2015 GT horsepower?
12/10/13, 02:36 AM
#61
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: March 3, 2004
Location: Richmond VA
Posts: 2,633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the mods they've listed, I'll be amazed if this isn't pulling almost Boss power. I suspect it's either not be officially rated yet, or they're holding fire to keep GM & Co on their toes. An official announcement for the 50th Party in April would be nice.
I mean, checkout the updates:
5.0L V8 (Coyote)
I mean, checkout the updates:
5.0L V8 (Coyote)
- > 420 HP (projected)
- > 390 Lb-Ft (projected)
- Sintered-iron forged Boss-like 302 rods and springs
- Upgrade valvetrain and cylinder heads with improved port design
- Larger valves and cams
- New intake manifold with charge motion-control valves
- Redesigned piston tops
- Balanced forged crank
- 11:1 compression ratio
- 155 MPH top speed
- Even more detailed changes:
- New cams with 1mm more intake lift and 2mm more lift on the exhaust side
- New cylinder heads with revised high-flow ports and slightly larger valves
- Mid-lock cam phasers to provide greater range of cam timing on the intake side
- A revised intake manifold with charge-motion control valves.
- The forged connecting rods from the current Boss 302 engine
- The forged balanced crank from the current Boss 302 engine
- The valve springs from the current Boss 302 engine
- Standard oil cooler
12/10/13, 03:11 AM
#62
GT Member
Join Date: September 8, 2009
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didn't Roadrunner have less torque than Coyote?
I'm reckoning 440/400.
Don't worry about the IRS. If Ford Au can get an IRS (Control Blade) from a FWD car and make it handle close to 600ft.lbs (in a 4200lb car) I'm sure the guys in the won't have any dramas with Mustang's IRS.
I'm reckoning 440/400.
Don't worry about the IRS. If Ford Au can get an IRS (Control Blade) from a FWD car and make it handle close to 600ft.lbs (in a 4200lb car) I'm sure the guys in the won't have any dramas with Mustang's IRS.
12/10/13, 08:33 AM
#64
Bullitt Member
The key to the Boss engines torque loss was the shorter runner intake. I've seen people swap Coyote intakes onto Boss engines and make similar power but have more torque.
The new 5.0 engine still uses a folded hands intake with longer runners and some Boss/CJ components so we can see they were shooting for more power, a broader torque curve and longevity. I'm betting it's in the area of 450/430.
The new 5.0 engine still uses a folded hands intake with longer runners and some Boss/CJ components so we can see they were shooting for more power, a broader torque curve and longevity. I'm betting it's in the area of 450/430.
12/10/13, 10:46 AM
#65
V6 Member
Join Date: January 7, 2011
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree, 100%, that's the reason I bought my 2011 White GT 400A, GT-500 axle-backs, BMR Panhard Bar, JLT oil separator, Airaid CAI, Redline Hood Struts, side window louvers, side scoops, window tint, front end body armor and soon to be a new MGW shifter.
Last edited by Kgilly; 12/10/13 at 10:59 AM.
12/10/13, 05:04 PM
#66
GT Member
Join Date: September 8, 2009
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The key to the Boss engines torque loss was the shorter runner intake. I've seen people swap Coyote intakes onto Boss engines and make similar power but have more torque.
The new 5.0 engine still uses a folded hands intake with longer runners and some Boss/CJ components so we can see they were shooting for more power, a broader torque curve and longevity. I'm betting it's in the area of 450/430.
The new 5.0 engine still uses a folded hands intake with longer runners and some Boss/CJ components so we can see they were shooting for more power, a broader torque curve and longevity. I'm betting it's in the area of 450/430.
12/10/13, 08:46 PM
#67
Legacy TMS Member
Yes, more or less a function of the short runner intake.
Its interesting that Ford is including the CMCV's like they did on the 4.6 3v engines. I don't think they will add to the peak torque value but they should help contribute to the average torque value.
Also glad they were able to stave off the implementation of DI (much to the chagrin of acronym happy technophiles).
12/11/13, 12:19 AM
#68
Post *****
Join Date: December 14, 2007
Location: State of Jefferson Mountains USA
Posts: 20,005
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
12/11/13, 07:52 AM
#69
Shelby GT350 Member
BTW, the government has already sold the last of their interest in GM.
Can't argue with the results!!
Nobody liked it when it was happening...but the bank bailouts were much harder to take, IMO.
12/11/13, 09:52 AM
#70
Legacy TMS Member
12/11/13, 04:14 PM
#72
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: September 23, 2008
Posts: 879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, more or less a function of the short runner intake.
Its interesting that Ford is including the CMCV's like they did on the 4.6 3v engines. I don't think they will add to the peak torque value but they should help contribute to the average torque value.
Also glad they were able to stave off the implementation of DI (much to the chagrin of acronym happy technophiles).
Its interesting that Ford is including the CMCV's like they did on the 4.6 3v engines. I don't think they will add to the peak torque value but they should help contribute to the average torque value.
Also glad they were able to stave off the implementation of DI (much to the chagrin of acronym happy technophiles).
I saw that on the improvements, and wasn't sure what exactly was this.
Been out of the Mustang loop for awhile...messing with bimmers.
My prediction on hp is going to be 435hp/415 tq. Not quite as much as the Boss, this and more will come at a later date, but more torque. They basically took the Boss improvements and added back the non Boss intake.
DI will come soon, it has to as the CAFE requirements are going to go up.
Dave
Last edited by Dave07997S; 12/11/13 at 04:17 PM.
12/11/13, 06:33 PM
#73
Bullitt Member
Join Date: April 23, 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Bob, is the CMCVs kind of like the IMRCs of the older SN95 4.6 Cobras. Those damm things kept malfunctioning...
I saw that on the improvements, and wasn't sure what exactly was this.
Been out of the Mustang loop for awhile...messing with bimmers.
My prediction on hp is going to be 435hp/415 tq. Not quite as much as the Boss, this and more will come at a later date, but more torque. They basically took the Boss improvements and added back the non Boss intake.
DI will come soon, it has to as the CAFE requirements are going to go up.
Dave
I saw that on the improvements, and wasn't sure what exactly was this.
Been out of the Mustang loop for awhile...messing with bimmers.
My prediction on hp is going to be 435hp/415 tq. Not quite as much as the Boss, this and more will come at a later date, but more torque. They basically took the Boss improvements and added back the non Boss intake.
DI will come soon, it has to as the CAFE requirements are going to go up.
Dave
12/11/13, 06:40 PM
#74
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: September 23, 2008
Posts: 879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not going to wait or hold my breath for DI... if it comes out later that would be very cool, but that's just how things go... there will always be something next or something new. I don't know... CAFE laws might cause Ford to do something that's totally unexpected... like do away with the 5.0 and throw in an Ecoboost V6???!!! What's this next gen BMW M3/M4's twin-turbo inline 6 rumored to be pushing? 425hp/405lb-ft? What's the rumored weight loss compared to the current M3?
Interior..
Love the new Mustang but the M4 is having me rethink things. Love my 2013 E92 M3 and actually it would take a lot for me to get rid of this car...last M3 coupe and only model to have a V8, last normally aspirated M car.
Here's a good link..
http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=923203
Last edited by Dave07997S; 12/11/13 at 06:46 PM.
12/12/13, 12:27 AM
#77
Bullitt Member
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Location: Fremont, California
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I agree there's a huge price gap between the two. I wouldn't mind an M4 but I can get a very well optioned '15 Mustang for presumably sub-$40k.
12/12/13, 12:36 AM
#78
Bullitt Member
Join Date: April 23, 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The M4 loses 174lbs vs. the outgoing E92 M3 with similar options. Car is now 3300lbs...with 10more hp than the E92 and 100 more ft/lbs of torque. BMW is quoting 0-60 ion 3.9 (DCT) 4.1 (manual). BMW is always conservative. They quoted the E92 M3 at 4.4 (DCT) and 4.6 with manual. Car and Driver did 0-60 in 3.9 with a DCT E92 M3 and Road and Track did 0-60 in 4.1 with a manual. So these things could rip from the dig...we will see.
Love the new Mustang but the M4 is having me rethink things. Love my 2013 E92 M3 and actually it would take a lot for me to get rid of this car...last M3 coupe and only model to have a V8, last normally aspirated M car.
Here's a good link..
http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=923203
Love the new Mustang but the M4 is having me rethink things. Love my 2013 E92 M3 and actually it would take a lot for me to get rid of this car...last M3 coupe and only model to have a V8, last normally aspirated M car.
Here's a good link..
http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=923203
Although I never thought someone who maybe considering an M3 would cross-shop for a Mustang in the past, the 2015 Mustang might be able to do just that...
12/12/13, 06:03 AM
#79
Shelby GT350 Member
Can you imagine how much fun you could have with a 2015 Mustang GT with $20,000 worth of mods?
12/12/13, 10:14 AM
#80
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe the M3/4 will still be the better car than the well equiped GT Stang -- its specs do look VERY impressive and those boys in Bavaria do know how to make a fine performance car -- but $20+K better? Boy, that's going to be a much, much tougher sell outside the core M fan-boy ranks I suspect, and Ford has yet to roll out it's "M" car equivalents, the inevitable SVT/Shelby model(s).