Elp_jc
Well-Known Member
And at least in the latter case, with freaking iron blocks.GM & Chrysler still selling pushrod V8's pretty successfully.
Sponsored
And at least in the latter case, with freaking iron blocks.GM & Chrysler still selling pushrod V8's pretty successfully.
I'm not sure that THE Ecoboost would be the top Mustang, but probably AN Ecoboost, most likely the 3.5 Ecoboost from the GT. The Mustang would also be 10% lighter and they would have switched to IRS with the fox body.Be careful. If the US had fully "caught up" the Ecoboost would be the top Mustang, not the 700hp + GT500.
I thought the same thing, but I'm not sure anymore. I wasn't expecting the GT500 engine to top the GT, but it did, so that automatically makes it the top dog engine. And no way you can RELIABLY get more HP out of a 3.5 IMO. Ford could have called that 5.2 V8 engine Ecoboost too, but it'd had been too hypocritical, I guess. Ha ha. I don't think we'll see V8 'Ecoboost' engines (as in V8TT), so the GT will remain the top EB engine, but not the top Ford engine. We'll see .I'm not sure that THE Ecoboost would be the top Mustang, but probably AN Ecoboost, most likely the 3.5 Ecoboost from the GT.
Yeah, I had an 89 5.0 5-Speed with Flowmaster Exhaust ADS chip and Motorsport Underdrive Pullies. At that time a sub 6 second 0-60 time was FAST and with the few basic aftermarket goodies I had, that is what that car could do and sound GREAT doing it. As an example, the famed 86 Ferrari Testarossa that Sonny Crocket drove would do 0-60 in a whopping 5.2 seconds. Ford, from nearly it's inception had specialty versions that you could buy for way less money than other vehicles of it's time (including standard Corvettes) with similar performance. If you wanted a Mach 1, or Boss, or Cobra, you could ahem pony up a bit more and get one for between Camaro and Corvette money."Horrible" is putting it too strongly. All domestic V8s had pretty awful power from the mid-70s through most of the '80s. The V8 Mustang was no worse than its primary competition (Camaro/Firebird) during that time. (225 HP in 1987 was considered very good, and the late 80s & early 90s Mustangs won a lot of bang-for-the-buck comparisons with that motor.)
Unfortunately, for most of the '90s, Ford was content to keep the Mustang GT at a modest power level, and fell well behind GM's LT1 and LS1 f-body cars. Ford didn't really catch up until the Coyote 5.0 in 2011.
I'll have to disagree here.... the performance for your dollar has NEVER been better!!The thing is, in the '70s until today, you could find those "Hot Rod" parts and make your mild Mustang into a Wild Mustang. That gap has shortened somewhat, as to the amount gained.
Speed, on any time line, is a question of money, how fast ya wanna go?