Apex Automotive

New plans for the mustang include putting the 260 hp v6 as the base engine, using the 350 hp turbo v6 as the upgrade, using the 5.0 400 hp in the GT, and using an aluminum block 500 hp 6.2 non forced induction hurricane motor that's going to be offered in the f250/350. Did I mention all these engines are lighter than the current modulars

My next car will most definitely be a GT mustang, especially since they're going to hit the price mark of $30,000, even with the new 5.0 motor. New Shelby is supposed to stay under $50k as well, and will be losing about 300 lbs from its current form from what I hear.

so the engine is ACTUALLY gonna be a 5.0? wow. the last couple of GT's were silly 4.6's i think. i miss the 5.0's

Yeah, the GT mustang has had some variation of the 4.6 since like 1996. It's a great engine, it's just showing its age. The new 5.0 is going to be a DOHC engine, 4 valves per cylinder, variable valve timing, direct injection, high compression heads, all that good shit.

Kick ass

Yeah Squirrel the last 5.0 GT was the 1995 GT. (damn 427Cobra beat me to it)

Hell couldn't Ford have made the 4.6(281) a 289(4.74?)

The greatest small block Mustangs packed 289s especially the GT350 which,rumor has it Shelby made a centrifugal supercharged prototype which when Ford brass saw it, they said 4 words(and maybe a few expletives) "take it apart NOW"

My perfect pony car would be a car in the Mustang GT's weight class with an IRS(to ehance handling a little more) and Camaro's powertrain.

Back to engines: If Chevy can get 427.8 cubes out of an LS series than most assuredly they could make a 396 crate rate it at 475hp.

yea back when they still had a roar instead of a putt. i freaking loved the old 90's Cobra Mustangs. only ones i really like, slow or not, handle like a brick or not, their sound is music.

Even a modular ford engine can sound great with a highflow exhaust on it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dzzzy_zq ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXG0ybj7 ... re=related

Yeah same here.

My grandma has a 1989 Mustang GT Cobra Convertible in white w/ white and red interior. She has had it since new
Hopefully I'll get to drive it when I'm visiting her in Alberta later this month.

I love the sound of all V8 Mustangs - from yesterday's small block and big blocks, f/i or carbs, to today's 5.4L and 4.6L. Here's a cheesy, amateur video of my 4.6L

http://videos.streetfire.net/video/Just ... 154294.htm

The 4.6 sounds a little agitated when it get's near the redline. Not taking a shot just making an observation.

I'd like to see an N/A quad cam 351 cube engine.

The last time we saw something remotely that intense was the LT5. Maybe Ford could make such an engine without the extra heft(50lbs more than an LT10 of that plant.

Yeah, I had a '92 LX Mustang convertible with a 5 speed manual, and it was a fun car.

I had run against a 4.6L V8 '97 Mustang GT and it has less torque down low but worked to catch up at higher revs.
Adding more aggressive diff gearing helps a lot with the 4.6L V8.
From a standing start (with both cars having only mild breathing mods from stock) my car would pull away about a car length and keep that lead.

I like the sound of most all V8s and the 5.0L and 4.6L Ford V8s both sound great to me.

Still, Chevy has advanced their V6 and V8 motors to another level, both in power output, but also in relative fuel economy managing both 426hp and 16/24mpg ratings, which sounds like they will be close to the MPG that the Mustang will have with the 365hp twin turbo V6 will be getting.

Still, the Mustang is lighter, so with that power the performance should be comparable with the LS3 V8 powered Camaro (and the SRT-8 Challenger).

And then perhaps if Ford does come out with the new 5.0L V8, it might have direct injection and other tweaks to offer better power than the LS3 and perhaps even comparable fuel economy.

Ford could hurt chevy by getting that thing to run regular.

After reading a few articles there are aspects of the Camaro that say "rush job" like the back seat and trunk space. The steering seems a bit vette-ish(numb) as well.

I am torn here. The Mustang while IMO lacking a few finishing touches and a few more "Mustang Specific" parts it's development is way more deliberate. But for a rush job the Camaro turned out to be as fast as I had hope and as agile.

Also Chevy should just swallow their pride and offer the full 436 rating on the SS-manual.

It's like than 295 Camaro L48 BS again.

The Camaro at it's size will never hurt Corvette sales EVER and if anything another 20hp+ is needed to just to get the Camaro into 2005 Corvette land in sthe straights.

Damn snakester is going to be pissed no matter what I say.

I tried.

I'm actually not pissed at all.

This is just a regular discussion about the relative merits of each of these Ponycars, and some guessing as to future models thrown in for fun.

I do agree that the Camaro doesn't need to tone down their HP numbers for the Corvette's sake, but they are going to keep doing it nevertheless.
For image and marketing reasons if nothing else.

I also do not think that premium or regular gas requirements make much of a difference once you get out of the economy car market.
It might be a more important point for the entry level V6 ponycar models, but most buyers understand that the majority of performance models require premium fuel. It's a given.

I definitely wouldn't say that the Camaro's development was "rushed" as it actually took way too long to come out from my perspective, and they got most everything right considering it's market and price point.
With that said, any new model is going to have teething problems in the first year of production. Which is to be expected.

The Mustang is more of an evolutionary product from the previous model (with many improvements), and the Challenger is really just a variation/rebody of the Charger.

It was no secret that shelby was toying with the idea of supercharging his already fast cars. It wasn't Ford that killed the idea though, it was insurance companies. Detroit was underrating their engines at the time so as to pull a fast one on insurance companies, and make their cars more affordable for younger people. How much can you underrate a car when you've stuffed a big block under the hood with a paxton slapped on?

There is some sense in this approach.
High insurance is DEFINITELY one of the key factors that killed off the Camaro and Firebird in the 90s.

The cars were reasonably affordable for any eager teen with a good job and credit score, and sub 35 year old old drivers were crashing them so fast that the insurance companies were hiking up premium costs monthly.

I remember writing a business class paper where I showed that it was actually cheaper to buy and own a Ferrari for 5 years than to own a Z28 Camaro.

Once you count in the $4200 per year insurance costs and depreciation, where the Ferrari actually went UP in value slightly over the same period, and was actually far cheaper to insure.

Ford has been clever to work at categorizing the Mustang as a sedan rather than as a sports car when possible, and underrating the car's power output for insurance reasons.

Personally, I'm hoping for a twin turbo V8 for the top Mustang. That way you could control the boost and power delivery to easily pass smog and get good fuel economy when driven casually, but then make serious power when floored, and you could set the timing and boost curve to make less peak power, but have more power under the curve to improve real world performance.

That way you could have a smaller displacement TT V8 that is rated at say 440HP, but with strong torque and power delivery that makes it actually quicker than the new 540HP supercharged V8 GT500.

I'm thinking closer to 500 hp for a twin turbo v8 seeing as how the N/A version of the 5.0 is going to make around 400 hp.

But a larger displacement, non forced induction v8 would basically have the same effect. It would take the weight far below that of the current GT500, and almost match the power output of it as well. Not to mention as GM has shown us with its current SBC's and how Dodge has always shown us with the Viper, you can keep gas mileage up and emissions down with a large displacement engine, it just takes some engineering muscle, which is what I hope happens with the GT500. TT v8's are cool, but I'd much rather see a high displacement engine, if for nothing else than the torque they provide below 2000 rpms.

Well, you certainly won't get an argument from me about the value of powerful, big displacement engines.
But I was just thinking about the fact that Ford is moving towards a more European approach to power with their EcoBoost turbocharged engines (except missing out on their impressive turbo diesel engines).

You can already see the shift in Europe even more towards smaller displacement turbocharged engines, and I think that Ford might follow that trend, if only for image sake.

Ford would be positioned well by underrating their new engines with the EcoBoost turbo V6 being tuned to make more torque and rated at perhaps 345HP, with the new V8 rated at 390HP (as the Cobra was), and say 465HP for the TTV8.

As both the LS3 and Viper engines show, you can gear the car to trade off higher torque with tall gearing to essentially idle at freeway speeds (and subsequently get surprisingly decent gas mileage, but I suspect that they would also need to add direct injection and DOD to get the extra 2 MPG that would otherwise separate them from their smaller displacement rival engines.

I think a turbo diesel could still happen. I think the Jetta TDI has shown us that small Diesels are a completely feasible and affordable option. Ford started the program, so they wouldn't be starting from scratch. We'll just have to see how that plays out, especially since at this moment, diesel is actually cheaper than gasoline for the first time in a long time, and may look to stay that way.

I agree about underrating your engines horsepower, but from what I understand the new rating system makes that slightly more impossible. Yesteryear that would have been easier to do, but with the new rating system, I'm not so sure.

The new Ford v8's are all going to come standard with direct injection and variable valve timing. It's become a much cheaper technology.

And I truly believe that DOD is a bust technology. Good in theory, but poor in execution. The real life fuel savings are really not measurable at all. V8's get great highway fuel economy anyway, especially when tuned right. I think Ford would do better to invest in lean burn technology for the v8's, cutting the fuel to air ratio in half at highway speeds. Honda has made great strides in this technology, although I'm not sure if we've seen it in a buyable car yet. It makes a whole lot more sense to me to use lean burn with modern radiators/thermostats/coolant/water pumps doing such a great job at keeping the engine cool, and also one of the ways lean burn has been so successful at highway speeds is outside air constantly hitting the engine and radiator, helping to keep things cool.

The SAE power measurements are certainly more accurate than earlier methods, but I was talking more about tuning the car specifically to make more torque and less HP, as it's a common and easy trade-off that gives comparable performance to that of a high HP engine, but the HP number is lower in exchange for a broader, more usable power band.
And it helps with lower insurance costs and better MPG.

I disagree that DOD is unproven, as it does show a similar MPG improvement of 2-3 MPG overall, which is the equivalent to adding mild hybrid technology, and the same difference that we see between a turbo V6 as opposed to an efficient V8.

When combined with VVT and direct fuel injection, DOD can help provide the fuel economy that will keep V8s viable and competitive in the future.

Certainly HCCI technology shows good promise, as seen in concept development by Mercedes, GM and Honda. But they have to actually build production models and prove that they can be reliable under all driving conditions over time.

I'm not saying that DOD doesn't save you some gas, I'm just saying we've already hit a wall with this technology. There's nowhere else for it to go. you can't shut down more than 4 of your 8 cylinders and still continue your momentum while still saving gas.

Lean burn engines though, have a lot more potential to go a lot farther. In theory if we could get a ratio of 100:1 (whereas most engins currently use a ratio of like 15:1), we'd see some truly measureable fuel savings.

The start-stop technologies that shut off gas engines in hybrids at idle, as well as similar systems being tested in some full gasoline cars like the Mini have shown fuel savings.

I do not see one single technology providing the "answer", but more like the combination of several contributing technologies adding up together to see significant fuel economy gains over time (as they prove beneficial and reliable) and become adopted into regular production cars, as fuel injection and ABS has in current cars and trucks.

In the same way that I see turbo diesel engines and hybrid motors providing a better combined benefit, as opposed to being pure rivals, I see HCCI, VVT, DOD and many other efficiency enhancement technologies mutually adventageous in working to meet the 36MPG fleet average fuel economy requirements of cars in 3 year's time, and beyond.

Electric motors in hybrid cars have some advantages over just gasoline engines, they allow the electric motors to do the work of low speed operations because gas engines are inefficient with low/variable RPM use, but electric motors are more efficient for that kind of driving, plus they can reclaim the energy lost through the brakes, so they are better overall when used together.

The fact that the hybrid's electric motor allows the gasoline engine to be shut down, it uses less fuel. DOD does the same thing when the lower engine load of steady-state freeway cruising only needs 3-4 cylinders to maintain momentum.

If HCCI technology can provide equal power from a given displacement by running a leaner A/F mixture then so much the better. But I see that techology working in tandem with VVT, DOD and forced induction to extend those gains into highway use for V8 and V6 engines by running on half as many cylinders under light or steady loads.

And, I think it's cool that the magazine cover shot car is Tungsten Grey

And, I think it's cool that the magazine cover shot car is Tungsten Grey

The GT is a tough car to beat and in all rights the Camaro deserved to lose. It's more expensive heavier and a bit more sluggish compared to the GT.

Ford can forget about winning the war with the GT500 what they can do to assure victory is drop 400hp N/A into to a GT while making sure the weight goes up only by 50 lbs.


To prove I haven't abandoned the nameplate I drive, The SS Camaro specs say "SRT-8 killer for less money and weight". The Camaro SS most assuredly dances around the SRT-8 and is as fast in the straights.The SS also undercuts the SRT-8 in fuel economy.


Ford should keep the 4.6 and have Shelby GT redux with the damned boss motor.

Ford has got to chrome the black piece plastic separating the grille and the main headlights or for god's sake use the V6's body colored grille w/foglamps.

It doesn't need a Chromed grill. Save that shit for pimp my ride. I prefer the blackout grill look.

And it's no wonder the mustang won. A LOT less weight, but down on power, a much more agile car.... that's what people are looking for nowadays. The GT500 may be the last of its kind, being a big heavy straight line rocket.

The black grille divider looks cheap and Camaro like

This looks more like the Z06/911 Turbo/F430 Comparison the Z06 got spanked in.



I read more of the article and found out simple things that should have been never got installed like the folding rear seat or the rest of the trunk.

I should have voted Mustang for one simple reason.

The Mustang got it's own chassis.

The extra weight of the Camaro and Challenger make sure Ford's straight axle get's a stay of execution.

Actually the reviews of the 2010 GT500 give it unsuspected praise for being notably better in handling than the last model, and better than they suspected.
As much as people want to dismiss the GT500 as being a dinosaur, it has been surprising quite a few reviewers (once they get behind the wheel and drive the car).

http://www.edmunds.com/ford/shelbygt500/2010/testdrive.html
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_0906_2010_ford_shelby_gt500_first_test/index.html

The GT500 weighs almost the same as the Camaro, and less than the SRT-8 Challenger, but has a whopping 540HP and it's retuned suspension with bits from the special KR model.
So I'm looking forward to seeing upcoming comparative road tests with the top Ponycars including the new GT500.

Still, the Camaro is actually the car to beat, and I think that it will steal the bulk of the Ponycar sales. But the Mustang will do fine (primarily because they did keep the car's weight down) and it will get a second boost in sales once they upgrade the engines with the EcoBoost turbo V6 and whatever they are going to do with the V8 engined Mustangs.

Or the Camaro's looks mustang like.