And a Bullit, and every other edition possible.

↓↑report

Oh yes, the Bullitt Mustang will actually be more original to the old fast back from the movie.

The hips, the front end, etc.

The 2008/9 Bullitt doesnt look a thing like the old Bullitt.

They can....they WILL perfect it with the 2011 Mustang...or the 2012 Mustang.

↓↑report

Big fan of the bullitt but they are not coming out with another bullitt two years after the last special edition was in production.

↓↑report

Actually, the news here to me is that the source is reporting a 5.4 supercharged. I assumed the new 5.0 would serve as the basis for a supercharged GT500. I'd much prefer Ford supercharge the lighter aluminum 5.0 for their Shelby to reduce that model's 58-59% nose heavy bias.

Consider my '05 4.6 convertible. The Kenne Bell twin screw blower on my 4.6 makes 441whp (over 500bhp) at 8lbs boost, and 414wtq (350 at 2200 rpm!) while maintaining a comparatively low 3746lbs track weight. The 4.6 'vert has a factory weight balance of 51/49. With the Kenne Bell, I estimate 53/47. If Ford would supercharge the already 400+hp Coyote, not only would the whp be greater than my 4.6, but the weight bias would be similar to my car (far superior to the iron block 5.4), while the overall weight reduced by something approaching 200lbs.

Using Coyote would have as much to do with improving gas mileage as it would in improving performance. Lower weight, smaller displacement, perhaps better metallurgy (for leaner combustion), all tend to result in better mileage. Since all automakers are looking to eke out better mileage, Coyote again seems logical. Not to mention, using one V8 has to be cheaper than maintaining two separate engines of similar displacement, but of differing blocks.

Thus, using the Coyote as a basis for supercharging just makes more sense to me. I hope the source is wrong on this account. Otherwise, it's either a '10 for me, or an '11 w/ the hope that Kenne Bell works their magic on Coyote by early '12.

↓↑report

if and when they bring back the 72-73 Mach 1, i'll buy one

↓↑report

u never buy the first model year car of any brand. If you can wait, its usually best to get the last model year, because all the kinks should have been worked out by then. Not to mention, all the special editions, and etc are available at this point and your options are much better than the original version.

This is only of course if you can stand waiting all those extra years for the car

↓↑report

you would be suprized at how many consumers base their decision on looks. This was a smart move by Ford to bring out the new body style with the old engine (keeping costs down), then adding the better powerplant the following year as demand starts to cool.

Personally, I'd be damn proud to pull up to my Audi dealership in a 400 hp coupe that looks like this. Sign me the F up.

↓↑report

Zig: We know about the 2011s, we are a small part of the car buying public. Of course I'll wait for the 2011, that doesn't make others morons.

Five-Oh in da House.

↓↑report

Ok so I went overboard calling them morons but with all the information available to todays car buying public there really is no excuse. But I guess I should thank those "less informed" buyers who purchase based only on looks because they put money in the bank so that companies can develop cars that we few band of brothers really want.

And yes never buy the first year model you'll always get screwed--just ask an 08 wrx owner.

↓↑report

I see your point, but there are buyers who are the "have to have it first" type regardless of the hardware upgrades that may be on the way. I think Ford played this right in regard to improving sales numbers over a longer period.

↓↑report

I want them to make it 302 cubic inches, even if that makes it 0.00110667 liters too small to correctly round to 5.0L. Then I want to see a reincarnation of the Boss 302 ...

↓↑report

At 4942 cc, it was technically 0.008 L too low (4.949 still rounds to 4.9). But that's just ridiculous academics. I'm assuming they called it the 5.0 not so much for bragging rights but because technically the 300 cu in. six-cylinder was 4.9L, and Ford wanted the V8 to at least sound bigger. I just always found it curious how people made such an issue out of the nominal displacement.

Regardless, I'm more interested in a decent 6-banger for the Mustang-- even better, I'd like to see the car lighten up by about 750 or more pounds and offer a blown four. I could care less about the displacement of the V8, or if they decided to make a modern Boss 302, or 289 hi po, 427, etc. Performance will speak for itself even without badges and graphics making claims on the fenders.

↓↑report

"I'd like to see the car lighten up by about 750 or more pounds and offer a blown four."

Then go buy a MINI Cooper S.

↓↑report

No thanks on the Mini. FWD is an atrocity in my opinion, but I've matured beyond V8s that are out-handled by economy cars. Granted though, the 2010 Stang with the Track Pack sounds like it may be the only modern musclecar that can dance.

I'd simply like to see a return of a balanced sportscar to the Ford lineup. They can keep the Mustang as the brute mouth-breather, I just wish they'd make me a Capri.

↓↑report

Ford did the same thing the other way around in naming the 351W. It's displacement is 351.86 CID, so it technically rounds to 352. But Ford still had the existing 352 in production at the time and didn't want to confuse people. So they rounded down. And later proceded to confuse things by introducing the 351C and 351M...

In this case, if they made the engine between about 4750 and 4757 cc, it could be properly rounded up to 5.0L while still being considered 302 CID.

↓↑report

Tomac you do realize that a 2700lb V-6 Mustang and a 2800lb V-8 Mustang would be pretty expensive? Considering they would be lighter than a Corvette and a lot of other MAINSTREAM SPORTS CARS...

Let's say a turbo four saves another hundred pounds. Now you got a MAINSTREAM BUDGET SPORTS CAR that weighs 2600lbs. Now tell me this, how is Ford gonna keep the price down on the Mustang?

Ford would do better just to rebadge a Miata.

↓↑report

Diameter 94mm
Stroke 90mm

Source: July 2009 issue of Motor Magazine

By my calculations this equates to:

4.99664028368149 litres
304.91369800481 cubic inches

↓↑report