• Mustang Forums
  • 2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-
  • 2010 - 2014 Specific Tech

2011 Mustang Leaked !!!

  • Thread starter Thread starter SS02
  • Start date Start date Sep 3, 2009
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
Next
First Prev 5 of 8 Next Last

merc

New Member
Sep 30, 2009
1
0
0
Oct 10, 2009
#81
  • Oct 10, 2009
  • #81
I still keep wondering if they are going to really do away with the 4.6 totally.

My buddies also keep slamming me for buying a 2010 a few weeks ago since the 5.0 is on the way but I don't think it will bother me too much.

I am not racing the car and it has an auto in it...a first for me...because I have to deal with my kids all the time.

I wonder if the 5.0 really will be a the base GT motor or an option like it is on trucks with the option of a 4.6 or 5.4.

Is the 4.6 being dropped completely?
 
S

SS02

New Member
May 30, 2009
427
0
0
Fort Worth, Texas
Oct 10, 2009
#82
  • Oct 10, 2009
  • #82
Thats the Rumor...
 
J

Justin01

Founding Member
Apr 22, 2002
546
0
0
Texas
Oct 10, 2009
#83
  • Oct 10, 2009
  • #83
So, to make sure I'm on the same page here, the supposedly new 5.0L that's going into the 2011-ish mustang is based on the 5.0 32valve coyote motor right? The cammer motor? If that's the case, that puppy weights in at about 534lbs dressed. To the current 4.6L's 435lbs. I can understand increasing weight from a safety standpoint, but I don't get why they would add 100lbs from just the engine. Unless this new 5.0 is a stroked version of the 4.6. I wonder if they would just upgrade the trans they have now rather than building new ones. The 5R55S just came out...can't see them switching already with the time invested in that one. Not sure about the 3650 though.
 

cougar_68

Founding Member
Jun 6, 2001
849
0
0
Garrett, IN
Oct 12, 2009
#84
  • Oct 12, 2009
  • #84
Hello?! That’s why I say go EcoBoost. It is actually lighter than the 4.6L. One website claimed over 150lbs lighter (don’t know how accurate that is).

So you could have a 3.5L twin turbo making more than a 250 lb heavier 5.0L. Granted the 5.0L would be easier to get more power out of, but still.
 
B

bluestang347

Active Member
Dec 24, 2006
155
104
53
GA
Oct 14, 2009
#85
  • Oct 14, 2009
  • #85
If they put an ecoboost in the GT i will be saying hello to a camaro ss instead of a mustang... Why would you take a damn ecoboost over a push rod 302? It is extremely easy to get big power out of a 302, and even easier to work on. By the way i had a 347 92 GT with almost the same specs as your 347.



 
S

SS02

New Member
May 30, 2009
427
0
0
Fort Worth, Texas
Oct 14, 2009
#86
  • Oct 14, 2009
  • #86
The new 5.0L 302 isnt a pushrod....its a DOHC.........
 
B

bluestang347

Active Member
Dec 24, 2006
155
104
53
GA
Oct 14, 2009
#87
  • Oct 14, 2009
  • #87
SS02 said:
The new 5.0L 302 isnt a pushrod....its a DOHC.........
Click to expand...

I realize that, I was referring to when he said he would take an ecoboost over a 79' 302.
 

walter

Founding Member
Aug 13, 1998
1,054
0
46
Houston TX
Oct 15, 2009
#88
  • Oct 15, 2009
  • #88
I still don't understand how people say that the 5.0L v8 is easier to make more power then the Ecoboost. Ultimely I would say right off the bat putting a supercharger on the supposed 400HP V8 keeping things equal like Cr. and all that stuff with the 4.6 should net something like 80-150HP increase with your average run of the mill supercharger kit. This will also cost you around 5 to 6 grand to do if the costs are the same.

Take the Twin Turbo V6 now, add a boost controller, better intercooler and do some tuning you can see similar returns but for a lot less money. Ok so you start with less HP, around 360 or so if you use SHO numbers but the weight savings in the drivetrain is a definite advantage.

Don't get me wrong I love a nice V8 especially in a Mustang as it has the magic old school nostalgia feeling that no other powertrain can provide, but I'm also not blinded by this and can see the advantages of having an ecoboost engine under the hood. Ford knows this, they are not dumb, they know that if they ax the V8 option completely the Mustang will lose a lot of people who for reasons ranging from nostalgia to downright shortsightedness will jump ship if that happens. I wouldn't worry but I'm just saying look at the big picture.

Ford did some excellent turbocharged applications in years past rising to the pinnacles of motorsports because of their excellence in engine building and turbocharged technology, Think Capri GTX-5, Sierra RS Cosworth, Escort RS Cosworth, etc. etc. I'm pretty damn stoked to see the same level of craftsmanship finally making its way under the hood of the Mustang.
 

Fast05

New Member
Sep 16, 2005
409
1
0
Corpus Christi, TX
Oct 15, 2009
#89
  • Oct 15, 2009
  • #89
I would never buy a GT with ecoboos engine.

For one, the 5.0 already makes more power N/A than the ecoboost, so once you start doing mods its all over with.

Two, no V6 is going to sound like a V8

And three, I don't need to get a rocket science degree to work on a twin-turbo'd sixer, the DOHC V8 may not be the easiest thing to work on but I'm very familiar with it and trust me, I did a lot of work to my 05 and modding these engines is not as difficult as some would like to say.
 

cougar_68

Founding Member
Jun 6, 2001
849
0
0
Garrett, IN
Oct 15, 2009
#90
  • Oct 15, 2009
  • #90
bluestang50 said:
I realize that, I was referring to when he said he would take an ecoboost over a 79' 302.
Click to expand...

Man, did I stir the pot or what?!?! What I meant by this is, in the 70's Ford tried to get better gas mileage and the horsepower numbers sucked. I think a lot of people are being way to optimistic thinking Ford won't try to improve mileage again. I also don’t think they are going to exclude the mustang in this.

So when I say I would rather have 3.5L EcoBoost than a crappy @$$ 110hp (not sure on the real #’s) 1979 302, I mean that ford has found a cool way to improve the mileage and I’m down with it.
 

scupking

Active Member
Sep 18, 2005
1,186
1
36
Enfield, CT
Oct 15, 2009
#91
  • Oct 15, 2009
  • #91
I would never buy a mustang with a V6. I don't see why they can't make 350hp out of the 4.6 it wouldn't be hard. Heck I'm doing it with my 2v 4.6 right now. A 350hp 4.6, track pack and new 6 speed transmission would be a killer combo.
 
B

BL00DSH0T

New Member
Aug 25, 2009
26
0
1
Oct 16, 2009
#92
  • Oct 16, 2009
  • #92
EcoBoost will not be in the Mustang for a long time if ever!

But getting big numbers out of one is not as easy as many think. You have HPFP(high pressure fuel pumps), direct injection tuning and turbos that are most likely at their limit as most are on factory turbo cars.

The price it would cost to have eco boost on a Mustang would put it right up there with the GT if not more.
 
J

\\J//

New Member
Aug 31, 2009
26
0
0
SSF, CA
Oct 16, 2009
#93
  • Oct 16, 2009
  • #93
cougar_68 said:
Man, did I stir the pot or what?!?! What I meant by this is, in the 70's Ford tried to get better gas mileage and the horsepower numbers sucked. I think a lot of people are being way to optimistic thinking Ford won't try to improve mileage again. I also don’t think they are going to exclude the mustang in this.

So when I say I would rather have 3.5L EcoBoost than a crappy @$$ 110hp (not sure on the real #’s) 1979 302, I mean that ford has found a cool way to improve the mileage and I’m down with it.
Click to expand...

i can cosign to that ive owned a 4banger 89 notch good gas milage but wtf is a stang with 88hp? im down with the ecoboost im only a 19 year old entering college looking for something new for 2011 or 2012 not cost effective on gas with the advantage of power heck if the rumors of the 300+hp v6 is true ill be going with that either or..
 
B

bluestang347

Active Member
Dec 24, 2006
155
104
53
GA
Oct 16, 2009
#94
  • Oct 16, 2009
  • #94
walter said:
Ford knows this, they are not dumb, they know that if they ax the V8 option completely the Mustang will lose a lot of people who for reasons ranging from nostalgia to downright shortsightedness will jump ship if that happens.
Click to expand...

How in any way is it shortsighted to want a v8 in a muscle car???
 

scupking

Active Member
Sep 18, 2005
1,186
1
36
Enfield, CT
Oct 16, 2009
#95
  • Oct 16, 2009
  • #95
Everyone talks about gas mileage but in reality the V6 and V8 get very close gas mileage. With the six speed auto and manual transmission that is to be going into the 2011 stang the gas mileage will be even better for both engines.
 
A

All-Or-Nothing

New Member
Sep 13, 2009
29
0
0
Oct 16, 2009
#96
  • Oct 16, 2009
  • #96
BL00DSH0T said:
But getting big numbers out of one is not as easy as many think. You have HPFP(high pressure fuel pumps), direct injection tuning and turbos that are most likely at their limit as most are on factory turbo cars.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree. There is a 2010 Taurus SHO that ran 12.75@108 with just a tune on the Ecoboost engine. Pretty impressive for a 4400lb car. Imagine that engine in the Mustang.
 
B

BL00DSH0T

New Member
Aug 25, 2009
26
0
1
Oct 16, 2009
#97
  • Oct 16, 2009
  • #97
All-Or-Nothing said:
I have to disagree. There is a 2010 Taurus SHO that ran 12.75@108 with just a tune on the Ecoboost engine. Pretty impressive for a 4400lb car. Imagine that engine in the Mustang.
Click to expand...

Big numbers as in whp. Besides I have seen many companies push DI turbo cars well past what the turbos can do safely just to run down the 1/4mile and post a impressive time. Not say that is what they have done, but that claim doesn't hold up to what I said.
 

blacksheep06

New Member
Jan 31, 2006
288
0
0
Oct 16, 2009
#98
  • Oct 16, 2009
  • #98
I don't care how much HP a ecoboost V6 has or how much lighter it is than a 4.6. Driving a GT with a V6 is like drinking non-alcoholic beer.
 
T

The Fang

Member
Sep 11, 2005
602
0
16
Tallahassee Fl
Oct 17, 2009
#99
  • Oct 17, 2009
  • #99
Its funny how some ppl are closed minded.
 
A

All-Or-Nothing

New Member
Sep 13, 2009
29
0
0
Oct 17, 2009
#100
  • Oct 17, 2009
  • #100
BL00DSH0T said:
Big numbers as in whp. Besides I have seen many companies push DI turbo cars well past what the turbos can do safely just to run down the 1/4mile and post a impressive time. Not say that is what they have done, but that claim doesn't hold up to what I said.
Click to expand...



So if this engine is doing this thru an AWD set-up don't you think the WHP will increase in a RWD set-up. The engine is not being pushed past the turbos limits either. This isn't what Ford has claimed, this is from what a guy who bought the car has done. Ford has tested this engine up to 500hp safely too. So I guess I don't understand what you mean by "the claim doesn't hold up to what i said"
 
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
Next
First Prev 5 of 8 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Crankshaft/Camshaft codes
  • rockinstang11
  • Oct 11, 2025
  • 2010 - 2014 Specific Tech
Replies
1
Views
194
2010 - 2014 Specific Tech Oct 20, 2025
rockinstang11
E
Chasing Vacuum leak 99 GT
  • EBNS_2005
  • May 2, 2026
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
Replies
2
Views
150
1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk- May 3, 2026
X-cam34
X
Engine Oil leaking
  • greenflash79
  • Apr 1, 2026
  • 2007 - 2014 Shelby GT500 Tech
Replies
4
Views
175
2007 - 2014 Shelby GT500 Tech Apr 6, 2026
greenflash79
New guy in Kentucky
  • rockinstang11
  • Oct 20, 2025
  • The Welcome Wagon
Replies
1
Views
106
The Welcome Wagon Oct 20, 2025
nickyb
B
97 GT with 03 explorer Eddie Bauer edition 4.6l
  • basbill73
  • May 10, 2026
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
Replies
2
Views
60
1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk- May 11, 2026
squeak93
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-
  • 2010 - 2014 Specific Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?