that it does meet what Mach 1 was about back then (or lot more). No need for new engine to get few more hp. You don't really need more hp on the track, it's not quarter mile drag and you have compressors for those.

 

[Strokerswild]

Was the 351 cu in (5.8 L) Windsor V8 in 1969 Mach 1 introduced and unique to Mach 1 only?

Does the new Mach 1 not meet the "performance-oriented option package of the Ford Mustang"? The claim "best handling Mustang on track" by Ford shows to me that it does meet what Mach 1 was about back then (or lot more).

No, the 351W was available on the entire Mustang lineup for 1969. However, it was the base engine on the '69 Mach 1 and there was no lesser V8 on the Mach 1 trim. Only the 390 and 428 were options above the 351.

Agreed on the last. The new Mach should have been called Boss 302, but Ford got confused. The Boss 302 of 1969 (and 1970) was THE track car of the day.

 

[Charlemagne]

It can't be called Boss 302 when the displacement is 307 cu

Sponsored