Next Gen Mustang SVO to Share Focus RS Engine

[Stew]

Originally Posted by motorhead

Like I said. That wasn't much better.

We can agree to disagree, but this was a car, a 4 cylinder mustang, that would run circles around many performance cars of the day, including the f-bodies and Mustang GTs of the time.

[theACe]

Originally Posted by Blue Maro Demon

They say that there may be a 6th Gen Mustang SVO with a 2.3 Liter Turbo charged Four Cylinder that makes between 250 to 300hp that will be in the new Focus RS. We have already heard rumors of something like this possibly going into the next gen Camaro as well. Whats everyones thoughts? As long as there are still both V6 & V8 options as well this may not be too bad.

http://wot.motortrend.com/we-hear-ne...ur-169485.html

I'm but that is really...colorful. (For the lack of a better word.)

I hope that doesn't happen to the Mustang. The lowest a 'muscle' car should ever go is a V6.

[motorhead]

Originally Posted by Stew

We can agree to disagree, but this was a car, a 4 cylinder mustang, that would run circles around many performance cars of the day, including the f-bodies and Mustang GTs of the time.

I had a friend that bought one brand new. It couldn't beat my 69 dart or my other buddies 64 Plymouth. Like I said the mid 70's to end of the eighties were not shinning moments for performance no matter watch brand car you had. I would take a grand national or a turbo trans am over that turbo mustang any day of the week if were talking cars from that time period.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by motorhead

I had a friend that bought one brand new. It couldn't beat my 69 dart or my other buddies 64 Plymouth. Like I said the mid 70's to end of the eighties were not shinning moments for performance no matter watch brand car you had. I would take a grand national or a turbo trans am over that turbo mustang any day of the week if were talking cars from that time period.

Well, think about it, the SVOwas only made 84-86, the intercooled GN was only made 86-87 (previous were non intercooled and MUCH slower), turbo TA wasn't made until 89. Anways, the point was for the time, mid 80s, they were very good performmance cars and certainly no Mustang 2....

[TheReaper]

Originally Posted by motorhead

Looking like we're heading down a very familiar path.

The 5.0 was also available in these not so good looking cars.

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: a turbo 4 makes great sense if you don't plan on using V6's (or V8's). But designing an engine bay to accomodate 3 different engine configurations is a bit of a pain, which ultimately adds cost & weight to the car (not to mention, a turbo4 in and of itself probably costs & weighs more than a V6). IMO, a small, efficiency tuned V6 should manage similar fuel economy numbers to a turbo4 of comparable output.

I don't see an inline 4 weighing more than a DOHC v6 in most cases. A good starting off point would be to compare the LNF to the 3.6 in the camaro if anyone has those figures. I doubt 3 different engines would be available, a turbo 4 would likely be a v6 replacement.

I think it's quite plausible we'll see this happen in both cars. The SVO mustangs were fantastic cars in their time and a turbo 4 could bring in a market the camaro and mustang have never really been able to tackle. I don't know why anyone would be upset about this. The v6 is in an awkward place. It doesn't respond as well to mods as most similarly powered turbo 4s, will get slightly worse fuel economy in most cases, it will make less torque than most turbo 4s, and it's not like you would be losing the v8 sound by switching from 6 to 4. You also don't have many of the, "I only want a v8" guys for the v6 mustang/camaro. If the LNF went in the camaro it would be a very potent setup. The LNF in current form with a different factory tune could go into the camaro with ~325hp/350tq without sacrificing MPG from the v6.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

I don't see an inline 4 weighing more than a DOHC v6 in most cases. A good starting off point would be to compare the LNF to the 3.6 in the camaro if anyone has those figures. I doubt 3 different engines would be available, a turbo 4 would likely be a v6 replacement.

I think it's quite plausible we'll see this happen in both cars. The SVO mustangs were fantastic cars in their time and a turbo 4 could bring in a market the camaro and mustang have never really been able to tackle. I don't know why anyone would be upset about this. The v6 is in an awkward place. It doesn't respond as well to mods as most similarly powered turbo 4s, will get slightly worse fuel economy in most cases, it will make less torque than most turbo 4s, and it's not like you would be losing the v8 sound by switching from 6 to 4. You also don't have many of the, "I only want a v8" guys for the v6 mustang/camaro. If the LNF went in the camaro it would be a very potent setup. The LNF in current form with a different factory tune could go into the camaro with ~325hp/350tq without sacrificing MPG from the v6.

I think they're both in the 350 lb range, but its been a while since I checked and an apples to apples comparison of the numbers is very hard to find.

I will admit that I may have gone a little too far in saying that a turbo4 would be heavier than a V6. It might be just as heavy, or a bit lighter (less than 50 lbs). I still maintain that that it won't be substantially lighter though.

[Silverlsinva]

The Lnf from the cobalt line is dead and gone. They are comming out with a 270hp turbo 4 that is different from the lnf i can see that maybe being a turbo camaro cause its gonna go in the ATS caddy that is gonna share platform with camaro.

[scrming]

Originally Posted by Stew

Well, think about it, the SVOwas only made 84-86, the intercooled GN was only made 86-87 (previous were non intercooled and MUCH slower), turbo TA wasn't made until 89. Anways, the point was for the time, mid 80s, they were very good performmance cars and certainly no Mustang 2....

Agreed... In 1986 one buddy bought a 5.0 GT and the other an SVO... The SVO was a BLAST! If I knew then what I know know I should have bought the SVO when he offered it to me! ARGH!!! LOL!


BTW... I LOVE MY ECOBOOST!!! But I know the V6 EcoBoost will never make it in a Mustang... Considering with just a tune I'm making about the same HP and more Torque than a 5.0! LOL! BTW, the STOCK V6 EcoBoost F-150 makes 420 ft/lbs!

[DaBears]

Originally Posted by 2001ragtop

1) with I-4 engine you have 2 camshafts (not 4 cams with 32 different valves).

2) If you ever drove the original mustang SVO, that particular car was very fun

3) If the I-4 turbo can squeeze out 30mpg that would be awesome.

4) I-4 engine = less weight up front.

5) I-4 turbo would be very gimmicky

6) It will be interesting if the SVO has a SINGLE exhaust pipe outlet in back located to one side like the original did.

The V6 mustang already gets 30mpg

[Sax1031]

The original SVO mustang was a pretty fun car.