What is the next "special" trim?

Twin Turbo

Super Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Posts
9,097
Reaction score
5,698
Location
England
First Name
Paul
Vehicle(s)
Mustang '05 GT

Jimmy Dean

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2019
Posts
489
Reaction score
332
Location
Baton Rouge
First Name
Al
Vehicle(s)
71 mach 1, 82 Bronco, 02 150, 06 250
Only if the 429 is something battery related instead of cubic inches. 429 duck power per electric motor? 429 wishes for combustion? 429,000 disappointed enthusiasts?
that 6.8L is damn close to 429ci.
 
OP
Schwerin

Schwerin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2018
Posts
2,426
Reaction score
1,150
Location
Philly
Vehicle(s)
2019 Mustang BULLITT
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #18
How to you get to that HP number without the high RPMs provided by the FPC? Also - where did the extra torque come from?
The Voodoo only revs to ~8250, people are banging 8k all day in the Gen 3 5.0 already. I'd not be amazed at all if it wouldn't take much for 8200+ to be reliable in the the new Crossplane 5.2 with an NA configuration. It's also just a bump of 20tq over a 5.0, again not hard to see a 5.2 based on similar design getting that bump.
 

Interceptor

Daily Driver
Joined
Apr 3, 2018
Posts
1,226
Reaction score
665
Location
Low country South Carolina
First Name
John-David
Vehicle(s)
2019 California Special A10
California Special with a 390 engine, 4/11 rear end. Rear seat delete, light weight wheels
 

Elp_jc

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 2, 2020
Posts
2,841
Reaction score
560
Location
El Paso, TX
First Name
JC
Vehicle(s)
2019 Bullitt K7979, MR, Nav, B&O, Cover
Any names NOT brought back yet you'd like to see?
Mustang II? Ha ha. Just kidding. Nothing else left. Hey, a comment. The Boss 302 and 429 referred more or less to displacement (in cu. in.). And GT350 and GT500 to HP, since neither ever was 5.7L or 8.2L respectively. So the GT350 should have been the GT525, and the new GT500 the GT760. That means if Ford is 'lying' with the Shelbys already, why not with the Bosses? They could call a Mustang with the 5.2 the Boss 429, and nobody should flinch.
 

DrumReaper

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 17, 2015
Posts
4,220
Reaction score
2,726
Location
South East
Vehicle(s)
1971 429CJ Mach 1, 2012 Boss 302
Mustang II? Ha ha. Just kidding. Nothing else left. Hey, a comment. The Boss 302 and 429 referred more or less to displacement (in cu. in.). And GT350 and GT500 to HP, since neither ever was 5.7L or 8.2L respectively. So the GT350 should have been the GT525, and the new GT500 the GT760. That means if Ford is 'lying' with the Shelbys already, why not with the Bosses? They could call a Mustang with the 5.2 the Boss 429, and nobody should flinch.
GT350 was named “350” because it was literally 350 steps from Shelby’s office to the production line, IIRC. had nothing to do with HP.
 

Elp_jc

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 2, 2020
Posts
2,841
Reaction score
560
Location
El Paso, TX
First Name
JC
Vehicle(s)
2019 Bullitt K7979, MR, Nav, B&O, Cover
Really??? Sounds stupid. Ha ha. So what was the HP of the first one then? And what about the GT500? Wasn't that one HP for sure? At any rate, if that was really the reason, then there's no need to follow any logic anymore, no? At least Ford would be slapping it to another 'special' RWD Mustang :).
 
Last edited:

DrumReaper

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 17, 2015
Posts
4,220
Reaction score
2,726
Location
South East
Vehicle(s)
1971 429CJ Mach 1, 2012 Boss 302
Really??? Sounds stupid. Ha ha. So what was the HP of the first one then? And what about the GT500? Wasn't that one HP for sure? At any rate, if that was really the reason, then there's no need to follow any logic anymore, no? At least Ford would be slapping it to another 'special' RWD Mustang :).
The man made his own Mustangs and won Le Mans. He could have stuck whatever moniker he wanted on his car. I happen to think it was a very clever and catchy moniker.

IIRC, the GT350 had an enhanced k-code 289 and was declared to produce ~325hp. The 427ci and 428ci GT500s obviously had more than the exclaimed 375-385hp. Insurance issues played a factor in how much HP manufacturers admitted to.
 

XS

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 22, 2017
Posts
208
Reaction score
175
Location
Rockies
Vehicle(s)
2016 GT PP
Ouch, no love for the Boss 351? It's closer to 5.2L and they were no slouch back in the day by any means.
Edit: The more I think about it the more that makes some good bit of sense as a special edition. Increase displacement to 351ci, slot the power in right around 500hp-530hp. Bottom end stays the same for cost measures, top end changes but not too drastically. Shelby could use the architecture to build a next gen GT350/500 car off of..... Oh one can dream.
 
OP
Schwerin

Schwerin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2018
Posts
2,426
Reaction score
1,150
Location
Philly
Vehicle(s)
2019 Mustang BULLITT
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #25
Ouch, no love for the Boss 351? It's closer to 5.2L and they were no slouch back in the day by any means.
Edit: The more I think about it the more that makes some good bit of sense as a special edition. Increase displacement to 351ci, slot the power in right around 500hp-530hp. Bottom end stays the same for cost measures, top end changes but not too drastically. Shelby could use the architecture to build a next gen GT350/500 car off of..... Oh one can dream.
For had a 5.8 in the GT500 for a bit. That could have let them use an NA version for a BOSS 351, but they didn't.
 

Gogoggansgo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Posts
241
Reaction score
100
Location
Midwest
First Name
Billy
Vehicle(s)
2015 mustang GT
I wouldn’t be surprised if they bring back the offical cobra badge not the Shelby badge lol

like back in the day
 

sotek2345

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2014
Posts
162
Reaction score
94
Location
Upstate NY
First Name
Tom
Vehicle(s)
2019 GT350, 2016 F-150
For had a 5.8 in the GT500 for a bit. That could have let them use an NA version for a BOSS 351, but they didn't.
The 5.8 (and 5.4 that came before it) were really truck engines (old ford modular). They were kind of dogs without the supercharger. Some of that could be fixed with headers and compression ratio, but they weren't the greatest as NA engines. The Coyote (while being another variant of the modular - but a bigger variant), was a huge step up from the 5.4/5.8.
 

Gogoggansgo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Posts
241
Reaction score
100
Location
Midwest
First Name
Billy
Vehicle(s)
2015 mustang GT
The 5.8 (and 5.4 that came before it) were really truck engines (old ford modular). They were kind of dogs without the supercharger. Some of that could be fixed with headers and compression ratio, but they weren't the greatest as NA engines. The Coyote (while being another variant of the modular - but a bigger variant), was a huge step up from the 5.4/5.8.
And by 2013 the engine was having a hard time passing emissions as is. I remember a Ford engineer saying that they could get 450hp out of an N/A 5.4 but it would need to rev past the infamous 7000rpm mark. For those that don’t know on the 5.4 and 5.8, piston speed is a major issue and is the reason why a lot of the gt500 guys don’t go past 6500rpm. Also why the cobra R didn’t rev very high either
 

sotek2345

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2014
Posts
162
Reaction score
94
Location
Upstate NY
First Name
Tom
Vehicle(s)
2019 GT350, 2016 F-150
And by 2013 the engine was having a hard time passing emissions as is. I remember a Ford engineer saying that they could get 450hp out of an N/A 5.4 but it would need to rev past the infamous 7000rpm mark. For those that don’t know on the 5.4 and 5.8, piston speed is a major issue and is the reason why a lot of the gt500 guys don’t go past 6500rpm. Also why the cobra R didn’t rev very high either
Yeah - I wouldn't push my 5.4 past 6400 (limit set in the tune). Just not worth the risk. Took a few weeks to adjust my shifting to the Voodoo's 8250 redline!
 

Advertisement





 
5 SPURS - 1


Advertisement
Top