Sponsored

S650 Mustang Opinions/Predictions

Status
Not open for further replies.

Stroked84

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2014
Threads
2
Messages
220
Reaction score
42
Location
Fort Myers FL
First Name
Dan
Vehicle(s)
2015 GT
The designer of that car insisted, according to a documentary I watched, that the engine be an EcoBoost. The Porsche Cayman is now a 4-cyl turbo. BMW M-cars are turbo. These engines provide high power with better gas mileage. The government is putting pressure (via loan conditions, from what I read) on Ford to make higher efficiency cars. The pressure to phase out NA engines seems to be large.
That is my line of thinking too. My questions are; what if they did a smaller displacement V8 and turbocharged that? The AMG M178 (4.0L V8 BiTurbo) engine comes to mind.

Would/could an engine like that be economical enough to warrant replacing the 5.0 V8 NA? In the C63S, where the output is 503hp/516lbft, it only gets 18/25 mpg.

Would an engine like this satisfy those has-to-be-a-NA-V8 guys? I know I would be all over a smaller TTV8 powered GT.
Sponsored

 

Andrewg

Sun, Sea, Sand and Camels
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Threads
7
Messages
314
Reaction score
83
Location
Dubai, U.A.E.
First Name
Andy
Vehicle(s)
2015 Guard Metallic GT 401A
I would like to know how Ford came up with the model numbers of the Mustang generations.
It's the number of chassis designs/modifications they made before deciding on the final design.
That's incorrect. The numbers have a significance for our engineering team. It is assigned very early on in the program long before many aspects are finalized.

I can't say more. They're watching...:ninja:
 

thePill

Camaro5's Most Wanted
Joined
Aug 13, 2012
Threads
37
Messages
6,561
Reaction score
699
Location
Pittsburgh
Vehicle(s)
S550
That is my line of thinking too. My questions are; what if they did a smaller displacement V8 and turbocharged that? The AMG M178 (4.0L V8 BiTurbo) engine comes to mind.

Would/could an engine like that be economical enough to warrant replacing the 5.0 V8 NA? In the C63S, where the output is 503hp/516lbft, it only gets 18/25 mpg.

Would an engine like this satisfy those has-to-be-a-NA-V8 guys? I know I would be all over a smaller TTV8 powered GT.
The 4.0's design is the only possible way a BiTurbo could work on an S550. The a design like the AMG 5.5 BiTurbo simply will not work due to packaging.

What's to say a single Twin Scroll Hot V Turbo can't sit in a 4.7 (289) and make over 500hp?

Either way, the AMG's design for a Parallel Bi or Twin is out. There simply is no room for the turbos or plumbing. The 4.0 as you mentioned is the only possible design they could use. I'm not sure which way the exhaust gases will be collected...

Over the rear of the engine or flipping the heads. After seeing a Flat Plane Crank V8 over 5 liters, I wouldn't eliminate the Hot V design from my mind. If that is the case, a Hot V BiTurbo will fit easily in a larger engine block like the Coyote/Voodoo.
 

Norm Peterson

corner barstool sitter
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Threads
11
Messages
9,011
Reaction score
4,720
Location
On a corner barstool not too far from I-95
First Name
Norm
Vehicle(s)
'08 GT #85, '19 WRX
The designer of that car insisted, according to a documentary I watched, that the engine be an EcoBoost. The Porsche Cayman is now a 4-cyl turbo. BMW M-cars are turbo. These engines provide high power with better gas mileage.
The better gas mileage with a turbo motor mainly exists as long as you stay out of boost (which to the best of my knowledge involves a slightly richer mixture). So you'd tune the ECU to avoid boost under the rigidly defined EPA test drive cycles.

In real life, that may not reflect the way an enthusiast drives all that well, so real-world mpg comparisons between a turbo 4 powered car and its twin (powered by a NA V6 of similar power) may not show the turbo-4 in such a good light.


Norm
 
OP
OP

Petroleum Jesus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2016
Threads
12
Messages
430
Reaction score
165
Location
Houston, TX
Vehicle(s)
2016 Mustang GT Premium
The better gas mileage with a turbo motor mainly exists as long as you stay out of boost (which to the best of my knowledge involves a slightly richer mixture). So you'd tune the ECU to avoid boost under the rigidly defined EPA test drive cycles.

In real life, that may not reflect the way an enthusiast drives all that well, so real-world mpg comparisons between a turbo 4 powered car and its twin (powered by a NA V6 of similar power) may not show the turbo-4 in such a good light.


Norm
It is for this reason that I believe it is more likely that the coyote will gain displacement, not lose, and certainly not be replaced by an EB V6.

The current coyote does not have enough displacement to make variable displacement an effective option, and the current coyote does not have the torque potential of the competition. A 5.4L/5.8L coyote with variable displacement could be the solution to both problems and I'm betting this is the route Ford will take.
 

Sponsored

EricSMG

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2016
Threads
3
Messages
361
Reaction score
106
Location
San Diego
Vehicle(s)
2017 GT w/PP, 2004 BMW M3 Coupe
Some things I agree with here and a few I don't.

I'm not really sweating the Bolt-ons; features and specific engines, etc. Ford had an excellent bucket of parts to choose from today. Features like the 10-speed tranny and magnetorheological dampers are already available and have 99.99% likelyhood of implementation. However, I believe some revolutionary changes are needed in the platform to solve some intrinsic faults.

These faults, or limiting factors, are a lack of traction, balance, composure, and response. I believe the solution lies in shifting required mass lower and to the rear. Obviously, any mass that can be shed without sacrificing function is good. Revised suspension geometry would complement.

I believe a bold solution is in order. The cornerstone of this solution is a new chassis, structurally based on an integral torque tube which connects to a rear transaxle based IRS. Belt driven accessories which are currently mounted to the front of the engine are now driven as planets of the flywheel with stab mounts similar to that of conventional starter motors. The battery is also relocated just to the the rear of the transaxle.

Anyway, the concept is merely vapor at this point. Just my 2 cents.
Mostly agree with the bold but don't think anything crazy is required. That said, what you're asking for requires a higher level of engineering which costs money. If you want nice materials, fit/finish AND a precision driving experience you want a more expensive car. BMWs come to mind - they're not cheap for a reason.

Ford did a great job with this car considering it's the first Musyang ever that actually drives, somewhat, like a more sophisticated car. It's not quite there but it's fairly close and it wouldn't take much, in my opinion, to improve it immensely from a purely driving point of view. The chassis is very rigid and provides a great starting platform. Tweak the anti dive/squat a little more, lower the weight a bit, shift it back and lower a bit, improve forward visibility with a lower hood line and then, most importantly, REALLY spend some time on "tuning" the bushings and shock valving. Also, the steering is quite numb - they need to spend some time there as well.

It's all of these things which make the best driving cars - the details if you will. But to keep costs down I think the interior can and should remain similar in design and quality, since, A) it's perfectly fine for a cheaper car and B) that's not the point in a car like this.

In terms of motor, the more sophisticated cars can teach us a lot. Ford should focus on refining the powerband of the Coyote. It needs a flatter, longer torque curve. A higher revving architecture would allow for significantly more top end power without a loss down low. This would not only satisfy the horsepower hungry but also satisfy those looking for a more exotic experience. Essentially the Voodoo powerband but without the nasty torque step down low - that's yucky stuff if you want precision.

And for gods sake put the battery below the floor behind the rear axle.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP

Petroleum Jesus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2016
Threads
12
Messages
430
Reaction score
165
Location
Houston, TX
Vehicle(s)
2016 Mustang GT Premium
Mostly agree with the bold but don't think anything crazy is required. That said, what you're asking for requires a higher level of engineering which costs money. If you want nice materials, fit/finish AND a precision driving experience you want a more expensive car. BMWs come to mind - they're not cheap for a reason.

Ford did a great job with this car considering it's the first Musyang ever that actually drives, somewhat, like a more sophisticated car. It's not quite there but it's fairly close and it wouldn't take much, in my opinion, to improve it immensely from a purely driving point of view. The chassis is very rigid and provides a great starting platform. Tweak the anti dive/squat a little more, lower the weight a bit, shift it back and lower a bit, improve forward visibility with a lower hood line and then, most importantly, REALLY spend some time on "tuning" the bushings and shock valving. Also, the steering is quite numb - they need to spend some time there as well.

It's all of these things which make the best driving cars - the details if you will. But to keep costs down I think the interior can and should remain similar in design and quality, since, A) it's perfectly fine for a cheaper car and B) that's not the point in a car like this.

In terms of motor, the more sophisticated cars can teach us a lot. Ford should focus on refining the powerband of the Coyote. It needs a flatter, longer torque curve. A higher revving architecture would allow for significantly more top end power without a loss down low. This would not only satisfy the horsepower hungry but also satisfy those looking for a more exotic experience. Essentially the Voodoo powerband but without the nasty torque step down low - that's yucky stuff if you want precision.

And for gods sake put the battery below the floor behind the rear axle.
I assure you, there is nothing "crazy" about my rear-transaxle/accessory-drive configuration. It's just different from what you're used to seeing. There is a lot of money currently being spent making the current configuration work. That engineering and component cost could be refocused, making the cost differential far less than many would believe. That said, here are some considerable pros.

1) The space in which the accessory drives currently reside is completely open for whatever purpose Ford deems necessary. The front overhang could be shortened, comprehensive ducting for heat extractor or cooling could be packaged, or more effective structural components could be implemented.

2) All of the mass of the accessory drives and components is shifted from the front wheelbase to the rear wheelbase.

3) Mounting locations for the moved accessory drives no longer have to be casted, lightening the engine block and allowing for more flexibility in oil/coolant systems. The lack of a front mounted transmission and coupling assembly will allow the engine to be placed further back.

4) Accesories are now directly driven by planetary gears using existing flywheel designs as a sun gear. They can be mounted directly to the bellhousing between the torque tube and transaxle, at or below the spindle height of the rear wheels. They can be conveniently accessed (along with the battery) for maintenance from the spare tire cavity in the trunk or from below with a lift.

5) The torque tube serves as an integral part of the frame, allows for a lighter, more efficient propshaft in place of the existing driveshaft.

6)Integrating the tranny and diff will save weight and reduce mechanical complexity.
 

Twin Turbo

Super Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Threads
479
Messages
9,835
Reaction score
7,402
Location
England
First Name
Paul
Vehicle(s)
Mustang '05 GT
It is for this reason that I believe it is more likely that the coyote will gain displacement, not lose, and certainly not be replaced by an EB V6.

The current coyote does not have enough displacement to make variable displacement an effective option, and the current coyote does not have the torque potential of the competition. A 5.4L/5.8L coyote with variable displacement could be the solution to both problems and I'm betting this is the route Ford will take.
That would make me happy!

But it would certainly be bucking an industry trend.
 

EricSMG

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2016
Threads
3
Messages
361
Reaction score
106
Location
San Diego
Vehicle(s)
2017 GT w/PP, 2004 BMW M3 Coupe
I assure you, there is nothing "crazy" about my rear-transaxle/accessory-drive configuration. It's just different from what you're used to seeing. There is a lot of money currently being spent making the current configuration work. That engineering and component cost could be refocused, making the cost differential far less than many would believe. That said, here are some considerable pros.

1) The space in which the accessory drives currently reside is completely open for whatever purpose Ford deems necessary. The front overhang could be shortened, comprehensive ducting for heat extractor or cooling could be packaged, or more effective structural components could be implemented.

2) All of the mass of the accessory drives and components is shifted from the front wheelbase to the rear wheelbase.

3) Mounting locations for the moved accessory drives no longer have to be casted, lightening the engine block and allowing for more flexibility in oil/coolant systems. The lack of a front mounted transmission and coupling assembly will allow the engine to be placed further back.

4) Accesories are now directly driven by planetary gears using existing flywheel designs as a sun gear. They can be mounted directly to the bellhousing between the torque tube and transaxle, at or below the spindle height of the rear wheels. They can be conveniently accessed (along with the battery) for maintenance from the spare tire cavity in the trunk or from below with a lift.

5) The torque tube serves as an integral part of the frame, allows for a lighter, more efficient propshaft in place of the existing driveshaft.

6)Integrating the tranny and diff will save weight and reduce mechanical complexity.
I don't deny the benefits you list - you've essentially described a Corvette. My point is simply that none of that is required to achieve our collective primary objective here - 50/50 weight with a lower CG. Others are doing just that with a traditional design. It just takes a thoughtful consideration of many details = more money. So I say "grab the low hanging fruit" and get the best bang for buck.

However, I would argue that a true 50/50 dist is more academic than it is truly meaningful in reality. Could you or I tell the difference between a 52/48 car and a 49/51 car assuming both had the same level of suspension tuning otherwise? I highly doubt it and even if we could it'd only be at the absolute limit. So while some of us crave true perfection I don't think that's realistic for a 23k base car - afterall, fundamental changes must be applied to the basic platform.
 
Last edited:

Sponsored

Excelerater

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2015
Threads
13
Messages
794
Reaction score
312
Location
Memphis TN
Vehicle(s)
2015 GT
S550 is too heavy,the S650 should loose 300+. With all the light weight materials being used in the S550 including and aluminum engine its an embarrassment to be 3800 a pony car IMO
and dont get me started on Dodge
 

wireeater

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2016
Threads
39
Messages
2,914
Reaction score
2,129
Location
Virginia
Website
wheelwell.com
First Name
Rich
Vehicle(s)
Shadow Black 2019 Mustang GT Premium+ PP 6spd
There's just no way I see a Mustang dropping 200-300lbs off of a new design. Not for a mid level entry sports car. If it was something that was trying to compete against the Corvette maybe. That's a significantly huge amount of weight.
 

FordBlueHeart

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2013
Threads
3
Messages
283
Reaction score
48
Location
Traverse City
First Name
Torr
Vehicle(s)
2019 GT 301A PP1 A10 Magneride
How about instead of worrying about moving the battery to the rear of the car for better weight distribution they put in a modern lightweight Li battery instead?
 
OP
OP

Petroleum Jesus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2016
Threads
12
Messages
430
Reaction score
165
Location
Houston, TX
Vehicle(s)
2016 Mustang GT Premium
I don't deny the benefits you list - you've essentially described a Corvette. My point is simply that none of that is required to achieve our collective primary objective here - 50/50 weight with a lower CG. Others are doing just that with a traditional design. It just takes a thoughtful consideration of many details = more money. So I say "grab the low hanging fruit" and get the best bang for buck.

However, I would argue that a true 50/50 dist is more academic than it is truly meaningful in reality. Could you or I tell the difference between a 52/48 car and a 49/51 car assuming both had the same level of suspension tuning otherwise? I highly doubt it and even if we could it'd only be at the absolute limit. So while some of us crave true perfection I don't think that's realistic for a 23k base car - afterall, fundamental changes must be applied to the basic platform.
A corvette does have a similar package. However, it uses a modular transmission (Tremec 6070) which sits forward of the rear track, sandwiched between the coupler and the rear differential which is directly in line with axis of the rear wheels. It lacks the direct drive accesories describes in my concept entirely. A true transaxle can be inverted so that the gearbox actually sits behind the differential gearing, pushing 120lbs back another 16 inches or so and saving ~15 lbs of cast casing material from the integration of the assemblies. Factor in the displacement of roughly 100 lbs of accessories and battery behind the rear wheels and your bias is probably moving beyond 50/50. An extra 200lbs over the rear wheels would do wonders for rear traction, as well as overall handling characteristics.

I agree that it would be hard to justify the cost for the entry level model. My best estimations suggest a $2,500 price differential (+/- 20). However, their is nothing to say that this platform could not be shared with other vehicles across ford's global lineup to share the development burden.
 
OP
OP

Petroleum Jesus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2016
Threads
12
Messages
430
Reaction score
165
Location
Houston, TX
Vehicle(s)
2016 Mustang GT Premium
How about instead of worrying about moving the battery to the rear of the car for better weight distribution they put in a modern lightweight Li battery instead?
Cost, and I would rather transfer that weight to the rear to aid traction under acceleration and spend the extra cash on weight savingsfor components that aren't portable.
Sponsored

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
 




Top