But with a mild boost application and a good tune gas mileage can actually improve.
Ford to bring back the 4 cylinder SVO Mustang
- Thread starter 85_SS_302_Coupe
- Start date
But with a mild boost application and a good tune gas mileage can actually improve.
-
Sponsors (?)
nvr2low
Member
could be any worse than either of my rangers or my tbird. i dont think i remember how to drive fwd in the snow. although i do remember how to blow the axles out of a fwd car in the snow!
04YELLOWGT
Active Member
"not going to happen":::
why not, i would respect it man, better fuel economy,even though by then 20-25mpg is going to be like getting 8-10mpg now..... but still the stang needs somerthing to play wiht the camaros release........
I'm not saying its not a good idea but its just not going to happen. This was a discussion a few weeks ago on SVTP. My brother-in-law works for Ford on the prototype cars. He worked on the Bullitt, GT500, and a few cars that may or may not hit the streets. I talked to him about this "SVO" while he was visiting last week and he said its never even been thought of.
Now I'm not saying that a turbocharged stang isn't being looked at BUT a light weight SVO model, NO.
It's a perfect idea, but I can only hope if Ford does go through with it they don't turn it into a specialty model and raise the price up. No matter what, have the 4-cylinder turbo replace the V-6. There's no denying it, eventually the V-8 engine is going to become obsolete, so the twin-turbo V-6 sounds like a good idea to me to become the GT engine down the road, but for now, bring back the 5.0!
Methinks, if anything, Ford will release any such turbo'ed RWD four-banger car as a totally separate model from the Mustang. Indeed, a 300-horse turbo-four CAN power a heavy 4,000+ car ... but not as effectively or excitingly as it can power a 3,000-pound car. Shaving 500 lbs. would help, but still, they can only trim so much weight off the S197 chassis, so in order to make effective use of the low-torque/high-HP nature of a turbo-four, they're going to need a separate, far more lightweight platform to make it work. I think if they TRULY are considering a next-generation SVO kind of car, Ford would probably just be looking for something to compete more on the boy-racer level along the same lines as the WRX, Lancer Evo, and SRT-4 kinds of cars, but in RWD.
I'm not sure of the weight on the new ones, but taking away 500lbs has to bring it dam close to 3000lbs.
What did an 86 SVO weigh? That was a 14 second car with what? 220HP?
Add 80 HP + more torque to a more rigid frame, better weight distributed automobile and it "should" be in the 13's.
I'm not sure of the weight on the new ones, but taking away 500lbs has to bring it dam close to 3000lbs.
What did an 86 SVO weigh? That was a 14 second car with what? 220HP?
Add 80 HP + more torque to a more rigid frame, better weight distributed automobile and it "should" be in the 13's.
Most S197's weigh almost as much as most Crown Vics. An '86 SVO weighed somewhere around 2,900 to 3,000 lbs., last I read ... give or take 100 lbs ... whereas the S197's are upwards of 4,000 lbs. (especially the latest Shelby Cobra, which is a freakin' porker). Taking 500 lbs. off the current S197 platform would be VERY hard, would DEFINITELY drive up production costs/purchase price, and dropping in a motor that makes the same horsepower as a V8 but less torque is going to result in a car that doesn't feel nearly as quick off the line or around town - on the highway, yeah, but not at low speeds/RPM's.
Weight and horsepower are not directly proportionate. It's easier to take the same engine and drop it into a lighter car to make a freakin' monster (*cough* Miata *cough*) than it is to try to compensate for an existing chassis's heaviness by throwing horsepower at it. This is one of the reasons an '87-'93 Fox notch is generally more popular than a '94 or '95 GT - same motor and drivetrain, but different chassis weight. It doesn't take a whole lot to get a Fox into the low 14's/high 13's, versus trying to get an SN95 into that same range with the same motor. Just the same, it's easier to get a V8 to run 13's and 12's than it is to get a V6 to do the same thing in the same vehicle, even with a supercharger or turbo.
The new SVO sounds nice in theory, but I don't see it happening realistically in production ... if ever. And even if it did, it'd be so absurdly overpriced (just like every other car by every other company today) that only old farts and kids with filthy-rich parents will be able to afford them.
I'll be happy to stick with my broke-arsed '84.
Most S197's weigh almost as much as most Crown Vics. An '86 SVO weighed somewhere around 2,900 to 3,000 lbs., last I read ... give or take 100 lbs ... whereas the S197's are upwards of 4,000 lbs. (especially the latest Shelby Cobra, which is a freakin' porker). Taking 500 lbs. off the current S197 platform would be VERY hard, would DEFINITELY drive up production costs/purchase price, and dropping in a motor that makes the same horsepower as a V8 but less torque is going to result in a car that doesn't feel nearly as quick off the line or around town - on the highway, yeah, but not at low speeds/RPM's.
Weight and horsepower are not directly proportionate. It's easier to take the same engine and drop it into a lighter car to make a freakin' monster (*cough* Miata *cough*) than it is to try to compensate for an existing chassis's heaviness by throwing horsepower at it. This is one of the reasons an '87-'93 Fox notch is generally more popular than a '94 or '95 GT - same motor and drivetrain, but different chassis weight. It doesn't take a whole lot to get a Fox into the low 14's/high 13's, versus trying to get an SN95 into that same range with the same motor. Just the same, it's easier to get a V8 to run 13's and 12's than it is to get a V6 to do the same thing in the same vehicle, even with a supercharger or turbo.
The new SVO sounds nice in theory, but I don't see it happening realistically in production ... if ever. And even if it did, it'd be so absurdly overpriced (just like every other car by every other company today) that only old farts and kids with filthy-rich parents will be able to afford them.
I'll be happy to stick with my broke-arsed '84.
#1. A 2008 GT weighs 3540lbs.
#2. I didn't suggest losing 500lbs,, the article SAID it would be 500lbs lighter.
#3. An 86 SVO weighed 3200lbs.
I made a mistake, an 86 only made 200hp, so the new one would have an extra 100 ponies weighing in less then an 86.
#4. A V-6 with boost is capable of going just as fast if not FASTER then a V-8.
My fingers are tired so I'll let you slide on the rest pumpkin.
Shakerhood
Dirt-Old 20+Year Member
#1. A 2008 GT weighs 3540lbs.
#2. I didn't suggest losing 500lbs,, the article SAID it would be 500lbs lighter.
#3. An 86 SVO weighed 3200lbs.
I made a mistake, an 86 only made 200hp, so the new one would have an extra 100 ponies weighing in less then an 86.
#4. A V-6 with boost is capable of going just as fast if not FASTER then a V-8.
My fingers are tired so I'll let you slide on the rest pumpkin.
I dont know if I agree with your listed weights, Ford lists a 1992 Mustang GT with a 5 Speed at 3144, +40 for AC, +6 for PW, +6 for PL, +2 for Radio, +5 for Premium Sound, that comes to 3203. I find it hard to believe an 86 4 Cylinder Mustang only weighs 3 Lbs less than a 92 GT, and 3540 sounds a little light on the 08.
nvr2low
Member
2008 mustang gt, curb weight at 3500lbs
Specifications — 2008 Ford Mustang GT Deluxe Coupe — Yahoo! Autos
i cant find the weight on the svo, but it has to be at least 3000lbs.
Specifications — 2008 Ford Mustang GT Deluxe Coupe — Yahoo! Autos
i cant find the weight on the svo, but it has to be at least 3000lbs.
Interesting read....
Detroit 2008: Ford EcoBoost Gasoline Turbo Direct Injection engines - AutoblogGreen
Media.Ford.com: FORD TO EQUIP HALF A MILLION VEHICLES WITH ECOBOOST ENGINE TECHNOLOGY FOR UP TO 20% BETTER FUEL ECONOMY
The ecoboost engines are coming and will eventually make it into the Mustang. These engines are lighter, make V8 power and offer improved fuel economy. I don't think the V8 would disappear completely, but I could see Ford building less of them unless we find a way to make hydrogen power work for mass production vehicles.
Personally I'm either way on bringing back the SVO nameplate. I think GTS sounds cooler in my opinion. SVO might be an important nameplate for a handful of SVO purists but to the masses they may ask "What's an SVO"?
Turbo power is very popular and much more developed than back in the 80s.
I'd love to own a twin turbo V6 that get's 30+ miles to the gallon to drive everyday. I'd make it a sleeper with no spoilers, stock wheels, no stripes, etc.....
Just my 2 cents.
Detroit 2008: Ford EcoBoost Gasoline Turbo Direct Injection engines - AutoblogGreen
Media.Ford.com: FORD TO EQUIP HALF A MILLION VEHICLES WITH ECOBOOST ENGINE TECHNOLOGY FOR UP TO 20% BETTER FUEL ECONOMY
The ecoboost engines are coming and will eventually make it into the Mustang. These engines are lighter, make V8 power and offer improved fuel economy. I don't think the V8 would disappear completely, but I could see Ford building less of them unless we find a way to make hydrogen power work for mass production vehicles.
Personally I'm either way on bringing back the SVO nameplate. I think GTS sounds cooler in my opinion. SVO might be an important nameplate for a handful of SVO purists but to the masses they may ask "What's an SVO"?
Turbo power is very popular and much more developed than back in the 80s.
I'd love to own a twin turbo V6 that get's 30+ miles to the gallon to drive everyday. I'd make it a sleeper with no spoilers, stock wheels, no stripes, etc.....
Just my 2 cents.
Meh ... no matter how fast they can be made or what kind of numbers they run, NO four-banger will never sound as good as a V8, period. 
Well you guys can debate all you want but you ALL know that when the CAFE thing hits, either Ford is going to have to have an ace up their sleeves for the V8s or things are going to look bad for the Mustang unless they go with a turbo 4 or 6.
LiquidGT
Member
Yeah they're going to need something good for the CAFE, I was thinking, if the ‘vette can get around 28mpg now, then it could surely meet the 35mpg standard in the next 10-12 years with a V8. Who knows maybe Ford is in the process creating a new line of V8 engines that the public doesn’t know about.
I wonder how small they can make a V8, something like a super/turbo charged 3.5L, 5 valves, and displacement on demand. I know nothing like that wont happen and it sounds expensive too, just dreaming.
Shakerhood
Dirt-Old 20+Year Member
Meh ... no matter how fast they can be made or what kind of numbers they run, NO four-banger will never sound as good as a V8, period.
I dont want a Mustang as my DD so a V8 is my only option, the thought of kids hanging those damn Fart Cans off of a 4 Cylinder Mustang just gives me chills!!!
They had the same scar in the 80's. The V-6 Turbo was the engine of choice for the future.
Yeah, doesn't someone make like a 283 cid v-12? Jag or BMW? I forget. But the pistons look like moped piston's.
Ever hear the Dodge SRT4 I think? The turbo 4 cylinder. With a little work they sound pretty bad azz! Not like your typical fart can, they sound hot!!
Well, one solution i thought of...but wouldn't be very cheap...would be a small displacement V8 or even V10. The Europeans have been doing it forever. Of course, they're building those engines for supercars so MPG isn't a big concern, but they could build a 3 liter V8 with a turbo on it and make incredible power with better economy than the 4.6 has now. It would make better torque than a turbo 4 cylinder because it would have more cubic inches.
Then again i read a thing a while back about (it hink) Audi was building a turbo diesel hybrid that make impressive power numbers and still got 50+mpg, but with the price of diesel right now that would still suck.
What nobody has said yet is that this EcoBoost technology can be applied to V-8s as well... No, my friends, the V-8 will live on. New technologies like direct injection and homogeneous charge compression ignition (hcci) will ensure that. The number of cylinders has almost nothing to do with the kind of fuel mileage an engine can produce.
Similar threads
