2011 mustang possible Twin turbo V6

[Grape Ape]

Originally Posted by Mr_Draco

I've always been told ever since the rumors about the 5.0 and the ecoboost came out that they both will be options on the GT.

Same here, although I wonder if they won't hang an SVO badge on it in an homage to the first batch of factory turbo Mustangs.

[rmyers]

Way to go Ford! It's time us old school muscle car people fully embrace the new technology. Turbo's make power and torque, and gobs of it with less displacement. So here is my reiterated though slightly modified wish. GM should increase the displacement of 3.6 V6 to maybe 5 Liters if that can be done. Then twin turbo it and put it in the long awaited Z28!!! There I said it again . Anyone now what the displacement limit was for the original Trans Am racing series in which the 1st Generation Z/28 did quite well and some would say dominated later in the series?....Hint it was 5.0 Liters....which is why Chevrolet developed the 302 small block.

Oh yeah...history could repeat itself, and I would be phyched.!!!

[comiskeybum]

Originally Posted by KatarHol

For some reason,that doesn't fit my personal peception of a Camaro. A non-v8 performance model works for Mustang and the Firebird always had a euro flair to it,so it worked for 1st gen OHC Sprints and the 3rd gen 20th anniver. TA,but for Camaro........i don't knowIt's more of a muscle car,i don't think it would fly. It would be the same for a Corvette or like a 911 with a 4-banger(912),it wouldn't work.

we have to let go of our loyalty to v8's they will no longer be economical or ecological. v8's will be extinct in the next 10-15 years i can almost guarantee it.

Turbo 4 cyl and v6's are the muscle of the future.

[syr74]

Originally Posted by comiskeybum

we have to let go of our loyalty to v8's they will no longer be economical or ecological. v8's will be extinct in the next 10-15 years i can almost guarantee it.

Turbo 4 cyl and v6's are the muscle of the future.

Why? What about a V8 makes it inherently inefficient?

A simple questions for you. Which would likely knock down superior fuel economy all else being a equal......a perfectly square (by square I mean bore/stroke relationship) 3.8L V6 or a perfectly square 3.8L V8? When you answer that I'll listen to your reasoning regarding the doom of the V8 engine as we know it.

[comiskeybum]

Originally Posted by syr74

Why? What about a V8 makes it inherently inefficient?

A simple questions for you. Which would likely knock down superior fuel economy all else being a equal......a perfectly square (by square I mean bore/stroke relationship) 3.8L V6 or a perfectly square 3.8L V8? When you answer that I'll listen to your reasoning regarding the doom of the V8 engine as we know it.

Well for one thing they are lighter in weight. But hey man im not a mechanic or an engine expert. But everything i read in motor trend and other magazines (popular science........etc) says that very little cars will offer v8's in the future. Sure they will be out there i guess.

But why bother with the pure weight when a v6 can make the same HP? and a turbo 4 can make same power as old v6's ? and so on..........

and as a rule......the more cylinders you have........the more gas you use.....there is no way around that.

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by KatarHol

For some reason,that doesn't fit my personal peception of a Camaro. A non-v8 performance model works for Mustang and the Firebird always had a euro flair to it,so it worked for 1st gen OHC Sprints and the 3rd gen 20th anniver. TA,but for Camaro........i don't knowIt's more of a muscle car,i don't think it would fly. It would be the same for a Corvette or like a 911 with a 4-banger(912),it wouldn't work.

A lot of people on the boards have been really opposed to the possibility that a V8 is not the best possible method of attaining horsepower, torque, and efficiency. There's nothing uniquely American about a big V8. That's a major misconception that American car enthusiasts tend to have when thinking about classic cars. They forget that the big fighters on the street here may have been huge V8s when the same battles were happening on the tracks of Europe. I can't understand why Americans are so intolerant to the idea that power can be achieved with less cylinders or difference sources of fuel. Just because something has always been done a certain way doesn't make it the best.

I know that you'll tell me that the American V8 has a unique sound or bellows in a way that nothing else compares. It has tradition. I understand all of that. On the same token, there are a lot of American and international traditions that had to die for their obvious fallacies. With the V8 tradition, there comes the belief that it is superior somehow. More noise must mean more power, or more cylinders must mean more power. If either one of those were correct, the V8 owner could feel dominant on the streets until, of course, an exotic featuring 10 or more cylinders pulled up at the next stoplight.

When that happens, the game changes. Americans start talking about reliability and how exotics are harder or more expensive to maintain. They talk about how their V8 gets more miles per gallon or that theirs was made in America, as if the fact that a car being built in the land of the free makes it somehow superior than a car built in the land of delicious pasta—Italy, of course.

These are arguments that import buyers use to justify racing their little 4-bangers against larger displacement beasts. Who are we to say that they're wrong? The Chevy Cobalt SS turbocharged gets an astounding 260 hp from the LNF (2.0L) EcoTec and boasts to be the fastest 4-banger in the world, making it more of a competitor with cars that have 6 or 8 cylinders. What happened to the tradition of a 4-banger never keeping up with a V8? Now you've got 2008 Cobalts beating 1968 Camaros at the track. Maybe that shows us something.

We need to play with the idea of having aggressive V6s. GM should be building V6 blocks with forged internals for the sake of forced induction replacements for V8s. They are more efficient and as powerful as any V8 that boasts more displacement. They may not be quite as easy to bring to 1,000 horsepower, but the vast majority of enthusiasts won't break the 700-hp mark. When we can make 8-cylinder engines with the efficiency of 6-cylinder or 4-cylinder engines, then we can talk about reverting to the tradition of only V8s in muscle cars. I'd love to see it happen, and it is possible with the proper management of the fuel going into the engine. It just hasn't been a priority to make efficient V8s, which is sad because that idea alone could have saved the American auto industry a lot of trouble.

Basically, the only things that should be sacred to a car enthusiast are style and speed. If you can achieve both of these pillars of the automotive community with anything less than a V8, then I think it should be encouraged.

[KatarHol]

I'm not loyal to the V8,like i said earlier,i'm MORE interested in the Ecoboost Mustang than the 5.0L,it seems like a more interesting car,i could care less about MPG. I'm just saying a turbo 6 doesn't fit the Camaro's character like it would a Mustang. I wouldn't want a big V8 in a 3-series,aside from the M3,that car's character is made up in part from the silky smooth I6. I wouldn't want a V6 in a Miata and so on and so on.
Also,my turbo 4 in my CX7 gets worse MPG than my V8 so as long as the V8 is efficient,i don't see the need to replace it.

[fad1]

dang, what if Mustang does come out with a 400 hp v6? I wonder how Chevy will respond.

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by fad1

dang, what if Mustang does come out with a 400 hp v6? I wonder how Chevy will respond.

The obvious answer would be installing forged internals into the already powerful LLT and boosting that.

[MerF]

And again, I will believe all of this when I see it. If Ford actually packages the 5.0 into something that even remotely challenges the 1SS and comes close to the price, I'll sweat.

As for the EcoBoost...I'm a HUGE turbo fan and I applaud Ford for the effort...but the fact of the matter is it's going to be expensive and probably tuned very tame from the factory. I am excited to see what comes of it because if they do it right the aftermarket will explode like never seen before to support it and make it a monster.

[KatarHol]

Originally Posted by MerF

And again, I will believe all of this when I see it. If Ford actually packages the 5.0 into something that even remotely challenges the 1SS and comes close to the price, I'll sweat.

I hope that you're "sweating" over a decision over what to buy and not that a 5.0L might beat a Camaro.
If i wanted a Camaro,i could care less if a Mustang might be faster and vice versa. I want what i want,my two priorities are is it fast and is it fun? Check.Check. I would just "sweat" over so many awesome choices.

[KatarHol]

Originally Posted by fad1

dang, what if Mustang does come out with a 400 hp v6? I wonder how Chevy will respond.

I don't see that they would need to. A Boosted V6 Camaro would be about 30K or more,same as a Ecoboost. The Mustang has more room to grow,i'd say the Camaro has the 300-450HP range covered as is. The main thing the Mustang really needs is a decent base engine. That's the only thing that would hurt the Mustang is the comparision of that weak-ass 4.0L compared to the Camaro V6 and that's where the money is so Ford needs to upgrade FAST.

[syr74]

Originally Posted by comiskeybum

Well for one thing they are lighter in weight.

So a 3.8L V8 would absolutely be heavier than a compable, in terms of design and tech, 3.8L V6? This simply isn't true as an absolute by an means, there are far too many other variables for anybody to make such a broad, sweeping statement.

Originally Posted by comiskeybum

But hey man im not a mechanic or an engine expert. But everything i read in motor trend and other magazines (popular science........etc) says that very little cars will offer v8's in the future.

All the usual suspects predicted the same thing once before, and they were wrong then too.

Originally Posted by comiskeybum

But why bother with the pure weight when a v6 can make the same HP? and a turbo 4 can make same power as old v6's ? and so on..........and as a rule......the more cylinders you have........the more gas you use.....there is no way around that.

A greater number of cylinders doesn't inherently increase fuel consumption, displacement does. In fact, while this too is an issue far too complicated to paint with simple absolutes, there are more than a few arguments for a greater number of cylinders...within reason.....increasing fuel economy given similar displacement. Part of Ford's reasoning for the Triton V10 series of engine was that greater control over the combustion process would allow a 6.8L V10 to knock down better fuel economy and emissions than a comparable 6.8L V8.

In the end, you are still missing the point. There is absolutely no reason why a 3.8L V8 wouldn't knock down fuel economy on par with a technologically similar 3.8L V6 all else being reasonably equal. Engines are changing, and they will be getting smaller on average with a question, but the best run and ultimately most profitable companies are going to be those who figure out how to give the consumer what they both want and need in one package.

And to that end, it will likely be the companies who figure out the beneficial little incedentals, like the reality that there is no reason why a planned 3.8L GTDi V8 wouldn't work just as well as a 3.8L GTDi V6, who will win the day.

[comiskeybum]

Originally Posted by syr74

So a 3.8L V8 would absolutely be heavier than a compable, in terms of design and tech, 3.8L V6? This simply isn't true as an absolute by an means, there are far too many other variables for anybody to make such a broad, sweeping statement.



All the usual suspects predicted the same thing once before, and they were wrong then too.



A greater number of cylinders doesn't inherently increase fuel consumption, displacement does. In fact, while this too is an issue far too complicated to paint with simple absolutes, there are more than a few arguments for a greater number of cylinders...within reason.....increasing fuel economy given similar displacement. Part of Ford's reasoning for the Triton V10 series of engine was that greater control over the combustion process would allow a 6.8L V10 to knock down better fuel economy and emissions than a comparable 6.8L V8.

In the end, you are still missing the point. There is absolutely no reason why a 3.8L V8 wouldn't knock down fuel economy on par with a technologically similar 3.8L V6 all else being reasonably equal. Engines are changing, and they will be getting smaller on average with a question, but the best run and ultimately most profitable companies are going to be those who figure out how to give the consumer what they both want and need in one package.

And to that end, it will likely be the companies who figure out the beneficial little incedentals, like the reality that there is no reason why a planned 3.8L GTDi V6 wouldn't work just as well as a 3.8L GTDi V8, who will win the day.

makes sense i guess. I just have a hard time believing that the current % of v8's will still be that way 10 years from now.

Dont get me wrong........i love a v8.........but i just have to wonder