Mustang almost revealed

[Georgie]

if the weight is lighter the minor torque deficit won't be enough to let the mustang get walked on, perhaps when you reach higher speeds but certainly not 0-60 or in the quarter

[BowtieGuy]

Originally Posted by Georgie

if the weight is lighter the minor torque deficit won't be enough to let the mustang get walked on, perhaps when you reach higher speeds but certainly not 0-60 or in the quarter

I would take 60 lb ft more torque over 100lbs less weight.

[Georgie]

i would consider it myself, but at the end of the day i'd probably go with the smaller, more advanced DOHC 4V motor that is producing equivalent horsepower and more than decent torque

[gladiatoro]

[QUOTE=BowtieGuy;192015]Exactly. The 4.6L is gonna be around a bit longer. People can tote the 5.slow all day, but they aren't going to see it for another year and a half, or more depending on Ford. Oh, and only 360-370 lb. ft. of torque? Sounds to me like the main reason the Mustang is going to get walked all over.



That competition is still kicking the ass of DOHC too. GM has DI V8's (OHV mind you) in the works too, don't you worry.[/QUOTE


The article said 375 ft pounds of torque ( not 360 sorry )and 400+ HP , don't forget that the 2010 or 2011 Mustang GT will still be LIGHTER THAN THE COMPETITION GUARANTEED so the new 5.0 GT should have very similar times 0 to 60 as the SS , it will KILL THE OBESE CHALLY and of course the AMAZING 7000 RPM REDLINE WOW should be a AWESOME MOTOR

[swifttal]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

The rumor speculation in this thread is on par with the speculation on the Z28 or a supercharged Camaro elsewhere on these boards.

True dat - keep mustang speculation to the mustang forums

[syr74]

Originally Posted by gladiatoro

Do you work for Ford??? thanks for the info

You're welcome, and no...I don't work for Ford.

Originally Posted by gladiatoro

Exactly. The 4.6L is gonna be around a bit longer. People can tote the 5.slow all day, but they aren't going to see it for another year and a half, or more depending on Ford. Oh, and only 360-370 lb. ft. of torque? Sounds to me like the main reason the Mustang is going to get walked all over.

The 5.0L will be here in about a year, possibly quicker depending on how ramp up goes. The 4.6L is going to stick around and pull double duty with the 5.0L until the DI V6, GTDi V6, and 5.0L V8 engines slated to replace the 4.6L are in full swing. As for power output, 400hp and 360lb-ft of torque have been the minimum numbers touted for the 5.0L and are pretty conservative, power production will be greater than that. The 7k rpm redline mentioned elsewhere in this thread is accurate and the torque curve is very, very flat. Put really simply...when people see the 5.0L in action nobody is going to be unimpressed. The 5.0L powered Mustang GT is going to have an extremely impressive power to weight ratio.

[Hesh]

That is what I, and others have been saying. Its speculation. These so called people in the know, are they Ford workers? I took your word and went and looked on multiple Mustang sites including the ones that were listed here by a couple of you. No one there has come out and said yes they do work for Ford and this is the way it is. Its all been the same thing we here on this site saw. This person saying they are "in the know, or know somebody that knows" and this is what they heard. Till its in print no one except the insiders know exactly whats going on. We need no more speculation. Just wait, drool, and froth at the mouth till its here like we did and once it comes out then post away.

[gladiatoro]

Originally Posted by syr74

You're welcome, and no...I don't work for Ford.





The 5.0L will be here in about a year, possibly quicker depending on how ramp up goes. The 4.6L is going to stick around and pull double duty with the 5.0L until the DI V6, GTDi V6, and 5.0L V8 engines slated to replace the 4.6L are in full swing. As for power output, 400hp and 360lb-ft of torque have been the minimum numbers touted for the 5.0L and are pretty conservative, power production will be greater than that. The 7k rpm redline mentioned elsewhere in this thread is accurate and the torque curve is very, very flat. Put really simply...when people see the 5.0L in action nobody is going to be unimpressed. The 5.0L powered Mustang GT is going to have an extremely impressive power to weight ratio.

[swifttal]

Originally Posted by syr74

You're welcome, and no...I don't work for Ford.



The 5.0L will be here in about a year, possibly quicker depending on how ramp up goes. The 4.6L is going to stick around and pull double duty with the 5.0L until the DI V6, GTDi V6, and 5.0L V8 engines slated to replace the 4.6L are in full swing. As for power output, 400hp and 360lb-ft of torque have been the minimum numbers touted for the 5.0L and are pretty conservative, power production will be greater than that. The 7k rpm redline mentioned elsewhere in this thread is accurate and the torque curve is very, very flat. Put really simply...when people see the 5.0L in action nobody is going to be unimpressed. The 5.0L powered Mustang GT is going to have an extremely impressive power to weight ratio.

Tested where??? Pics, dyno charts, Ford press releases??? Where are they??? Produce them or take your Ford propaganda elsewhere

[syr74]

Originally Posted by swifttal

Tested where??? Pics, dyno charts, Ford press releases??? Where are they??? Produce them or take your Ford propaganda elsewhere

I love the reactions of those who just don't like what I have to say. Why would I feel the need to take my info elsewhere? It's accurate, so I have no problem posting it. If you don't like it I suggest that you don't read it.

[swifttal]

Originally Posted by syr74

I love the reactions of those who just don't like what I have to say. Why would I feel the need to take my info elsewhere? It's accurate, so I have no problem posting it. If you don't like it I suggest that you don't read it.

It's not accurate, it's BS

If it were accurate, you'd have FACTS to back it up

[kevin2323]

Originally Posted by swifttal

It's not accurate, it's BS

nice info but until they announce it it is all bs.

[syr74]

Originally Posted by swifttal

It's not accurate, it's BS

If it were accurate, you'd have FACTS to back it up

Yes, because of course I can tell you where all this info the public isn't supposed to know yet came from.

Like I said, it's accurate. If you don't like it, don't read it. That said, I find it funny that something which is so obviously BS bothers you so much. I wonder why that is?

[kevin2323]

Originally Posted by syr74

Yes, because of course I can tell you where all this info the public isn't supposed to know yet came from.

Like I said, it's accurate. If you don't like it, don't read it. That said, I find it funny that something which is so obviously BS bothers you so much. I wonder why that is?

because it is being spammed