Would you rather the '06 Cobra have a S/C V8 or V10?

sondesign · Jan 4, 2004

Vanquish

i4power said:
Good point. Best sound, bar none. The Vanquish V12 sounds pretty damn sweet though.

Ummm... its a V12, NOT A V10..... those two cylinders put the primal balance of the engine in a "harmonically balanced" category, accounting for the nice lope.

V10 would have a hard time sounding that good, and still remain refined.

BigBlockStang · Jan 4, 2004

SVTdriver said:
Please explain why it's would be cheaper. When nearly all the pieces in the boss 351 either special castings or one-offs?

Just to prove my point about the cost of the V10 vs the V8 I looked it up and the V10 option in the truck is a $600 option over the price of the 5.4 Not bad heh how would you like a 5.8 V10 for only $600 more than the price of the 4.6 GT motor. See my point. And it isn't like they use the 6.8 V10 in anything else either.

sondesign · Jan 4, 2004

V10 Costs are more than parts boys.

Z28x said:
THe 5.7L LS1 is a 100% different engine than the 5.7L LT, they share ZERO parts. the LS1 was designed from the ground up. In fact the LS1 is a 346, the Lt1 is a 350. THe 351 V10 does share parts with other Ford engines, it is basically a 4.6L with 2 more cyl. grafted on, (281/8)*10=351 Thus, if built it would share around 75% of its parts with the 4.6L V8. It is a very do-able engine. THe only question I see with it is cost, if they can build it for within $2000 of a V8 than I say do it. As I mentioned earlier the 6.8L V10 in the F-250 cost only $600 more than the 5.4L V8. If the 351 ends up costing to much to built, maybe they could make an Aluminum block 6.8L V10 and put in some more agressive cams and heads.

Just a newbie here, but with inside industry experience, I can tell you that the cost of a engine development goes far beyond "adding two cylinders"

1) CAFE - A V10 is a HUNGRY engine (displacment = fuel)
Now the corporation has to account for MORE V10 volume (which is in
the CAR market, not truck (CAFE for trucks is MUCH lower than cars)
(This means sales of more 4 bangers, or loss of a V8 somewhere to balance the equation which Ford is already teetering on)
An entire dyno testing regiment will be required for not only durability,
but now high mileage CAFE requirements
Another reason a TRUCK motor is hard to place into a CAR!

2) Wiring, electircal has to be redeveloped
3) Production complexity of ANOTHER engine in the plant (ONE part number
alone costs a corporation $500,000 to track)
4) Chassis development - New spring/shock development program for
differing wieght balances
5) Aero Development - NEW COOLING! THe car has to STILL pass Arizona
heat and Canada COLD with MORE ENGINE HEAT produced
Not to mention general aerodynamics with new cooling openings
BIG MOTOR in SMALL ENGINE BAY = NO GOOD
6) Development time and $$$ for manufacuting/tooling
7) V10 for a truck does not = V10 for car. MANY transmission / engine
schedules will have to be redeveloped for performance / high end vs.
torque/ low end = expensice engineering development time The engine
is modular for sure, COMPONENT WISE, but NOT DEVELOPMENT WISE.
8) And the FINAL CRUSHING BLOW: IMPACT!!! You cannot take a chassis
developed for a V8, and reduce its crush space by 4" !!!! IT IS NOT
POSSIBLE! We do engine "proposals" all the time as one-offs in the
business, but getting that engine through Federal crash standards is
ALWAYS DIFFICULT. It taks TIME and SPACE to decelerate mass! Without
SPACE to reduce impact velocity, loads (gs) on the occupants will get so
high at the end of the event that an occupants brain will literally hit the
skull and KILL THEM. So, while it is nice to do in the backyard with a
Mustang from 1969, more cubes in a modern car needs a larger bay to pass
the Federal Requirments..period. No amount of structure can be added to
an existing chassis to reduce those loads, becuase only time can. (Deceleration is the derivative of velocity which is the derivative of *distance*

While the muscle boys at ford can dream, it will be expensive and tough to
actually produce more than one V10 Mustang. If they do it, Kudos. From my end, it is not likely (Just like the BOSS429 from the last generation platform that was a one-off)

skywarp · Jan 4, 2004

sondesign said:
Just a newbie here, but with inside industry experience, I can tell you that the cost of a engine development goes far beyond "adding two cylinders"

1) CAFE - A V10 is a HUNGRY engine (displacment = fuel)
Now the corporation has to account for MORE V10 volume (which is in
the CAR market, not truck (CAFE for trucks is MUCH lower than cars)
(This means sales of more 4 bangers, or loss of a V8 somewhere to balance the equation which Ford is already teetering on)
An entire dyno testing regiment will be required for not only durability,
but now high mileage CAFE requirements
Another reason a TRUCK motor is hard to place into a Car.

Wasn't Ford going to drop the Excursion? This would give you that option of putting in the V-10 and possibly not worrying about the EPA and CAFE.

Click to expand...

sondesign · Jan 4, 2004

Yeah, but remember, there are still a LOT of Expeditions, the Lightning, now the GT, etc that with the ever escalating Hp numbers come a descending CAFE balance, and my point was that truck and car are SEPARATE CAFE standards, so bringing a V10 into the already tipped car CAFE may cause iseues, which getting rid of the Excursion can to nothing for

BigBlockStang · Jan 4, 2004

sondesign said:
Just a newbie here, but with inside industry experience, I can tell you that the cost of a engine development goes far beyond "adding two cylinders"

1) CAFE - A V10 is a HUNGRY engine (displacment = fuel)
Now the corporation has to account for MORE V10 volume (which is in
the CAR market, not truck (CAFE for trucks is MUCH lower than cars)
(This means sales of more 4 bangers, or loss of a V8 somewhere to balance the equation which Ford is already teetering on)
An entire dyno testing regiment will be required for not only durability,
but now high mileage CAFE requirements
Another reason a TRUCK motor is hard to place into a CAR!

2) Wiring, electircal has to be redeveloped
3) Production complexity of ANOTHER engine in the plant (ONE part number
alone costs a corporation $500,000 to track)
4) Chassis development - New spring/shock development program for
differing wieght balances
5) Aero Development - NEW COOLING! THe car has to STILL pass Arizona
heat and Canada COLD with MORE ENGINE HEAT produced
Not to mention general aerodynamics with new cooling openings
BIG MOTOR in SMALL ENGINE BAY = NO GOOD
6) Development time and $$$ for manufacuting/tooling
7) V10 for a truck does not = V10 for car. MANY transmission / engine
schedules will have to be redeveloped for performance / high end vs.
torque/ low end = expensice engineering development time The engine
is modular for sure, COMPONENT WISE, but NOT DEVELOPMENT WISE.
8) And the FINAL CRUSHING BLOW: IMPACT!!! You cannot take a chassis
developed for a V8, and reduce its crush space by 4" !!!! IT IS NOT
POSSIBLE! We do engine "proposals" all the time as one-offs in the
business, but getting that engine through Federal crash standards is
ALWAYS DIFFICULT. It taks TIME and SPACE to decelerate mass! Without
SPACE to reduce impact velocity, loads (gs) on the occupants will get so
high at the end of the event that an occupants brain will literally hit the
skull and KILL THEM. So, while it is nice to do in the backyard with a
Mustang from 1969, more cubes in a modern car needs a larger bay to pass
the Federal Requirments..period. No amount of structure can be added to
an existing chassis to reduce those loads, becuase only time can. (Deceleration is the derivative of velocity which is the derivative of *distance*

While the muscle boys at ford can dream, it will be expensive and tough to
actually produce more than one V10 Mustang. If they do it, Kudos. From my end, it is not likely (Just like the BOSS429 from the last generation platform that was a one-off)

1)Cafe: It doesn't matter which engine you put in the car more horsepower means a hungrier motor fuel wise
2-3) They can do it for the truck. And its only available in the Super Dutys where it competes with the diesel for sales
4) the 4.6 w/supercharger weights more so they have to do that anyway.
5) more horsepower equals more heat. It could be argued that the supercharged motor would be harder to cool. The supercharging creates heat and is transfered to an intercooler. The motor has to also create more horsepower in theory to help turn the blower. Again more heat
6) they can due it all for a measily $600 a motor for the F250
7) the motor would be a whole whopping 2 inches longer than the old 5.0 . I think they can handle it

sondesign · Jan 4, 2004

BigBlockStang said:
1)Cafe: It doesn't matter which engine you put in the car more horsepower means a hungrier motor fuel wise
2-3) They can do it for the truck. And its only available in the Super Dutys where it competes with the diesel for sales
4) the 4.6 w/supercharger weights more so they have to do that anyway.
5) more horsepower equals more heat. It could be argued that the supercharged motor would be harder to cool. The supercharging creates heat and is transfered to an intercooler. The motor has to also create more horsepower in theory to help turn the blower. Again more heat
6) they can due it all for a measily $600 a motor for the F250
7) the motor would be a whole whopping 2 inches longer than the old 5.0 I think they can handle it

1) The POINT is.... DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW MOTOR FOR CAR CAFE.
THe truck motor is VERY DIFFERENT than the "Boss 351 V10" which
would incur the cost of a new motor development, regardless if the parts
are off the shelf.
2-3) They can do it for truck because they developed the manufacturing scheme for it, rolled the costs in, and they sell 700K trucks a year to offset those manufacturing costs. Last I checked, the Mustang was the best selling pony car, but not north of 400K units...

4) But its already done with the 5.4 S.C, that's the point.
5) True, but again, the development is already started, and they know more
about that arrangement than taking the truck motor V10 and adapting it
to a car environment (cast iron block etc)
6) I gaurantee they do not make all that $600 on the V10, it is a marketing
tool to compete with RAM, not to mention, again, THAT IS THE TRUCK motor, which was developed on a 700K unit volume program, that would
have to be COMPLETELY RE-DEVELOPED for the Mustang.

7) 2 inches in a 30ms (that's 30 MILLISECONDS) impact event is equibalent to 2 miles! Trust me, I have seen the impact charts. PLus, the OLD 5.0 has NO BEARING on a NEW CHASSIS that was designed around a 4.6L engine! Who cares about the 5.0, it is irrelevant. The Fox was developed around a 5.0, therefore it could pass impact with one. The DEW/LS was not.

351CJ · Jan 4, 2004

A 429 / 460 engine is 32" long.

A Mod motor V8 is 28" long.

Since the bore spacing on the Mod motor is 3.937" that means:

A Mod motor V10 is 32" long, same as a 429.

Project Daisy, the new Shelby Cobra has a V10. There are rumors that the new top end Lincoln (Continental) will have an option for a 5.8L V10.

With split crank rod journals you can get an even firing order with a 90 degree V10, this is how they do it with 90 degree V6's. Does anyone know if the Ford 6.8" V10 does this?

We've been through this about 10 time already on this thread, but the Viper V10 sounds so bad because it does not have an exhaust crossover. So it sounds like 2 separate I5 engines. Go back earlier in this thread and find the link to the Mustang V10 video and try to tell me that that V10 isn't one awesome sounding engine!

BigBlockStang · Jan 4, 2004

sondesign said:
1) The POINT is.... DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW MOTOR FOR CAR CAFE.
THe truck motor is VERY DIFFERENT than the "Boss 351 V10" which
would incur the cost of a new motor development, regardless if the parts
are off the shelf.
2-3) They can do it for truck because they developed the manufacturing scheme for it, rolled the costs in, and they sell 700K trucks a year to offset those manufacturing costs. Last I checked, the Mustang was the best selling pony car, but not north of 400K units...

4) But its already done with the 5.4 S.C, that's the point.
5) True, but again, the development is already started, and they know more
about that arrangement than taking the truck motor V10 and adapting it
to a car environment (cast iron block etc)
6) I gaurantee they do not make all that $600 on the V10, it is a marketing
tool to compete with RAM, not to mention, again, THAT IS THE TRUCK motor, which was developed on a 700K unit volume program, that would
have to be COMPLETELY RE-DEVELOPED for the Mustang.

7) 2 inches in a 30ms (that's 30 MILLISECONDS) impact event is equibalent to 2 miles! Trust me, I have seen the impact charts. PLus, the OLD 5.0 has NO BEARING on a NEW CHASSIS that was designed around a 4.6L engine! Who cares about the 5.0, it is irrelevant. The Fox was developed around a 5.0, therefore it could pass impact with one. The DEW/LS was not.

Hey buddy. Your not pushing the IQ meter to high are you.
Equibalent to 2 miles your nuts (by the way its equivalent)
Hell the DEW wasn't designed around the 4.6 It was designed around the 3.9

BigBlockStang · Jan 4, 2004

351CJ said:
A 429 / 460 engine is 32" long.

A Mod motor V8 is 28" long.

Since the bore spacing on the Mod motor is 3.937" that means:

A Mod motor V10 is 32" long, same as a 429.

With split crank rod journals you can get an even firing order with a 90 degree V10, this is how they do it with 90 degree V6's. Does anyone know if the Ford 6.8" V10 does this?

I have the length of the 4.6 V8 at 27 inches give and take .1 inch depending on which variation.
And yes the 6.8 V10 has split journals like an even fire 90 degree V6

yellow5.0cobra · Jan 4, 2004

This chassis is just a little piece of the DEW chassis.

Dont compare apples and oranges.

I am SURE they did not adapt the MICRO LS engine bay into a MUSTANG.

SVTdriver · Jan 4, 2004

BigBlockStang said:
The only thing that would be a special casting would be the block. The tooling for the block would be easy because it could be built using the V10 truck machining centers and such. Its basically a lower deck hight truck block The heads,cams etc will be made within a couple years for the V10 truck engine anyway. The pistons,rods complete valvetrain are already produced for the 4.6 it is really just a bunch of 4.6 parts with 2 extra rods and pistons etc. Really the complete engine could be built on manufacturing lines that already exhist. A blower and intercooler on the other hand adds thousands of dollers to the cost of the automobile. Don't believe me, check out the difference in price from the 2001 Cobra to the 2003 Cobra huge difference. Remember its similar from going from a 6 to an 8 but when you step up from a V6 mustang to a V8 your getting a hell of alot more than just a bigger engine. Suddenly you get bigger brakes, better suspension,dual exhaust, better rims and tires, better transmission, and the cars are usually option out better. These improvements are really the price difference and not really the motor. And don't forget the base six in years gone past was the the cheap pushrod V6. So the difference in price was a little more. Well I hope this explains it for you.

Not really. Since the article in 5.0 says everything is a special casting or one-off. So it would appear no developement other than that has gone into the motor.

BigBlockStang · Jan 4, 2004

yellow5.0cobra said:
This chassis is just a little piece of the DEW chassis.

Dont compare apples and oranges.

I am SURE they did not adapt the MICRO LS engine bay into a MUSTANG.

My point exactly. I'm not the one who called it a DEW. It has more in common with the Focus than the DEW so how does he know what it was designed for. As far as the V10 being a one off. Thats how it all starts brother. They don't change over a whole production line just to build a prototype.

And to all you nay sayers out there. Nothing is impossible. Those who say it can't be done are just to lazy to do it.

SVTdriver · Jan 4, 2004

I never said it can't be done nor did I deny that it was a prototype. I'm merely pointing out it's not all that cheap. Since they still have developement to do.

sondesign · Jan 4, 2004

BigBlockStang said:
Hey buddy. Your not pushing the IQ meter to high are you.
Equibalent to 2 miles your nuts (by the way its equivalent)
Hell the DEW wasn't designed around the 4.6 It was designed around the 3.9

OK Equivalent. I can spell, just can't type. The point still remains, stuffing a V10 that is 2" longer into a
wall makes for much less crush space, and to re-iterate a point ealier in the thread, todays cars manage crush space down to thousanths of an inch. There isn't much room in today's engine bays so that packages are more length efficient, and lower weight. Hence there are no longer any expansive 12 engine option cars. Most modern cars have three powertrain choices tops. Managing that complexity is only left to the truck market which can afford the complexity. The new Mustang was designed around DEW, but heavily modified for the 4.6L from the Dash plane forward. IT IS NOT A DEW...and nnless the Body/Impact engineers designed the new "DEW/light" platform for a V10 from the beginning, it will be high tide before a V10 Mustang makes it to production just due to Impact crash development costs, which was my point in the first place. No reason why Shelby couldn't do one though.

SVTdriver · Jan 4, 2004

sondesign said:
OK Equivalent. I can spell, just can't type. The point still remains, stuffing a V10 that is 2" longer into a
wall makes for much less crush space, and to re-iterate a point ealier in the thread, todays cars manage crush space down to thousanths of an inch. There isn't much room in today's engine bays so that packages are more length efficient, and lower weight. Hence there are no longer any expansive 12 engine option cars. Most modern cars have three powertrain choices tops. Managing that complexity is only left to the truck market which can afford the complexity. The new Mustang was designed around DEW, but heavily modified for the 4.6L from the Dash plane forward. IT IS NOT A DEW...and nnless the Body/Impact engineers designed the new "DEW/light" platform for a V10 from the beginning, it will be high tide before a V10 Mustang makes it to production just due to Impact crash development costs, which was my point in the first place. No reason why Shelby couldn't do one though.

Although I agree with you. If you have read the rest of the posts on this topic. You will see that people won't believe you. Some people don't believe they have to pass any collision tests.

BigBlockStang · Jan 4, 2004

sondesign said:
OK Equivalent. I can spell, just can't type. The point still remains, stuffing a V10 that is 2" longer into a
wall makes for much less crush space, and to re-iterate a point ealier in the thread, todays cars manage crush space down to thousanths of an inch. There isn't much room in today's engine bays so that packages are more length efficient, and lower weight. Hence there are no longer any expansive 12 engine option cars. Most modern cars have three powertrain choices tops. Managing that complexity is only left to the truck market which can afford the complexity. The new Mustang was designed around DEW, but heavily modified for the 4.6L from the Dash plane forward. IT IS NOT A DEW...and nnless the Body/Impact engineers designed the new "DEW/light" platform for a V10 from the beginning, it will be high tide before a V10 Mustang makes it to production just due to Impact crash development costs, which was my point in the first place. No reason why Shelby couldn't do one though.

If Ford doesn't do it it will not be done. Shelby in no way has the resources if Ford does not. Now Ford may do it for Shelby. Just a note. Other cars have gone from being built for one engine only to have a completely different engine install at a later date. Since we're talking about the mustang. The Mustang II (pinto based)was never intended to have a V8, it was designed to have the 2.8 V6 as its largest engine. But yet a year later ended up with the 302. Just another side note. I do not have the exact figures for the 6.8 but it was just a drop in the bucket to the 700,000 truck sales one of you quoted. The list said that the 5.4 accounted for almost 600,000 of the motors produced that year and the rest were split between the 4.6 base engine and the 6.8 V10 out of these 2 which would you guess would sell in higher volume. As far as developement the tuning would be easiest of all because the arcitecture is already in place. The other two cylinders ar just that an extra 2 cylinders same cam timing, same intake runner length same compression ratio same spark and timing curves. And a set of 3v Heads are infact already being made for the 6.8 that could swap to it the same as the 3V 5.4 heads have swapped to the 4.6 By the way its a good thing they don't make inline sixes anymore or everybody would be walking around with there brains hanging out there eye sockets. I've been around cars a long time but you guys throw bull around with the Best of them !! Happy New Year and Just Thank God we finally get a New Mustang after all these years. Amen

SVTdriver · Jan 4, 2004

You do realize using the mustang II is not exactly a good comparision to the modern cars and theirdesigns right?

BigBlockStang · Jan 4, 2004

SVTdriver said:
You do realize using the mustang II is not exactly a good comparision to the modern cars and theirdesigns right?

Dude your a pipe dreamer. The current mustang chassis dates back to the 77 Fairmont They still made pinto stangs in 78 Unibody construction goes all the way back to the late fifties,early sixties They still make them the same way. Hell the Crown Vic is still on a chassis fron the seventies. Full frame and all. I was playing with these things since you were just a sparkle in your childhood moms eye. And believe me when I say this a late sixties unibody was much easier to walk away from a tremendous crash then any of these new junks(except with airbags). I had the totaled reck in my driveway for years. The driver was not wairing a seatbelt hit a thick telephone pole ten feet in the air at only god knows what speed (destroid the three foot around telephone pole) then he walked 20 miles because he couldn't change the tire in the dark. There wasn't anyplace to put it anyway.And no his brain did not explode. Oh by the way you could fit a V12 (2 duratecs sandwiched together)in the engine bay of the new mustang, plenty of room there. But then there wouldnt be as much crush room as a current mustang. These mustangs aren't packaged as tight as 90 percent of the cars out there.And the new ones even have more room. Long hood, short deck remember.

SVTdriver · Jan 4, 2004

Wow now you know my age as well as all the design specs on the new mustang? And yet you seem to be ignoring the facts. Like all the magazines state the V-10 was special castings and one-off pieces. So no developement had been done. But I shall quote from mm&ff mag. "A special block was cut and pasted together and then the aluminum block was cast and machined." Like the block the heads were formed using casts that were cut and pasted" Toppping the V-10 is a hand built aluminum intake". It also has a billet crank. And considering all the parts needed like 2 mafsand 2 EEC V processors, vortech rails and paxton fuel pump all add price.
This info kinda makes your post on only the block being a special casting ignorant.

It is not the truck engine so comparing it to the truck engine price is ludacris.I believe it has also been posted elsewhere they have broken 7 clutches. So that would also need some design work. And where did you get dimensions on the new mustang engine bay. They just unveiled the production model. As for crashes. In nearly any wreck someone has a chance to walk away. I've seen plenty of accidents where someone got lucky and walked away when they should have been killed. Citing 1 accident as proof is again ignorant. And other than cite the mustang 2 you did nothing to dispute sondesign's statements. But please since you can predict my age enlighten me.

Would you rather the '06 Cobra have a S/C V8 or V10?