Click the image above for more spy shots of the 2010 Ford Mustang
The idea of an EcoBoost V6 powering the next-generation Mustang has been kicked around the Autoblog offices ever since Ford announced the new twin-turbocharged, direct-inject V6 earlier this year. According to MotorTrend, FoMoCo is now seriously considering offering the new mill along with its standard 4.0-liter V6 and a set of new V8s. The Blue Oval is contemplating equipping the new 'Stang with an all new 5.0-liter V8 that would find its way under the hood of a limited edition Boss 302 or the 315-hp, 4.6-liter V8 found in the Bullitt. Either way, buyers can keep things traditional or go for the turbo V6 while still retaining the output characteristics of a big V8. The move comes as new CAFE regs are beginning to be taken seriously by all automakers, including GM, which recently canceled its DOHC V8 engine program.
Shelby versions of the Mustang will likely continue through the end of the year and maybe beyond, with a GT500 version being available soon after the redesign goes on sale late in 2009. It's still rumored that the new sheet metal adorning the 2010 Mustang will take some cues from the Giugiaro concept, including a set of wider haunches that are more reminiscent of the fastback's shoulders, along with a new rear bumper design, new front fascia and plenty of wheel and color choices. Inside, the instrument panel will get a facelift to allow more room for navigation and audio controls, while improvements will be made to create a more "driver-centric" environment.Despite all the talk about a more fuel-efficient V6, Ford is reportedly also developing a supercharged version of its 5.0-liter V8 to be stuffed into a new flagship model that would compete with the Chevy Corvette ZR1 and Dodge Viper SRT10.
[Source: MotorTrend]
BREAKING: GM and Chrysler talking about merger
Spy Shots: Nissan 370Z again, with interior shots
2010 Mazda3 unveiled ahead of LA Auto Show
Spy Shots: Nissan 370Z caught undisguised
GM on Corvette ZR1 cancellation rumor: "Not true."
Knight Rider: The Liveblog -- Season 1, Episode 3
In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 Mazda RX-8 R3, return of the "hummer"
In the Autoblog Garage: 2008 Chevy Corvette Z06
Autoline on Autoblog with John McElroy
Paris 2008: Le Day 1 Wrapup
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Andrew @ Jan 25th 2008 2:36PM
Smart move. Seriously.
zamafir @ Jan 25th 2008 2:37PM
Thank God, finally. Also drop the four banger ecoboost in the base model, nothing moderately fun should have a v6 putting out the same hp as a friggen a4's 2.0T.
Richard @ Jan 25th 2008 2:41PM
Twin Turbo V6 has to do good things for the weight distribution here.
Now if they can get that weight a little bit lower they'll have evolved this little pony into a real sports car.
It is interesting that Ford are continuing to evolve this retro-mobile. I wonder of GM and the pentastar boys will be bright enough to do same with the Camaro and the Challenger.
Justin @ Jan 25th 2008 3:50PM
A pushrod v8 would also do good things for weight distribution in the mustang. Ford's piggy modulars don't represent all American v8's in that respect.
naggs @ Jan 25th 2008 5:37PM
seriously, if i cant get a decent pushrod motor then i mine as well go for the TT v6
BTW ford, 315 hp is not going to keep up with the chevy and mopar guys. the move to a 5.0 is a good idea, should be 330 hp or so.
the best mustang lineup would be entry 3.5 v6 at 260 hp
the tt v6 at 300 hp and the 5.0 making over that in various states of tune.
no damn point in ohc if your not going to make at least one version that pushes to 7k rpm. the boss motors were always known for top end anyways.
f3rg @ Jan 25th 2008 2:42PM
I'm actually glad to see American car companies rethink the V8 engine. Porsche has used a 6-cyl in their 911 forever, Jaguar once had one of the fastest cars in the world fitted with a V6, and there's no reason more companies can't go that route as well. The V8 was needed in the old days of carbs and iron blocks, but forced induction and VVT are the new replacement. The V8 is really nothing more than the dumb guy's extension for his.... ego.
Design a decent V6 and offer cylinder deactivation for better MPG. Then offer a turbo'd or suercharged version for the performance version of the car. It'll weigh less, be friendlier to the environment (something I couldn't care less about, personally), and take far less design work to make fit.
Shipey @ Jan 25th 2008 3:41PM
We like our V8s because they're torquey and sound amazing. They hit all the right notes. A V-6 just doesnt offer the same viceral appeal.
It's the same way with V-10 vs. V-12. The Viper V-10 sounds like a milktruck. It's inherent in the design. While A Ferrari V-12 sings a siren's song.
Oh, and displacement has nothing to do with cylinder count. See Ferrari's 2.0L V-12 for proof. We can make smaller, boosted V8s. Just make sure they have thick cylinder walls so we can punch 'em out do decent sizes later.
;)
Mr. Oak @ Jan 25th 2008 3:49PM
Very ignorant comment. GMs LS series V8 engines are more compact than most DOHC V6s less weight and very fuel efficient. Ford went to a DOHC V8 in the 'Stang, because they are the "Now" thing. Now they are trying to run from it, while the LS motors soldiers on.
Trying to push this barn through the wind doesn't help the situatuion any. Better Aerodynamics and a good pushrod V8 will do the trick. Also, less expensive to produce.
Porsche's sixes, the high performance ones, are nowhere as durable or efficient as GM's LS motors.
Poopy Head @ Jan 25th 2008 5:07PM
I prefer OHC myself, by both being equal in displacement the OHC will always produce more HP and more peak torque. Most people and most car enthusiasts will also admit to how a OHC is also smoother as it accelerates and not as "Thrashy"
"For the regular consumer, the distinction between the two is probably as meaningless as whether the CPU in their computer is from AMD or Intel. As long as it does the job"
The only advantage I feel for the pushrod setup is
1. Cost.
2. smaller more compact design.
3. lower end torque.
The fuel economy advantage is more allocated to gearing, i feel anyways.
If pushrods were better dont you think they would be using them more in high performance cars, does anyone really think GM and Chrysler know somthing the rest of the automotive world doesnt? and why in racing when they race OHV VS DOHC are OHV allowed more displacement to narrow the gap in power.
An for you old school motorheads Torque does not mean a car will be faster it only means itll feel faster, hence why my 05 Kia Spectra auto, feels slower then my 98 Lumina auto, however the mazda has higher trap speeds and at better E/T.
In conclusion I feel OHV are for the clearance rack at walmart hence why the general loves em so.
Imagine if the vette was a DOHC at the same displacement, yes it would cost more, and be bigger but it would probably have around 600hp and around the 600/lbs/ft marker.
And as for the reliability aspect. Tell that to the droves of people that suffer daily from piston slap on a cold start. While other manufacturers inovate for fuel economy, GM shortens piston skirts. Good Job!
Justin @ Jan 25th 2008 6:41PM
Poopy Head (okay i admit i lawl'ed),
Why are you making comparisons of OHV vs. OHC of the same displacement? an ls7 would be smaller than a 7L cammer, just like it would probably be less powerful and more fuel efficient than a XOHC of the same displacement. Not comparable since you're exchanging displacement for cams.
naggs @ Jan 25th 2008 8:39PM
"Imagine if the vette was a DOHC at the same displacement, yes it would cost more, and be bigger but it would probably have around 600hp and around the 600/lbs/ft marker."
it would be heavier, larger and have a higher center of gravity. its not all about hp like with amg mercs. a sportscar has to handel.
Owain Ozymandias Buck @ Jan 26th 2008 7:43AM
Well the turbo buick v6 in the GN was absolutely amazing. I wish they had made it a regular production option for the f-body cars beyond the 20th anniversary Trans-Am. Hell, that crude old buick six could probably still hold its own against the LS motors--just give it more boost!
But seriously, it's not a particular structure or sound that makes an engine exciting. Well, I guess it is if you're just listening to them and not driving them.
mk @ Jan 25th 2008 2:46PM
Yeah, because we need ever more expensive cars.
A 20k base car hyped up to 100k. No thanks. I'll buy a 100k car if I have enough money to do so, thanks very much.
Aston Martin, or hyped up Mustang.... Gee, which should I choose? NO CONTEST.
Get a clue, Ford.
The original mustang was a success because it was affordable, stylish, modestly sized, and configurable (and still affordable)
$100k mustangs may get headlines but they don't sell cars. Certainly not if they push two-tons of curb weight, huge exterior dimensions for a 2 door car, and a truck axle, with a tupperware-hard-feel interior. Looking like a retro car inside and out doesn't cut it.
How about making the 30k Mustang GT more compelling than it's competition, and giving it a modern-design mercury stable-mate, huh? How about giving me something to look at besides a G37...
Sell some cars, instead of just selling magazine covers and blog headlines.
Injected @ Jan 25th 2008 2:54PM
I couldn't agree more with MK. But I think that there is a real resentment toward the auto industry for neglecting the affordable sports coupe. All we have to choose from is the Z unless we want to step into the luxury brands, or step into the POS that is the Ford Mustang.
The Mustang lacks a decent interior, suspension and overal build quality in comparison to the Z and they cost about the same (mid-upper 20's to lower 30's), and make about the same power.
Daniel @ Jan 25th 2008 2:56PM
I believe the new ZR1/Viper competitor mentioned above will be a totally new model. Not a modded Mustang
C.W. @ Jan 25th 2008 3:08PM
daniel is right. it wont be a mustang, nor will ford push out from the factory a $100k mustang. those prices are special edition Saleen, Roush, etc. models. the new vehicle is completely different than a mustang. so MK you couldnt be further off the mark. you will see future mustangs evolve to a new level AND a ZR1 competitor that is going to blow you away...
mk @ Jan 25th 2008 4:55PM
Ok, so If the "new flagship model" part means new separate model, not new flagship mustang...
What chassis are Ford going to use for such a vehicle? A new one? A drastically changed version of the GT's chassis, turned front-engined for something like the GR1?
How quickly will that show up? 5 years from now?
And why not spend that R&D on some real cars for real people. THAT is what will help the bottom line. My argument still stands, although a separate flagship model will probably be somewhat more acceptable than a $100k Mustang.
I can't afford a 100k car, and if I could, it probably wouldn't wear a blue-oval.
I can afford a 30k car, and as long as the Mustang is the only option, with it's drawbacks, it wouldn't wear a ford scripted blue oval, either.
Which one would Ford be better to provide on the market? The 30k option will sell far more units and get into far more hands than $100k. If they do it right.
Forget Viper and ZR1. Let them be them. Ford needs cash, and that market isn't going to provide it. Selling hundreds of thousands of units at 30k is a much better use of Ford's extremely tenuous resources. And they had better do it right the first time. There may not be a second.
Paul P. @ Jan 25th 2008 5:24PM
~$100,000 is for real people nowadays. Just because you can't afford it doesn't mean there aren't a lot of people out there who can. People are buying $50,000-$70,000 Corvettes, $70,000+ BMW M cars, $100,000+ Porsches, $85,000 Vipers, ect so there is a market there. Hell, the F150 runs $40,000-$50,000 and that's the best selling vehicle in America; $30,000 just about gets you a loaded new economy car.
If you can only spend $30,000 on a fun car then there are plenty of Mustang models and Mazda models for you. Not to mention the Fusion if it gets that Ecoboost V6.
Fact is, Ford had a ZR-1/Viper fighter in the Ford GT and it proved to be too expensive to produce. They figured out how to make the Ford GT more profitable with the GR-1 concept and they want to bring it back. Makes sense to me. Ford needs a Halo performance car again, something to put on magazine covers. The Mustang isn't cutting it anymore, especially now that GM and Dodge will have both a pony car and a sports car.
mk @ Jan 25th 2008 6:24PM
@paul
Funny... I don't see a lot of S-class mercedes, 7-series, SLs, Vipers, or even Z06 vettes driving around on a daily basis. A couple, but not nearly as many as I see camrys, accords, and similarly priced CUVs, etc....
Now granted that isn't the sport coupe market, but that only further solidifies my point, because sport coupes are usually not primary drivers, which means they are further down the budget lines, after the primary car(s).
Common good budgeting is not to buy any single new car worth more than 1/4 of your annual income. More than that typically bites in to other expenses, and incurs more than necessary depreciation expense. So immediately, a $100k halo car is catering to people making at least $400k per year. Ten times the national average of $40k per year, which is at least a couple of standard deviations of the population.
That gets even more stark if you figure that it wouldn't be their first car, and that pushes the figure well over half a million per year income earners, or wealthy people.
How many of them are into conspicuous consumption, and want a flashy car? A fraction.
How many of them want a european sports car, over a Ford? How many are brand loyal to GM or Chrysler, and would rather buy a ZR1 or Viper? The number is getting smaller and smaller.
Certainly not hundreds of thousands of perspective buyers in that market. Maybe thousands or low tens of thousands. 100k sport-oriented cars are not mass market items, they are niche market items. (not to mention the tightening economy having an effect on that luxury market, and increasing amounts of tax burden.)
I have no problem with Ford building a 100k halo car.
But you said it yourself. "The Mustang isn't cutting it anymore, especially now that GM and Dodge will have both a pony car and a sports car."
Then why not make the mustang cut it at 30k before spending a bunch of scarce resources on a big MAYBE at 100k, without nearly as much profit or sales potential.
"If you can only spend $30,000 on a fun car then there are plenty of Mustang models and Mazda models for you. Not to mention the Fusion if it gets that Ecoboost V6."
This is FORD we are talking about. FORD is not Aston Martin. FORD is not Lamborghini. FORD needs to sell to the masses before it gets more delusions of grandeur.
I don't want FWD. ESPECIALLY with turbochargers. TORQUE STEER SUCKS. I've been there, and done that. Not happening again.
Mustang doesn't cut it for me for several reasons, and I already have a Miata. What else does Ford/Mazda have that is a coupe, and rear-wheel drive, or real symmetrical, or rear-biased AWD?
Yep. Nothing. Still looking only at the G37. Ford isn't making a sale, or really even trying. I'd love to see a Cougar or Mazda Kabura. Don't see either one.
Camaro and Challenger are in the same boat as Mustang. Big, heavy, and brutish by all reasoned expectations. Neither are a modern looking, lithe sporty coupe, nor do they have any variant like that from Pontiac or Chrysler, just like Mercury has no Cougar, and Mazda only has the RX8, which doesn't quite qualify as a coupe, and while it has good handling, has awkward styling.
"Fact is, Ford had a ZR-1/Viper fighter in the Ford GT and it proved to be too expensive to produce. They figured out how to make the Ford GT more profitable with the GR-1 concept and they want to bring it back. Makes sense to me. Ford needs a Halo performance car again, something to put on magazine covers. "
Why couldn't they sell magazine covers with an AMAZING new Mustang GT, and modern Cougar stablemate at $30k???
Price is not the only buzz-maker. Value can be just as much, and I always get more excited about something within reach than something way out of reach.
Challenger is already getting rag-cover press on this blog, and it isn't $100k. It has much more buzz than the Viper has lately, other than Chryslerberus talking about *AXING* the viper because of low sales, and low profit margin for the expenses.
I am just saying that Ford needs to concentrate on what they are supposed to be doing before they start gambling what is left of their capital on a giant maybe of a halo car, while their main stream models still need a lot of help.
Paul P. @ Jan 25th 2008 6:56PM
So basically you're saying that ford needs a $30,000 G37...even though the Infiniti G37 starts at ~$8,000 more than the V8 Mustang does (Not to mention Infiniti can't even make a $30,000 G37)? I don't quite understand what you're getting at here.
Ford has a great car in the Mustang at a great price and they are improving it with each generation. They also have their excellent Focus (well, the European one we haven't got yet from Ford iteself)/Fusion/Taurus which takes care of the bulk sales side of things. All I can see them really needing is a true mid to high end sports car and a good full size RWD car. Other wise, they've got a solid lineup going that just needs a little refinement.
Now, Mercury/Lincoln however could use a luxury version of the mustang for about the G37's price, but as you said it yourself, we're only talking about Ford here. Then again, they basically already had that in the Lincoln LS V8 and it didn't sell very well.